DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allely et al. (US 2018/0223409).
Regarding claim 6, Allely discloses a steel sheet coated with metallic coating based on aluminum comprising:
a steel sheet coated with metallic coating (abstract).
The coated steel sheet shaped by any method known to the man skilled in the art, for example cold-stamping and/or hot-forming (para 0036). The metallic coating includes from 2.0 to 24.0% by weight of zinc, from 7.1 to 12.0% by weight of silicon, optionally from 1.1 to 8.0% by weight of magnesium, and optionally additional elements chosen from Pb, Ni, Zr, or Hf, the content by weight of each additional element being less than 0.3% by weight, the balance being aluminum and optionally unavoidable impurities and residuals elements (para 0021).
With respect to the limitation “of a battery pack”, instant limitation is viewed as intended use. A prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02: Effect of Preamble.
Regarding claim 8, Allely discloses the thickness of the coating is advantageously between 12 and 18 μm or between 26 to 31 μm (para 0033).
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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allely et al. (US 2018/0223409).
Regarding claim 7, Allely teaches the metallic coating includes from 2.0 to 24.0% by weight of zinc, from 7.1 to 12.0% by weight of silicon, optionally from 1.1 to 8.0% by weight of magnesium, and optionally additional elements chosen from Pb, Ni, Zr, or Hf, the content by weight of each additional element being less than 0.3% by weight, the balance being aluminum and optionally unavoidable impurities and residuals elements (para 0021), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 8-12% Si.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited concentrations because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Allely does not expressly teach a coating weight; however, based on the coating thickness (see claim 8) and coating metallic coating composition (see claim 2) of Allely, the coating weight would be expected to lie within or at least overlap Applicant’s claimed range of 50 to 200 g/m2 in total on both sides. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2022/0416343) in view of Frehn et al. (US 2017/0331086).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, He, directed to a battery pack and electric vehicle, teaches battery assembly 200 and a housing 100 including a tray and an upper cover (Fig. 1); wherein the upper cover is a multi-layer composite structure; the multi-layer composite structure includes two aluminum plate layers and a steel plate (para 0042).
He does not teach press stamping.
Frehn, directed to a battery holder for a vehicle, teaches multi-laminated composite steel (abstract; para 0039) wherein the sheets can be manufactured by hot-stamping and press-hardening (para 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to press stamp the sheet so as to have desired high-tensile or even ultra-high-tensile material properties (para 0033).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights