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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/11/23 and 5/21/23 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 8/11/23 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frost et al. (DE102018109509).
Regarding claim 1, the Frost reference discloses a storage housing for an electrical energy store of a motor vehicle, comprising at least one housing part (stainless steel tray 1, the drawings) having a circumferential sealing flange (collar 7, "with the insertion of a seal (not shown here) between the cover 5 and the collar 7 of the stainless steel tray 1.", paragraph 47; the drawings), at which the housing part can be connected to at least one other housing part (cover 5, figure 3) of the storage housing; the housing part is formed by a steel frame ("that the stainless steel tray 1... was manufactured from a stainless steel sheet", paragraph 49) and connected to a closing part (outer frame 4, the drawings) made of a light metal material (" ... that the outer frame ( 4) is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy.", claim 3), in particular an aluminum material, wherein the steel frame is designed as a single-piece shaping component made of a steel material(" ... that the stainless steel tray (1) is designed as a folding tray from a flat stainless steel sheet, in which, after a corresponding cutting operation, the individual walls of the tray edge (3) are formed by shaping or folding and the individual walls are tightly joined together.", claim 6) .
Regarding claim 2, the Frost reference discloses the storage housing as claimed in characterized in that the steel frame has a continuous sealing flange (collar 7; P47, the drawings).
Regarding claim 3, the Frost reference discloses the storage housing as claimed in characterized in that the housing part is formed as a housing lower part and the closing part as a floor (Claim 22).
Regarding claim 5, the Frost reference discloses the steel frame is connected to the closing part (Drawings).
It is noted that claims imitation “by an adhesive forming a seal and by mechanical connections means, in particular half hollow punch rivets” are product-by-process claims. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since invention is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claim 6, the Frost reference discloses the storage housing as claimed in characterized in that on the outer long sides of the steel frame , a respective crash profile is attached which is made of a steel material and the respective chambers of which are formed as dry spaces, and/or a respective crash profile of a steel material, in which the respective chambers are configured as dry spaces, is fastened to a front and/or rear end face of the steel frame (the outer frame).
Regarding claim 7, the Frost reference discloses storage housing as claimed in characterized in that aluminum carrier elements connected to the closing part or floor are arranged inside the steel frame, and the aluminum carrier elements are connected to the steel frame by steel adapters (the inner supports 8).
Regarding claim 8, the Frost reference discloses a floor assembly comprising a respective side sill (17) on which a storage housing of an energy store.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Frost reference discloses at least one crash profile, configured separately from the storage housing, is attached to the side sills (17).
It is noted that claims imitation “extruded aluminum profiles,” are product-by-process claims. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since invention is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost et al. (DE102018109509) in view of Gabrowksi (DE 102019206893).
Regarding claim 4, the Frost et al. reference discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Frost reference disclose a battery tray comprising a steel frame is corrosion resistant and is connected to the further housing part, in particular the housing upper part. The Frost et al. reference is silent in disclosing the frame is cathodic dip coated and the attachment is formed by a seal, however, the Gabrowski reference discloses that anti-corrosion coating can be provided on the frame and adhesion can be formed to attaching components for a tray of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate anti-corrosion coating provided on the frame and adhesion can be formed to attaching components for a tray of a battery disclosed by the Gabrowski reference for the battery tray comprising a steel frame that is corrosion resistant and is connected to the housing upper part disclosed by the Frost reference since both reference teach the same endeavor of inventions. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
In addition, the limitation, “cathodic dip coated” is product-by-process claims. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the steel frame with anti-corrosion coating is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights