DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes that claims 26 and 27 recite(s) nominal apparatus and/or methods of making limitations, in combination with product limitations substantially identical to those of claim 14. As such, there is presently no undue burden in examining these, technically, divergent statutory classes of invention. Should Applicants amend these claims to include non-nominal apparatus and/or method limitations, these newly added claims may be subject to restriction by original presentation.
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 14 and 16 – 27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “light metal” in claims 14, 25 and 26 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “light metal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted this as aluminum or an aluminum alloy as this is the only disclosed ‘light metal’ in the as-filed disclosure.
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.
(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.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 14 – 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heiser et al. (WO 2020/126354 and English Language equivalent, U.S. Patent No. 12,597,663 B2). See US ‘663 B2 for column+line citations.
Regarding claim 14, Heiser et al. disclose a housing element for an energy store housing (Title; Abstract; Figures), comprising: an arrangement region (ibid), which is designed for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (col. 1, line 1 bridging col. 3, line 29), wherein the arrangement region of the housing element has a double-walled form (Figures and col. 1, line 44 bridging col. 2, line 34) comprising an outer wall and an inner wall, wherein the outer wall is formed by a light-metal sheet (ibid: housing of light metal/aluminum), and wherein the inner wall is formed by a reinforcing element1 arranged on the outer wall (ibid: coating of steel foil).
Regarding claims 15 – 17, these limitations are met in the citations above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Heiser et al. disclose the coating being secured to the housing (or to other foil pieces, then to the housing), including via adhesives or other methods (see column 2 citations above).
Regarding claim 22, Heiser et al. disclose ‘trough’ shaped (rectangular shaped that are hollow to receive the batteries) meeting the claimed limitations (Figures and column 3, lines 10 – 29).
Regarding claim 24, “housing lower part” does not convey additional structure, but Heiser et al. does disclose all walls, top, bottom, etc. are double-wall structures (see column 1 citations above).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above as the recited method claims recite nominal method aspects (‘producing’; ‘reinforcing’; ‘inserting’, etc. that are deemed met by the application of the foil as recited in the above citations).
Claims 14 – 17, 19, 21 - 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Utsumi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0399606 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Utsumi et al. disclose a housing element for an energy store housing (Title; Abstract; Figures), comprising: an arrangement region (ibid), which is designed for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (ibid and Paragraph 0025), wherein the arrangement region of the housing element has a double-walled form (Figures and Paragraphs 0017 - 0030) comprising an outer wall and an inner wall, wherein the outer wall is formed by a light-metal sheet (ibid: housing of light metal/aluminum; element 110), and wherein the inner wall is formed by a reinforcing element arranged on the outer wall (ibid: reinforcing parts 130).
Regarding claims 15 – 17 and 19, these limitations are met in the citations above.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Utsumi et al. disclose side walls 116 reading on the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Utsumi et al. disclose ‘trough’ shaped (rectangular shaped that are hollow to receive the batteries) meeting the claimed limitations (Figures).
Regarding claim 24, “housing lower part” does not convey additional structure, but Utsumi et al. does disclose the housing has four walls, internal walls, and a top and bottom.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above as the recited method claims recite nominal method aspects (‘producing’; ‘reinforcing’; ‘inserting’, etc. that are deemed met by the application of the foil as recited in the above citations).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 18, 21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heiser et al. as applied above.
Heiser et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 18, Heiser et al. fails to teach any thickness values for the “inner” and “outer” walls, presumably assuming these are clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative thickness values of the “inner” and “outer” layers through routine experimentation, especially given the general knowledge in the art regarding the desire to optimize weight (minimize thickness values) and structural integrity (maximize thickness values). I.e. a skilled artisan would be well versed in optimizing thickness values and would recognize the pros and cons for thinner and thicker layers. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of the above identified reference to meet the claimed thickness ratio, as optimizing thickness values are clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 21, 23 and 25, the Examiner takes Official Notice that ‘middle’ portions that also serve as reinforcement regions or to separate battery clusters to help mitigate thermal runway events, etc. are conventional in the arts. For support of this position of Official Notice see the various art cited/applied herein and the art cited in the supplied IDSs and Written Opinions. Similarly, the Examiner takes Official Notice that a detachable cover (in claim 25) is likewise conventional in the art as the batteries need to be placed into the battery holder and then the cover sealed to prevent moisture, etc. from degrading the battery performance. Again, see the various art cited/applied herein and the art cited in the supplied IDSs and Written Opinions for support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice.
Claims 18, 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Utsumi et al. as applied above.
Utsumi et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 18, Utsumi et al. fails to teach any thickness values for the “inner” and “outer” walls, presumably assuming these are clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative thickness values of the “inner” and “outer” layers through routine experimentation, especially given the general knowledge in the art regarding the desire to optimize weight (minimize thickness values) and structural integrity (maximize thickness values). I.e. a skilled artisan would be well versed in optimizing thickness values and would recognize the pros and cons for thinner and thicker layers. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of the above identified reference to meet the claimed thickness ratio, as optimizing thickness values are clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner takes Official Notice that securing via adhesives, riveting, etc. are all art recognized means to secure one layer/sheet to another and a skilled artisan would recognize that welding/bonding is functionally equivalent to the claimed processing methods for securing the two ‘walls’ together. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, the claimed methods and welding, etc. are functional equivalents in the field of known ways to secure two (particularly metallic) sheets together. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Regarding claim 25, the Examiner takes Official Notice that a detachable cover (in claim 25) is likewise conventional in the art as the batteries need to be placed into the battery holder and then the cover sealed to prevent moisture, etc. from degrading the battery performance. See the various art cited/applied herein and the art cited in the supplied IDSs and Written Opinions for support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice.
Claims 14 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negishi (U.S. Patent App. No. 2024/0213606 A1) in view of Heiser et al. (WO 2020/126354 and English language equivalent U.S. Patent No. 12,597,663 B2). See US ‘663 B2 for Heiser et al. citations.
Regarding claim 14, Negishi discloses a housing element for an energy store housing (Title; Abstract; Figures), comprising: an arrangement region (ibid), which is designed for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (ibid, elements 2), wherein the arrangement region of the housing element has a double-walled form (Figures; especially Figures 2, elements 6 and 13) comprising an outer wall 6 and an inner wall 13, wherein the inner wall is formed by a light-metal sheet (ibid: housing of light metal/aluminum; element 13), and wherein the outer wall is formed by a reinforcing element arranged on the outer wall (ibid: steel reinforcing parts 6).
I.e. Negishi discloses the steel reinforcing part on the outside of the “light metal” aluminum housing, instead of on the inside.
However, Heiser et al. (among other prior art references, fwiw) teach that putting a steel reinforcement/foil member on the _inside_ of the aluminum housing is a functionally equivalent double-walled structure for battery housings. Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, having the inner wall be steel and the outer wall aluminum versus the inner wall being aluminum and the outer wall steel both result in functionally equivalent double-walled structures possessing the combined benefits of both aluminum and steel (i.e. less weight due to the aluminum; higher rigidity, etc. due to the steel). In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Negishi to utilize the claimed order of the aluminum and steel layers as taught by Heiser et al., as such a change is a mere, art recognized substitution of known, equivalent structures.
Regarding claims 15 – 17, these limitations are met in the citations above.
Regarding claim 18, neither reference teaches any thickness values for the “inner” and “outer” walls, presumably assuming these are clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the relative thickness values of the “inner” and “outer” layers through routine experimentation, especially given the general knowledge in the art regarding the desire to optimize weight (minimize thickness values) and structural integrity (maximize thickness values). I.e. a skilled artisan would be well versed in optimizing thickness values and would recognize the pros and cons for thinner and thicker layers. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Negishi disclose using riveting, etc. for securing when using aluminum as the housing (at least Paragraph 0065). In addition, Heiser et al. disclose the inner layer being secured to the housing (or to other foil pieces, then to the housing), including via adhesives or other methods (see column 2).
Regarding claims 21 – 23, Negishi disclose the claimed limitations (Figures and see citations above).
Regarding claim 24, “housing lower part” does not convey additional structure, but Negishi does disclose the housing has four walls, internal walls, and a top and bottom. In addition, Heiser et al. does disclose all walls, top, bottom, etc. are double-wall structures (see column 1).
Regarding claim 25, the Examiner takes Official Notice that a detachable cover (in claim 25) is likewise conventional in the art as the batteries need to be placed into the battery holder and then the cover sealed to prevent moisture, etc. from degrading the battery performance. See the various art cited/applied herein and the art cited in the supplied IDSs and Written Opinions for support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above as the recited method claims recite nominal method aspects (‘producing’; ‘reinforcing’; ‘inserting’, etc. that are deemed met by the application of the foil as recited in the above citations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
July 22, 2026
1 Regarding the nomenclature ‘reinforcing element’, the Examiner notes that this nomenclature does not convey any additional structure to the ‘element’, per se. One could also point to the thermal heat resistance conveyed by the ‘foil’ as meeting the ‘reinforcing’ aspect as it reinforces the heat resistance of the housing.
Prosecution Insights