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) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by English translation of CN115020900A (Shanghai).
Regarding claim 1, Shanghai teaches box body of a power supply, in particular to a battery box and a method for improving the air tightness of the battery box [abs]. Shanghai teaches a battery pack housing comprising: a base portion [i.e. bottom plate]; a side beam [#3, #4] formed on an outer circumference of the base portion; and an accommodating portion defined as an internal space surrounded by the base portion and the side beam, wherein at least a portion of one or more of the side beam and the base portion comprises a frame of a hollow structure [p. 2 line 51-52] and a thermally deformable material [ i.e. polyurethane foam] filled inside the frame [p. 1 lines 36-54, p. 2 lines 48-60] [please refer to the annotated fig below].
PNG
media_image1.png
451
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Shanghai teaches the battery pack further comprising one or more partition walls [#7, 8 i.e. small bottom plate strips] dividing the accommodating portion into a plurality of regions [p. 2 lines 59-60, p. 3 lines 6-8, 24-25; As a preferred structure, the joints of the left beam 3, the right beam 4, the front side beam 1, the rear side beam 6, the left oblique beam 3, the right oblique beam 2 and the bottom plate are spliced by a stepped structure. ].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of CN115020900A (Shanghai).
Regarding claim 2, Shanghai teaches the thermally deformable material [p. 2 line 54, i.e. polyurethane foam], but is silent with respect to changes its shape. With regards to the claimed, “changes its shape at or above a predetermined temperature,” this is considered an inherent characteristic of the material. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, it is the Examiners position, since Shanghai teaches the deformable material which is used to improve airtightness of the box, it is also capable of changing the shape at or above a predetermined temperature, as Shanghai teaches the same material required by the instant specification [0042 of instant specification], i.e. polyurethane foam, which has the same characteristic of changing its shape.
Regarding claim 4, Shanghai teaches the thermally deformable material [p. 2 line 54], but is silent with respect to the material is a flammable material. With regards to the claimed, “a flammable material that burns at or above the predetermined temperature,” this is considered an inherent characteristic of the material. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, it is the Examiners position, since Shanghai teaches the deformable material, i.e. polyurethane foam, which also capable of changing the shape at or above a predetermined temperature and is known to be flammable. Shanghai teaches the same material required by the instant specification [0042 of instant specification defines one of the materials to be polyurethane foam], which has the same characteristic of flammable material that burns based on temperature.
Regarding claim 5, Shanghai teaches wherein the thermally deformable material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyurethane foam, polyethylene, and polypropylene [p. 1 line 42; polyurethane foam].
Regarding claim 7, Shanghai teaches wherein the side beam comprises one or more first communication holes [injection hole] [p. 2 line 11-12; A battery box includes a box body; its characteristics are: the box body is composed of a left beam, a right beam, a front beam, a rear beam, a left inclined beam, a right inclined beam and a bottom plate; the left beam, the right beam, the front beam The beam, the rear side beam, the left inclined beam, the right inclined beam and the bottom plate are all profiles with a hollow structure, and the hollow structure of the profile is provided with airtight foam fillers; the profile is provided with an injection hole, and the injection hole is communicated with the hollow part of the profile ]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with the accommodating portion “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure, i.e. communication holes, beams and accommodation portion, therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features, i.e communicating with the accommodating portion. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 8, Shanghai teaches wherein the base portion comprises one or more first communication holes [injection hole; p. 3 lines 20-23] [please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as it discusses the communication holes and they are located in almost any position]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with the accommodating portion “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 9, Shanghai teaches wherein the side beam comprises one or more second communication holes [injection hole; p. 3 lines 20-22] [please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as it discusses the communication holes and where they are located]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with an outside of the housing “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 11, Shanghai teaches an inside of the partition walls [p. 2 lines 59-60; p. 3 all; it is noted, the partition walls are all connected to the side beams, thus are considered to be in communication with one another; It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicates with an inside of the side beam “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; and the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features]. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 12, Shanghai teaches wherein the partition walls comprise one or more first communication holes [p. 2 lines 14-15; the bottom plate is composed of a plurality of hollow profiles of small bottom plate strips spliced together]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with the accommodating portion “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; and the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features]. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 13, Shanghai teaches the empty space [p. 3 – hollow spaces], however is silent with respect to “functions as a gas passage,” which is considered a functional limitation. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Shanghai teaches the structure has empty spaces, thus it is capable of allowing the gases to pass thru and they pass through the holes.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of CN115020900A (Shanghai) further in view of English translation of WO2022012450A1 (Fei).
Regarding claim 3, Shanghai teaches wherein an empty space [hollow parts of the profile, i.e. base portion, bottom plate and the beams, p. 3] is formed between the frame and the thermally deformable material, however is silent with regards to “at or above the predetermined temperature”. Fei teaches battery safety, in particular to a fire-proof battery pack and a vehicle [abs], and teaches the protective box 100 is provided with a plurality of accommodating cavities 110 for installing the battery modules 500 in the protective box 100 , and the protective box 100 is surrounded by a box wall 101 . a hollow structure 101a filled with a fire extinguishing agent having a preset pressure value The ejection portion 200 is distributed on the side of the box wall 101 facing each of the accommodating chambers 110 and communicated with the hollow structure 101a. The heat-sensitive material sprayed from the fire extinguishing agent in 101a, and the heat-sensitive material can be deformed when the temperature rises to a preset deformation temperature threshold range, so that the fire extinguishing agent passes through the spraying part 200 to the container [p. 3], which corresponds to the claimed recitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Fei to the structure of Shanghai, as they both teach a battery pack with a deformable material. Although, they both teach different uses (functional characteristics] for the deformable material, the function is considered an inherent property and is not given patentable weight. Here, Fei teaches once the temperature rises the empty space in the battery is formed which reads on the required claimed language. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 6, Shanghai does not teach wherein the predetermined temperature is a temperature of 200°C to 400°C. Fei teaches the predetermined temperature to be 150-180°C, which is considered to be merely close, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tweak the range to be between 200-400°C, as one would expect a similar result, which is a safety mechanism for the battery [p. 5 lines 42-59]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of CN115020900A (Shanghai) further in view of US20200067156A1 (Chi).
Regarding claim 14, Shanghai teaches box body of a power supply, in particular to a battery box and a method for improving the air tightness of the battery box [abs]. Shanghai teaches wherein at least a portion of the battery pack housing comprises a frame of a hollow structure and a thermally deformable material filled inside the frame [ i.e. polyurethane foam] filled inside the frame [p. 1 lines 36-54, p. 2 lines 48-52], however does not teach the battery pack and the battery cell assembly. Chi teaches a battery pack [abs] and teaches battery pack comprising: one or more battery cell assemblies, each comprising one or more battery cells; and a battery pack housing in which the battery cell assemblies are disposed [0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure of Chi with Shanghai as they both teach a battery module with a box/case, therefore one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 15, Shanghai teaches a base portion; a side beam formed on an outer circumference of the base portion; and an accommodating portion which is defined as an internal space surrounded by the base portion and the side beam and accommodates the battery cell assemblies [i.e. bottom plate]; a side beam [#3, #4] [p. 1 lines 36-54, p. 2 lines 48-52].
Regarding claim 16, Shanghai teaches wherein the side beam comprises the frame of the hollow structure and the thermally deformable material filled inside the frame p. 2 lines 48-54; i.e. polyurethane foam].
Regarding claim 17, Shanghai teaches the side beam comprises one or more first communication holes [i.e. injection hole, p. 2 line 11-12]; A battery box includes a box body; its characteristics are: the box body is composed of a left beam, a right beam, a front beam, a rear beam, a left inclined beam, a right inclined beam and a bottom plate; the left beam, the right beam, the front beam The beam, the rear side beam, the left inclined beam, the right inclined beam and the bottom plate are all profiles with a hollow structure, and the hollow structure of the profile is provided with airtight foam fillers; the profile is provided with an injection hole, and the injection hole is communicated with the hollow part of the profile ]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with the accommodating portion “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; and the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features]. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 18, Shanghai teaches wherein the side beam comprises one or more second communication holes [injection hole]. [please refer to the rejection of claim 17 as it discusses the communication holes and where they are located]. It is noted, Shanghai doesn’t explicitly teach “communicating with an outside of the battery pack housing “- the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; and the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features]. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 19, Shanghai in view of Chi teaches wherein the battery pack housing further comprises one or more partition walls dividing the accommodating portion into a plurality of regions in which the battery cell assemblies are disposed. [#7, 8 i.e. small bottom plate strips] dividing the accommodating portion into a plurality of regions [p. 2 lines 59-60, p. 3 lines 24-25, the cell would be placed within the partition walls and the beams within the accommodation portion].
Regarding claim 20, Shanghai teaches an inside of the partition walls [p. 2 lines 59-60; p. 3 all; it is noted, the partition walls are all connected to the side beams, thus are in communication with one another; communicates with an inside of the beam ,the term communicates is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight; and the claims are directed to an apparatus, thus it is the Examiners position, Shanghai teaches the recited structure therefore is capable of the functional aspect of the recited features]. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729