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 Interpretation
Claim 3 recites “the hollow profile is configured as an extrusion profile”. Claim 12 recites “… the hollow profile is configured as a severed single length of a multi-length extrusion profile”. 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. Extrusion profiled can be related to any material and provide the ability to make a specific shape profile. Therefore, any battery module comprising a chamber, or configured as a hollow profile will meet the limitations of the claim. With regards to claim 12, any hollow profile comprising chambers separated by intermediate walls will meet the limitations. There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “…into which chambers the cell stacks can be inserted” will be interpreted as the cell stacks are inserted into respective chambers.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the battery module is configured as a hollow profile…” will be interpreted as “…wherein the one or more cooperating battery modules is configured as a …”.
Claims 2-13 are objected to for depending on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “…the chambers of the hollow profile between the lid and the cell stacks include end-side cavities that are gas-tightly sealed against one another by the sealing component and outwardly by a further seal between the lid and outer chamber walls” wherein claim 1 recites “…the hollow profile is sealed at both ends with a respective lid spanning end-side opening cross-sections of all chambers, and wherein end sections of the intermediate walls reaching to the opening cross-section are sealed with a separate sealing component against an inside of the lid”. Outer chamber walls are not positively defined, nor is “outwardly”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, all intermediate walls will interpreted as comprising a sealing component and therefore all chambers defined as between intermediate walls, will have a sealing member arranged on either side.
Claims 5-7 are objected to for depending on claim 2.
Claim 9 recites “A battery system having the traction battery according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of individually sealed battery modules are provided, being spaced apart from one another”. For the purpose of compact prosecution the recitation of “a plurality of individually sealed battery modules” will be interpreted as comprising a plurality of the cooperating battery modules of claim 1 wherein the plurality of cooperating battery modules are spaced apart from one another.
Claim 10 recites “An electrically or semi-electrically driven vehicle having the traction battery according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of battery modules positioned transversely to a vehicle longitudinal direction with their long axis are arranged one behind the other in the vehicle longitudinal direction.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, this will be interpreted as an electrically or semi-electrically driven vehicle having the traction battery according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of the cooperating battery modules disposed in longitudinal direction of the vehicle and extending in width direction of the vehicle.
Claim 11 is objected to for depending on claim 10.
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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “…a plurality of chambers are provided for receiving one or more cell stacks from a respective plurality of battery cells” and “…into which chambers the cell stacks can be inserted” is considered indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent prosecution desired and there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature of the plurality of battery cells or battery stacks must be introduced to each or all of the chambers as a required feature of the claim. Are multiple cell stacks put into a single chamber? For the purpose of compact prosecution the limitation will be interpreted as a plurality of cell stacks, each cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells…each of the cell stacks arranged in one of the plurality of chambers.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “…a flow cross-section releasable by the degassing opening or the degassing element for degassing is larger than a gap cross-section remaining for approximately the sealing component between the end sections of the intermediate walls and an inner side of the lid”. A proper interpretation of this claim cannot be made as there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. The instant disclosure teaches “In the event that gaps are formed on the seals due to changes in temperature or expansions, it is provided according to a further embodiment of the invention that the flow region releasable for degassing by the degassing opening or the degassing element is larger than a gap cross-section remaining for the sealing component between the end sections of the intermediate walls and the inner side of the lid” (P24). Examiner notes multiple speculative interpretations to the limitation in light of the disclosure; however, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. MPEP 2173.06 II For the purpose of compact prosecution, if an intermediate wall is joined to a lid the limitations will be met. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is with respect to the body rocker panel. Claim 11 recites “…the length of the battery modules is configured such that the lid, which closes on both sides of the chambers, reaches into a region of a body rocker panel”. Is “a body rocker panel” inside the chamber? What is considered a “region of a body rocker panel”? Does it overlap it?
Claim 12 recites “… the hollow profile is configured as a severed single length of a multi-length extrusion profile”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, “severed” is defined as cut or sliced; however, the disclosure provides no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “a severed single length” of a “multi-length extrusion profile”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In light of claim 1, the hollow profile comprises the plurality of chambers separated from one another by intermediate walls. Is a multi-length extrusion profile with regards to each intermediate wall severed into single lengths? What is the difference between a severed single length intermediate wall and a multi-length intermediate wall? Is there a base as part of the module that is unclaimed or is the respective lid a part of the hollow profile and severed from a base or wall? For the purpose of compact prosecution, “a severed single length” will be interpreted as a product-by-process limitation that will be met if formed by a plurality of intermediate walls.
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.
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 1-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 20220059901) in view of Qin et al. (US 20200384842)
Regarding claim 1, Ren teaches a traction battery of an electrically or semi-electrically driven vehicle (P3.18), comprising: one or more cooperating battery modules, in which a plurality of chambers are provided for receiving one or more cell stacks 200 from a respective plurality of battery cells, wherein the battery module, or tray 100 is configured as a hollow profile, which comprises the plurality of chambers separated from one another by intermediate walls, or partition plates 30/31 and running parallel in a longitudinal direction of the hollow profile, into which chambers the cell stacks 200 can be inserted, wherein the hollow profile is sealed at both ends with a respective lid, or side beams 20 spanning end-side opening cross-sections of all chambers (P64.73-80; Fig. 3.6).
Ren teaches the ends of the intermediate walls 30 may be connected to the lid(s), or side beam(s) 20 and reinforce the structure (P73-75), but is silent in teaching wherein end sections of the intermediate walls reaching to the opening cross-section are sealed with a separate sealing component against an inside of the lid; however, Qin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using a weld or bonding material such as a sealer between intermediate walls and inside surfaces of the side walls, or lids, such that there is constant contact along edges of the walls maintaining a barrier between sections and improving strength ( P37-38.41-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have end sections of the intermediate walls of Ren reaching to the opening cross-section sealed with a separate sealing component against an inside of the lid to ensure constant contact reinforcing strength and seal of the structure, as taught by Qin. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 2, modified Ren teaches preventing gas discharge from leaking into other spaces by including gaskets and the lid, or side beam 20 may be formed by four side beams connected by any process (P45-46.73-75) while modified Ren in view of Qin teaches using a sealant between connected walls and sections to provided a sealed and constant contact between components while reinforcing strength (P37-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a gas tight seal by providing a further seal section between the lid walls, wherein outer side walls are interpreted as outer chamber walls, and by the sealing component to provided sealed and constant contact between walls.
Regarding claim 3, is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. As such, since modified Ren teaches the hollow profile may be formed integrally or split type (P73), it meets the structure set forth and any differences would be considered obvious. MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 4, modified Ren teaches the chambers separated by intermediate walls and running parallel in a longitudinal direction of the hollow profile have identical cross sections, wherein longitudinal partition plate 31 connected to ends of lid, or side beam 21, wherein side beam is formed by four walls and thus outer side beam walls parallel with longitudinal walls form intermediate walls and each chamber comprises the same number of cells and each chamber has the same cross-sectional area (P73-74; Fig. 6). The size of an article is not a matter of invention. Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 5, modified Ren teaches in the lid 20 spanning the chambers, at least one degassing opening and/or one degassing element 40 is formed for each of the chambers separated by intermediate walls 31, the openings running parallel in the longitudinal direction of the hollow profile (P46.75-76; Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 6, modified Ren teaches the degassing opening or the degassing element opens upon reaching a specified pressure in one of the end-side cavities (P17.46.76)
Regarding claim 7, modified Ren in view of Qin teaches a flow cross-section releasable by the degassing opening or the degassing element 40 for degassing is larger than a gap cross-section remaining for approximately the sealing component between the end sections of the intermediate walls and an inner side of the lid, wherein a gap cross-section remaining for approximately the sealing component between the end sections of the intermediate walls is infinitesimally small as the sealing component seals the end section and inner side of lid together to form a seal (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ren in view of Qin teaches a sealing component for holding components together may be formed of an elastomeric material, or a silicone sealant (P37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an elastomeric component, such as a silicone, as the sealing component of modified Ren as Qin teaches it is a material that provides reinforcement between components similar to welding. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 13, modified Ren in view of Qin teaches a sealing component for holding components together may be formed of an elastomeric material, or a silicone sealant (P37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an elastomeric component, such as a silicone, as the sealing component of modified Ren as Qin teaches it is a material that provides reinforcement between components similar to welding. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ren in view of Qin as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20170263914).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ren in view of Qin is silent in teaching the battery system having the traction battery of claim 1 wherein a plurality of individually sealed battery modules are provided, being spaced apart from one another; however, Ito, in a field of endeavor related to traction batteries for vehicles, teaches including a plurality of modules, or packs, in order to power different various uses and provide smooth switching for more and extended power while spaced apart from each other for efficient replacement and based on storage space (P13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a plurality of individually sealed battery modules of modified Ren, being spaced apart from one another, as taught by Ito, for increased usage time, design/space limitations, and ease of replacement. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 10, modified Ren teaches the traction battery can be used in a vehicle (P2), but is silent in teaching wherein a plurality of battery modules positioned transversely to a vehicle longitudinal direction with their long axis are arranged one behind the other in the vehicle longitudinal direction; however, Ito, related to traction batteries in an electrically driven vehicle (P5), teaches a plurality of battery modules positioned transversely to a vehicle longitudinal direction with their long axis are arranged one behind the other in the vehicle longitudinal direction in order to power different various uses and provide smooth switching for more and extended power while spaced apart from each other for efficient replacement and based on storage space (P13-15.28.39; Fig. 2-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of the traction batteries of modified Ren in an electrically driven vehicle of Ito, where they are positioned transversely to a vehicle longitudinal direction with their long axis are arranged one behind the other in the vehicle longitudinal direction in order to power different various uses and provide smooth switching for more and extended power while spaced apart from each other for efficient replacement and based on storage space. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 11, modified Ren in view of Ito teaches a length of the battery modules is configured such that the lid, which closes on both sides of the chambers, reaches into a region of a body rocker panel, or the modules are positioned between the body rocker panels, or frames 21 (P33; Fig. 6). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752