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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a member connecting structure for connecting a first end portion of a first longitudinal member and a second end portion of a second longitudinal member at an angle in claims 1-6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted to include any joint or juncture formed by the abutment of two longitudinal members as suggested by reference character 100 in Figs. 1, 3, and 4 and reference character 200 in Fig. 5 of the instant specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Handing et. al. (US11772192B2), hereinafter “Handing.”
Regarding claim 1, Handing teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Two lightweight metal profiles adjacent to one another and coupled to one another in a respective end region ([0057], Fig. 8, annotated Fig. 12; corresponding to a member connecting structure for connecting a first end portion of a first longitudinal member and a second end portion of a second longitudinal member at an angle);
A lightweight metal profile with a closed cross section and an inner plate partitioning the interior of the profile in a width direction (Fig. 11; corresponding to the first longitudinal member has a closed cross section and includes a first partition plate partitioning an inner space in a width direction);
An end region of the front lightweight metal profile is notched with a rectangular cross section ([0069], Fig. 12; corresponding to the first end portion includes a notch portion in which a distal end portion is cut out in a width direction from a first outer side surface up to the first partition plate);
The lateral lightweight metal profile is inserted into the notched end region of the front lightweight metal profile ([0069], Fig. 12; corresponding to the second end portion is combined with the notch portion such that a distal end surface of the second end portion abuts against the first partition plate of the notch portion and a second outer side surface of the second end portion abuts against a longitudinal end surface of the first longitudinal member at the notch portion);
Two lightweight metal profiles which are adjacent to one another are coupled to one another in a respective end region…by means of thermal joining ([0057]), for example laser welding ([0016]; corresponding to the second end portion is welded to the first end portion).
Regarding claim 4, Handing teaches the member connecting structure according to claim 1 (as above) as well as a frame formed from four lightweight metal profiles ([0056]) with a rectangular shape (as shown in Fig. 1; corresponding to a battery case in which two first longitudinal members and two second longitudinal members are connected in a rectangular frame shape; each of the first longitudinal members and each of the second longitudinal members are connected by the member connecting structure according to claim 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handing as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nebeling et al. (DE102018132219B4), hereinafter “Nebeling,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Handing teaches the member connecting structure of claim 1 as well as the further limitations of a lightweight metal profile with a closed cross section and partitioning plate, and the joining of two metal profiles by welding, as in claim 1 (see above).
Handing does not teach, of claim 2:
the length of the notch portion in a longitudinal direction of the first longitudinal member is the same as the length in the width direction between the second outer side surface and the second partition plate of the second longitudinal member;
the second end portion is combined with the notch portion such that a part of the distal end surface abuts against the first partition plate of the notch portion.
Handing also does not teach, of claim 3:
a first plate end portion of the first partition plate is welded to a second plate end portion of the second partition plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
385
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Nebeling teaches longitudinal profiles that are partially notched so that the end faces of the cross sections, including the hollow chamber profile legs (corresponding to the first and second partition plates), lie against the inner walls of the opposing longitudinal profiles ([0021], annotated Fig. 1; corresponding to the length of the notch portion in a longitudinal direction of the first longitudinal member is the same as the length in the width direction between the second outer side surface and the second partition plate of the second longitudinal member, the second end portion is combined with the notch portion such that a part of the distal end surface abuts against the first partition plate of the notch portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the longitudinal notch length equal to the length in the width direction between the outer side surface and the partition plate of the second longitudinal profile of Nebeling for the notch of Handing in order to allow the end-face welding of individual profiles to produce a frame structure that requires no additional components to hold the profiles together (Nebeling [0010]).
With regard to the further limitation of claim 3, as the first plate end portion of the first partition plate and second plate end portion of the second partition plate are among the limited contacting surfaces available to join the longitudinal members via welding, it would have similarly been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to weld the two adjacent members at this position in order to join the members in a media-tight manner (Nebeling [0009]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Handing in view of Nebeling teaches a rectangular frame formed from four lightweight metal profiles (see claim 4 above) and the member connecting structures according to claims 2 and 3 (see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/A.J.D./
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights