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 .
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulz (WO 2020/120454, see English language equivalent US 2022/0052410).
Regarding claim 7, Schulz discloses a battery housing for receiving one of more battery modules, wherein the battery housing is manufactured from a steel sheet having a zinc-based coat [metallic coated steel sheet] (abstract).
The zinc-based coat [metallic coating] preferably has 0.5-4% by weight of aluminum, and/or 0.5-4% by weight of magnesium, with the remainder being zinc and unavoidable impurities ([0016]). Preferably, the zinc-based coat [metallic coating] comprises 1-2.5% by weight aluminum and 1-2.5% by weight magnesium for improved corrosion protection, with the remainder being zinc and unavoidable impurities ([0016]). Therefore, the metallic coating is based on zinc and comprising aluminum, magnesium, and unavoidable impurities.
Regarding claim 12, Schulz discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schulz discloses a battery housing for receiving one or more battery modules [a battery pack], wherein the steel sheet is used as the cover (abstract, [0025], [0033] “cover (not illustrated) can be manufactured from a steel sheet having the aforementioned properties”, Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (WO 2020/120454, see English language equivalent US 2022/0052410), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Okuma (JP H09-085881, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Schulz discloses all of claim limitations as set forth above. While Schulz teaches that additional dip coating can be performed to generate a barrier and slow down degradation of the coating ([0018], [0032]), Schulz does not explicitly disclose wherein the metallic coating [zinc-based coating] is topped by a passivation metallic coating wherein a surface weight of a passivating element is from 5 to 50 mg/m2.
Okuma discloses a steel sheet with a coating film having excellent workability, adhesive property, and corrosion resistance (abstract). The coating is a two-layer coating, where the first coating is a hot dip coating with zinc ([0004], [0007]), and the second coating is a chemical conversion coating which can be chromate-based [passivation metallic coating] ([0005]). Hot-dip steel sheets are subjected to a chemical conversion treatment of chromate treatment, where the adhesion amount in terms of metallic chromium is 30 mg/m2 ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the chemical conversion coating of chromate in an amount of 30 mg/m2 on a hot dip steel sheet as taught by Okuma with the coated steel sheet of Schulz for the purpose of having excellent workability and corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (WO 2020/120454, see English language equivalent US 2022/0052410).
Regarding claim 9, Schulz discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schulz teaches the zinc-based coat preferably comprises 1-2.5% by weight aluminum and 1-2.5% by weight magnesium for improved corrosion protection, with the remainder being zinc and unavoidable impurities ([0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of aluminum and magnesium both within the range of 1.5-2.5% by mass (or 1.5-4% by mass) to obtain the desired amounts of corrosion protection.
Regarding claim 11, Schulz discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Schulz teaches that the zinc-based coat has an applied amount of 40-90 g/m2 per side on one or both sides ([0017]). Schulz additionally teaches that the zinc-based coat for the steel sheet can be 120-300 g/m2 per side on one or both sides when used as an underride guard ([0017]). The underride guard ensures additional protection of the battery modules from foreign bodies penetrating the box ([0012]). That is, Schulz teaches that the amount of coating affects the protection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an coating weight amount, including an amount of 50-300 g/m2 as taught by Schulz for the purpose of protection.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the coating weight amount (including an amount of 50-300 g/m2) of Schulz for the purpose of obtaining the desired amount of protection versus additional material or manufacturing cost.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (WO 2020/120454, see English language equivalent US 2022/0052410), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (JP 2019-031727, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Schulz discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Schulz discloses a zinc-based coating with aluminum and magnesium on one or both sides ([0016]-[0017]), Schulz does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the coating.
Fujiwara discloses a Zn-Al-Mg based surface-coated steel sheet for automobile components (abstract). The average thickness of the Zn-Al-Mg coating layer is 3 to 100 µm ([0013]). Fujiwara teaches to maintain excellent rust-prevention, a coating of 3 µm or more is needed, but excessively thick is uneconomical and leads to decrease in processability of the coating layer, and the coating should be 100 µm or less ([0032]). That is, Fujiwara discloses that the thickness of the coating is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the zinc coating layer (including in the range of 10-40 µm) of the coated steel sheet of Schulz for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between rust prevention, cost economy, and processability of the coating layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights