DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, 16-21 are rejected.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 20120164500 A1, “Loo”) in view of Coupar et al. (US 20220045388 A1, “Coupar”).
Regarding claim 1, Loo discloses a traction battery pack, comprising: an enclosure assembly including a first enclosure section and a second enclosure section (see abstract “battery case” & “tray member (20)” & “cover member (22)”; see title “automotive battery case”); a gasket seal arranged within a pocket between a first peripheral flange of the first enclosure section and a second peripheral flange of the second enclosure section (see [0071] “seal member 46 is arranged at a predetermined location at the joint at which the tray flange 32 and the cover flange 36 held between the first and second holding members 24, 26 meet. The seal member 46 is a resin-based seal member, for example, but may be another type as long as it can provide required waterproof performance”); wherein the pocket is isolated from a gas path that extends between the first peripheral flange and the second peripheral flange (see [0142] “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”; see [0081] describes “projections 62 thus function to resist such force”; see FIG. 18 item 62 describes the pocket; “36” & “32” describe the first and second peripheral flanges; see abstract “cover member (22)” reads on first enclosure section and “tray member (20)” reads on second enclosure section).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation and a sealed flange-to-flange interface arranged between the first peripheral flange and the second peripheral flange for isolating the pocket and thus the gasket seal from the gas path, Loo does not explicitly disclose.
Coupar teaches see [0003] “traction battery pack” & see abstract “battery subassembly”; see [0062] “seal 88” & “flange seal” & “may be positioned between the flange 86 and an inner surface 90 of the second shell portion 84” & “non-conductive fluid 96” & see FIG. 8A. Coupar teaches in [0062] “The seal 88 is configured to prevent the non-conductive fluid 96 that is communicated through the interior of the battery array 25 from leaking at an interface between the first and second shell portions 82, 84 and to prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array 25.”
PNG
media_image2.png
233
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Loo and Coupar are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “seal 88” & “flange seal” as suggested by Coupar into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so “prevent[s] the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array”, as suggested by Coupar (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising a fastener that establishes the sealed flange-to-flange interface.
Coupar teaches in [0062] “seal 88” & “flange seal” & “may be positioned between the flange 86 and an inner surface 90 of the second shell portion 84.” & see FIG. 8A. Coupar teaches in [0062] “The seal 88 is configured to prevent the non-conductive fluid 96 that is communicated through the interior of the battery array 25 from leaking at an interface between the first and second shell portions 82, 84 and to prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array 25.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “seal 88” & “flange seal” as suggested by Coupar into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so “prevent[s] the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array”, as suggested by Coupar (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first enclosure section is an enclosure cover, and the second enclosure section is an enclosure tray (see abstract “tray member (20)” & “cover member (22)”).
Regarding claim 21, Loo discloses a traction battery pack, comprising: an enclosure assembly including a first enclosure section and a second enclosure section that cooperate to define an interior area (see abstract “battery case” & “tray member (20)” & “cover member (22)”; see title “automotive battery case”; see FIG. 4 describes an interior area).
Regarding the limitation a gas path, Loo discloses in [0142] “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”.
Regarding the limitations the first enclosure section having a first peripheral flange and the second enclosure section having a second peripheral flange, the second peripheral flange being received in abutting contact with the first peripheral flange at a flange-to-flange interface; a gas path extending between the first peripheral flange and the second peripheral flange and being fluidly connected to the interior area; a pocket positioned on an opposite side of the flange-to-flange interface from the gas path; a gasket seal disposed within the pocket; and a spot weld or adhesive fastener located at the flange-to-flange interface and configured to seal the flange-to-flange interface and thereby isolate the gasket seal from the gas path and from the interior area, Loo does not explicitly disclose.
Coupar teaches in [0062] “seal 88” & “flange seal” & “may be positioned between the flange 86 and an inner surface 90 of the second shell portion 84.” & see FIG. 8A. Coupar teaches in [0062] “The seal 88 is configured to prevent the non-conductive fluid 96 that is communicated through the interior of the battery array 25 from leaking at an interface between the first and second shell portions 82, 84 and to prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array 25.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “seal 88” & “flange seal” as suggested by Coupar into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so “prevent[s] the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array”, as suggested by Coupar (see [0062]).
Claims 3-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 20120164500 A1, “Loo”) in view of Coupar et al. (US 20220045388 A1, “Coupar”) as applied to claims 1-2, 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 11211655 B2, “Miller”).
Regarding claim 3, Loo discloses traction battery pack of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener includes an adhesive.
Miller teaches a sealant (see P9 col 4 and P10 col 5 “a seal 72” & “seal 72 is a liquid seal” & “the liquid sealant cures over time to form the seal 72”). Miller teaches in P9 col 4 “seal 72” & “to prevent moisture from entering into the interior”.
Loo and Miller are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely vehicle assembly (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sealant, as suggested by Miller (see P9 col 4 & P10 col 5) into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so prevents moisture from entering into the interior, as suggested by Miller (see P9 col 4).
Regarding claim 4, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 1 and further discloses first and second peripheral flanges (see [0071] & see FIG. 18 “36” & “32” describe the flanges). Loo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first peripheral flange at least partially envelops the second peripheral flange.
Miller teaches a lip (see P10 col 5 describes “interrupted surfaces 76” and see FIG 3 describes the first peripheral flange at least partially envelops the second peripheral flange; see P10 col 5 describes “interrupted surfaces 76 may be bent portions formed in the opposing flanges 67, 69 to establish a lip 71 (see FIG. 2) around the perimeter of the vehicle assembly 54. However, the interrupted surfaces 76 could be formed in other portions of the tray 66 and the cover 68.”). Miller teaches “interrupted surface 76 restricts access to the high voltage components 64 at a location between the cover 68 and the tray 66 of the enclosure” in P10 col 5 par 5.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate lip (see FIG. 2 item 71; and see FIG. 3 “interrupted surfaces 76”) as suggested by Miller into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so restricts access to the high voltage components, as suggested by Miller (see P10 col 5 par 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
440
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 and claim 17, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 4 and the traction battery pack of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the first peripheral flange includes a first horizontal shield portion, a second horizontal shield portion (see abstract describes “first holding member (24)” & “second holding member (26)”; see FIG. 4 describes “cover flange 36” has “second holding member (26)” & “tray flange 32” has “first holding member (24)” which reads on first and second horizontal shield portions (24 & 26)) and a vertical shield portion that connects between the first horizontal shield portion and the second horizontal shield portion (see annotated FIG. 4 describes vertical shield portion (annotated VS) and the second peripheral flange includes a horizontal shield portion and a vertical shield portion that extends from the horizontal shield portions (see annotated FIG. 4 describes the vertical shield portion (annotated VS)).
PNG
media_image4.png
832
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6 and claim 18, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 5 and the traction battery pack of claim 17. Loo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange extends over the horizontal shield portion of the second peripheral flange, and the second horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange extends beneath the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange.
Miller teaches lip (see P10 col 5 describes “interrupted surfaces 76” and see FIG 3 describes the first peripheral flange at least partially envelops the second peripheral flange; see P10 col 5 describes “interrupted surfaces 76 may be bent portions formed in the opposing flanges 67, 69 to establish a lip 71 (see FIG. 2) around the perimeter of the vehicle assembly 54. However, the interrupted surfaces 76 could be formed in other portions of the tray 66 and the cover 68.”). Miller teaches “interrupted surface 76 restricts access to the high voltage components 64 at a location between the cover 68 and the tray 66 of the enclosure” in P10 col 5 par 5.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate lip (see FIG. 2 item 71; and see FIG. 3 “interrupted surfaces 76”) as suggested by Miller into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so restricts access to the high voltage components, as suggested by Miller (see P10 col 5 par 5).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 19, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 6 and 17, but does not explicitly disclose comprising a fastener that establishes the sealed flange-to-flange interface between the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange and the second horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange, as required by claim 7 nor wherein the flange-to-flange interface is located between the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange and the second horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange, as required by claim 19.
Coupar teaches in [0062] “seal 88” & “flange seal” & “may be positioned between the flange 86 and an inner surface 90 of the second shell portion 84.” & see FIG. 8A. Coupar teaches in [0062] “The seal 88 is configured to prevent the non-conductive fluid 96 that is communicated through the interior of the battery array 25 from leaking at an interface between the first and second shell portions 82, 84 and to prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array 25.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “seal 88” & “flange seal” as suggested by Coupar into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so “prevent[s] the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array”, as suggested by Coupar (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 5 and further discloses comprising an air gap between the vertical shield portion of the first peripheral flange and the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange (see [0142] describes “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”; see FIG. 18 & [0141] “groove 50 has a through-hole (air vent) 70 at the bottom 68”).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 20, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 8 and the traction battery pack of claim 17 and further discloses wherein the gasket seal is arranged on an opposite side of the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange from the air gap (see [0071] “seal member 46 is arranged at a predetermined location at the joint at which the tray flange 32 and the cover flange 36 held between the first and second holding members 24, 26 meet. The seal member 46 is a resin-based seal member, for example, but may be another type as long as it can provide required waterproof performance”; see FIG. 4 & see FIG. 18 describe seal “46” is on an opposite side of the vertical shield portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Loo further discloses that extends between the vertical shield portion of the first peripheral flange and the vertical shield portion of the second peripheral flange (see [0142] “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”; see FIG. 18 & 19 & see [0141] “groove 50 has a through-hole (air vent) 70 at the bottom 68, which is closed with a sealing plug 72”; see FIG. 19 describes “42” seals and FIG. 18 describes “24” & “26” which read on horizontal shield portions & “36” & “32” describe the flanges”).
Regarding claim 10, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the gas path extends between the first horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange and the horizontal shield portion of the second peripheral flange and then into the air gap (see [0142] “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”; see FIG. 18 & FIG. 19 & [0141] describe “groove 50 has a through-hole (air vent) 70 at the bottom 68”).
Regarding claim 11, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the gasket seal is arranged between the horizontal shield portion of the second peripheral flange and the second horizontal shield portion of the first peripheral flange (see [0071] “seal member 46 is arranged at a predetermined location at the joint at which the tray flange 32 and the cover flange 36 held between the first and second holding members 24, 26 meet. The seal member 46 is a resin-based seal member, for example, but may be another type as long as it can provide required waterproof performance”; see FIG. 19 describes “seal member 46” which describes the gasket seal arranged between horizontal shields; see FIG. 18 describes “24” & “26” which read on horizontal shield portions & “36” & “32” describe the flanges).
Regarding claim 13, Loo discloses a traction battery pack, comprising: an enclosure assembly including a first enclosure section and a second enclosure section that cooperate to establish an interior area (see abstract “battery case” & “tray member (20)” & “cover member (22)”; see title “automotive battery case” & see FIG. 18 describes interior area between “22” & “20”).
Regarding the limitation a gasket seal arrange between a first peripheral flange of the first enclosure section and a second peripheral flange of the second enclosure section, Loo discloses in [0071] “seal member 46 is arranged at a predetermined location at the joint at which the tray flange 32 and the cover flange 36 held between the first and second holding members 24, 26 meet. The seal member 46 is a resin-based seal member, for example, but may be another type as long as it can provide required waterproof performance”.
Regarding the limitation a battery array positioned within the interior area, Loo does not explicitly disclose.
Miller teaches a battery array (see P9 col 4 par 2 “plurality of battery arrays” & “capable of outputting electrical power to operate the motor 22 and the generator”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery array, as suggested by Miller (see P9 col 4 par 2) into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so would provide power to the vehicle.
Regarding the limitation a fastener provided at a flange-to-flange interface between the first peripheral flange and the second peripheral flange, wherein the fastener isolates the gasket seal from the interior area, Loo does not explicitly disclose.
Coupar teaches in [0062] “seal 88” & “flange seal” & “may be positioned between the flange 86 and an inner surface 90 of the second shell portion 84.” & see FIG. 8A. Coupar teaches in [0062] “The seal 88 is configured to prevent the non-conductive fluid 96 that is communicated through the interior of the battery array 25 from leaking at an interface between the first and second shell portions 82, 84 and to prevent the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array 25.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “seal 88” & “flange seal” as suggested by Coupar into the traction battery pack of Loo because doing so “prevent[s] the ingress of moisture, dust, and other contaminants into the interior of the battery array”, as suggested by Coupar (see [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Loo discloses the battery pack of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener includes a spot weld.
Miller teaches weld (see P10 col 6 par 2 “block body 175 may be welded”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate welding the fastener in to the battery pack of Loo because Miller teaches welding and a skilled artisan would find it obvious that welding would prevent the fastener from moving and protect the battery by sealing the pack.
Regarding claim 16, Loo discloses the traction battery pack of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the gasket seal is received in a pocket (see [0071] “seal member 46 is arranged at a predetermined location at the joint at which the tray flange 32 and the cover flange 36 held between the first and second holding members 24, 26 meet. The seal member 46 is a resin-based seal member, for example, but may be another type as long as it can provide required waterproof performance”) that is isolated from a gas path that extends between the first peripheral flange and the second peripheral flange by the fastener (see [0142] “air vent to allow air to flow out of the groove 50”; see [0081] describes “projections 62 thus function to resist such force”; see FIG. 18 item 62 describes the pocket; “36” & “32” describe the first and second peripheral flanges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/12/2026
Prosecution Insights