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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn in the application
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a battery assembly, classified in H01M 50/249.
II. Claims 14-20, drawn to a method of securing a service panel, classified in H01M 50/262.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product such as a product that is not a battery assembly (i.e. a fuse box, an HVAC system, etc.) that includes a service panel.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
-the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin J. Coon on 18 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “80” has been used to designate both the channel and the wall in figures 5 and 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “a metal or metal alloy” which should be corrected to “a metal or a metal alloy”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the service panel include the flange” which should be corrected to “the service panel includes the flange.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “snap-lock seam” in claims 1, and 4-7 does not have a clear definition in either Applicant’s specification or in the art. For the purpose of examination, a snap-lock seam will be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as referring to any structure that includes a seam (i.e. a joint that connects at least two planar structures) by sliding, fastening or gripping where the seam causes at least two planar structures to not easily come apart due to friction, enclosure or other mechanical fastening means.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the service panel secured to the wall with at least one snap-lock seam to cover a service opening in the wall” in lines 3-4 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the service panel is covering a service opening or if the snap-lock seam is covering the service opening.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to cover a service opening in the wall” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. As “to cover a service opening in the wall” is written as a functional limitation, it is unclear if “a service” is present and being positively claimed or if it is an optional structure or feature that may or may not be present.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
(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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sevak (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0221800).
Regarding Claim 1, Sevak teaches a battery assembly including an enclosure providing an interior (abstract, and fig. 2 ref. #60 and #70), the enclosure having a wall and a service panel (abstract and fig. 3 ref. #112 and the walls of the enclosure made of ref. #64 and #68). The service panel is secured to the wall with at least one snap-lock seam to cover a service opening in the wall ([0076] and fig. 12 ref. #132 and #152, the seam being where ref. #132 and #152 contact one another, which locks the service panel in place).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Sevak further teaches the enclosure and service panel may be metal or a metal alloy ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 4, Sevak further teaches the service panel is secured to the wall exclusively using the at least one snap-lock seam (fig. 13, the snap-lock seam is the only thing securing the service panel to the wall).
Regarding Claim 5, Sevak further teaches the snap-lock seam includes a plurality of snap-lock seams distributed about the service opening when the service panel is secured to the wall (fig. 12, ref. #132 and #152).
Regarding Claim 6, Sevak further teaches the service opening includes a plurality of corners (fig. 7 ref. #124, the four corners of the opening), and the plurality of snap-lock seams are each disposed a distance from each corner within the plurality of corners.
Regarding Claim 7, Sevak further teaches the at least one snap-lock seam includes a flange (retention feature, fig. 10 ref. #132) received within a channel (aperture, fig. 11 ref. # 152, and [0076]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sevak further teaches at least one barb of the flange, the at least one barb configured to resist withdrawal of the flange from the channel ([0077] and fig. 13, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Sevak further teaches the at least one barb is configured to contact an edge face of a lip to resist withdrawal, the lip disposed within the channel ([0077] and fig. 13, see above).
Regarding Claim 10, Sevak further teaches the service panel includes the flange (a portion of the retention feature fig. 10 ref. #132) and the wall includes the channel (aperture, fig. 11 ref. # 152) (when the cover, fig. 10 ref. #68 is included as part of the service panel and the lock plate, fig. 11 ref. #140, is included as part of the wall).
Regarding Claim 11, Sevak further teaches the interior accommodates at least one battery internal component (serviceable components) accessible through the service opening ([0059]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sevak further teaches the enclosure and the service panel are constituents of a traction battery pack of an electrified vehicle ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sevak further teaches the service panel is secured to the wall with the at
least one snap-lock seam ([0079]) and does not teach any mechanical fasteners securing the service panel to the wall.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0221800) in view of Vondergoltz (US Patent No. 4,694,628).
Regarding Claim 1, Sevak teaches a battery assembly including an enclosure providing an interior (abstract, and fig. 2 ref. #60 and #70), the enclosure having a wall and a service panel (abstract and fig. 3 ref. #112 and the walls of the enclosure made of ref. #64 and #68). The service panel is secured to the wall with at least one snap-lock feature to cover a service opening in the wall (abstract, [0079], and fig. 7 ref. #124).
In the alternative, if Sevak does not explicitly teach the snap-lock feature is a snap lock seam.
Vondergoltz teaches a connection for two panels, which is an analogous art as it is a snap-lock feature, specifically a snap-lock seam. (abstract and fig. 2). The snap-lock seam includes a flange received within a channel (fig. 2 ref. #16, see below), with a barb on the flange (fig. 2 ref. #19, see below) which resists withdrawal of the flange from the channel (page 4 column 3 lines 17-36). The barb contacts an edge face of a to resist withdrawal, the lip disposed within the channel (fig. 2 ref. #22, see below). The snap-lock seam allows for easy engagement of the two conjoining pieces (page 3 column 1 lines 59-64) with a water-tight seal (page 4 column 4 lines 5-12)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the snap-lock seam as taught by Vondergoltz as the snap-lock feature of Sevak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this snap-lock seal for the easy connection and water-tight seal.
PNG
media_image2.png
363
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Sevak further teaches the enclosure and service panel may be metal or a metal alloy ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sevak further teaches the snap-lock seam includes a plurality of snap-lock seams (snap-locks, [0082]). As there is more than one snap-lock seam, they must be distributed about the service opening when the service panel is secured to the wall in some manner.
Regarding Claim 6, Sevak further teaches the service opening includes a plurality of corners (fig. 7 ref. #124, the four corners of the opening). The plurality of snap-lock seams will each be a distance from the corners, regardless of where they are distributed.
Regarding Claim 7, the above imported at least one snap-lock seam of modified Sevak includes a flange received within a channel (fig. 2 ref. #16, see above).
Regarding Claim 8, the above imported at least one snap-lock seam of modified Sevak includes at least one barb of the flange (fig. 2 ref. #19, see above), the at least one barb configured to resist withdrawal of the flange from the channel (page 4 column 3 lines 17-36).
Regarding Claim 9, the at least one barb of the above imported at least one snap-lock seam of modified Sevak is configured to contact an edge face of a lip to resist withdrawal (contacting through the caulking, fig. 2 ref. #30), the lip being disposed within the channel (fig. 2 ref. #22, see above).
Regarding Claim 10, the snap-lock seam of Vondergoltz teaches one panel with a channel, and another panel with the flange. In the inclusion of the snap-lock seam of Vondergoltz into the service panel connection of Sevak, having the channel attached to the wall and the flange attached to the service panel would allow for the snap-lock seam sit inside of the enclosure, in turn reducing overall battery size. If the channel is placed on the service panel and the flange is on the wall, the snap-lock seam will sit outside of the enclosure and the overall battery size will be increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the service panel include the flange and the wall include the channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this orientation to decrease the overall size of the battery enclosure
Regarding Claim 11, Sevak further teaches the interior accommodates at least one battery internal component (serviceable components) accessible through the service opening ([0059]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sevak further teaches the enclosure and the service panel are constituents of a traction battery pack of an electrified vehicle ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sevak further teaches the service panel is secured to the wall with the at
least one snap-lock seam ([0079]) and does not teach any mechanical fasteners securing the service panel to the wall.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0221800) in view of Vondergoltz (US Patent No. 4,694,628), further in view of Maguire (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0170209).
Sevak and Vondergoltz are relied upon as described above.
Modified Sevak does not teach that the service panel is secured to the wall exclusively using the at least one snap-lock seam.
Maguire teaches a traction battery pack service panel (title). The service panel (fig. 5 and 6 ref. #126) is attached to the battery enclosure by at least one panel clip (abstract [0064], and fig. 6 ref. #130). The use of only a clipping mechanism, without a secondary mechanical fastener securing the service panel to the enclosure, allows for sealing of the enclosure with the service panel ([0013]). By using only the clipping mechanism of modified Sevak (the snap-lock seam) without any other means of securing the service panel to the wall, one could sufficiently seal the enclosure while reducing the overall complexity of the battery assembly of Sevak, in turn reducing manufacturing cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use only the clipping mechanism (snap-lock seam) of modified Sevak to secure the service panel to the wall, as taught by Maguire. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the manufacturing cost of the battery assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/25/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights