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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 39. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “38” has been used to designate both the wall portion and the protrusion. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In the replacement sheet for Figure 3, reference character 38 refers to both the combination of parts 31-35 and 36-37. However, in paragraph 0050 of the disclosed specification, the wall portion 38 corresponds to parts 31-35 and the protrusion 39 corresponds to 36-37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4: For the purposes of examination, the phrase “closing the opening” is interpreted to mean “configured to close the opening formed between the other end of the third horizontal member and the other end of the fourth horizontal member of the first frame part”.
Claim 5: This claim is rejected because it inherits the flaw(s) of their parent claims. In this case, that being the phrase “closing the opening”.
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 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munjurulimana (WO-2021003299-A1).
The Engineering ToolBox 2008, The Engineering ToolBox 2003, and Avient 2023 are cited as evidence of inherency for Claims 12 and 13 only.
Claim 1: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches a vehicle battery pack frame {side frame for a battery case} [¶ 0034], a profiled body {first frame part} (32) [¶ 0041] formed to have an open cross-section [FIG. 9], a polymer reinforcement {second frame part} (60) [¶ 0041] disposed within the profiled body to close an open cross-section of the profiled body and coupled to the profiled body part [FIG. 9], that the polymer reinforcement and profiled may be formed of different materials (the profiled body may be steel [¶ 0051] and the polymer reinforcement may be a fiber-filled thermoplastic material [¶ 0047]), and that a corner portion of each of the polymer reinforcement and profiled body are bent and molded [¶ 0096].
Note, the language “bent” is a product-by-process limitation and only requires the structure implied by the language, in this case bending. The term “molded” does not imply any particular structure. For more on product-by-process claims, see MPEP § 2113.
Claim 7: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the structure identified in Claim 7, as identified in the provided annotation of Figure 6 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. It further teaches the first and second transverse members being thicker than the thickness of the first and second longitudinal members [Fig. 6].
Claim 9: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. It further teaches the first and second transverse members being thicker than the thickness of the profiled body (32) [Fig. 6].
Claim 10: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. It further teaches the polymer reinforcement (60) containing a reinforcing longitudinal member between the first and second transverse members [Fig. 7a].
For clarity of the record, an annotation has been provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
791
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. It further teaches the transverse members forming an extension extending beyond the first and second longitudinal members [Fig. 7a].
Claim 12-13: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the profiled body (32) may be steel [¶ 0051] and the polymer reinforcement (60) may be long glass fiber-filled polypropylene [¶ 0047].
Additional documents have been provided to clarify that long glass fiber-filled polypropylene currently available has a lower reported specific gravity and higher specific strength than steel. These documents are not modifying Munjurulimana ‘299, but are provided in order to show support of evidence provided.
The Engineering ToolBox 2008 shows on page 1 that the specific strength of steel is 0.073 (MPa * m3)/kg and The Engineering ToolBox 2003 shows at the end of page 4 and top of page 5 that steel has a specific gravity of about 7.7-7.8. Avient 2023 lists the specific gravity of Long Glass Fiber with 20% fiber by weight in polypropylene (LGF20-PP) to be 1.05, which is less than that of steel. By using the specific gravity of LGF20-PP disclosed by Avient 2023, the known density of water of 1000 kg/m3, and the tensile strength of LGF20-PP disclosed by Avient 2023, we can calculate the Specific Strength of LGF20-PP.
PNG
media_image3.png
437
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
After converting the Tensile Strength of 13,200 psi to MPa and applying the above calculation, we can see that the Specific Strength of LGF20-PP is 0.0866 (MPa * m3)/kg, which is more than the Specific Strength of 0.073 (MPa * m3)/kg of steel.
Claim 14: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the profiled body (32) may be stamped sheet metal [¶ 0052] and the polymer reinforcement (60) may be extruded [¶ 0096].
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Munjurulimana (WO-2021003299-A1).
Claims 2-3: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the vertical and horizontal members identified in the provided annotations of Figures 9 and 6 below. It is understood that within the context of Munjurulimana ‘299, the wall portion is composed of the first, second and third vertical members and first and second horizontal members, and the protrusion is composed of the third and fourth horizontal members.
While Munjurulimana ‘299 does not explicitly teach all vertical and horizontal members and the opening between horizontal members three and four, because two embodiments explicitly teach these aspects individually, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to have combined these features prior to the filing date of this application.
PNG
media_image4.png
851
884
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
698
1068
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. It further teaches the polymer reinforcement (60) being disposed on the profiled body (32) and closing the opening [FIGs. 6 and 9].
Claim 5: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. It further teaches the polymer reinforcement (60) and the profiled body (32) locking through a mechanical bond [¶ 0042].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munjurulimana (WO-2021003299-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Matecki (WO-2019055658-A2).
Claim 6: Munjurulimana ‘299 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It does not teach a notch portion for bending formed at the corner portion of the profiled body.
Matecki ‘658 teaches a vehicle battery tray (10) [¶ 0030] with a beam {first frame part} (58) [¶ 0046] and notches (62) along the beam (58) at desired bending points [¶ 0046].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date of the present application to have modified Munjurulimana ‘299 to include the notches of Matecki ‘658 in order to bend the profiled body (32) {first frame part} at desired bending points, as suggested by Matecki.
Relevant Prior Art
It is noted that Takefumi (JP-2017132426-A) is relevant prior Art. Takefumi ‘426 teaches an on-vehicle frame body with two frame aspects of different materials made of bending and molding by extrusion for mounting a battery. While the Examiner notes that Munjurulimana ‘299 and Matecki ‘658 are sufficient to reject the claims as currently written, it is recommended that Takefumi ‘426 be considered by the applicant as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights