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 .
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/05/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification received on 02/05/2024. The specification is acceptable.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (DE102012222203A1; “Mueller” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller discloses a stopper (closure arrangement, abstract) for closing and sealing an opening in a housing of an energy storage system (battery cell, comprising- a housing with a filling opening and a closure arrangement closing thew filling opening (abstract) comprising: a connecting region configured to engage with an opening of the energy storage system; a sealing region provided along a section of the stopper (the head 60 lies directly on the annular flange 52 of the sealing element 5, so that a sealing line between the sealing element 5 and the filling opening 3 also runs on the outer side 2A of the housing 2, [0028]), at least a portion of the sealing region extending in a radial direction of the stopper (a region 53 radially protruding in the direction of a central axis X-X of the filling opening [0026]); and a sealing element (sealing element , abstract) provided proximate the sealing region, a cross-section of the sealing element including an L-shape when in an installed state (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
764
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Mueller figures 4 and 5
Regarding claim 2, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that at least a portion of the sealing element is configured to deform in a radial direction of the stopper (see Mueller figures 2 and figure 3 showing the inserted stopper and the deformed sealing element).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Mueller figures 2 and 3
Regarding claim 3, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses a second portion of the sealing region extends along an axial direction of the stopper (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses a second portion of the sealing element is configured to deform in an axial direction of the stopper ( By inserting the plug 6, a press connection is thus obtained between the plug 6 and the sealing element 5 and between the sealing element 5 and the filling opening 3 [0028]) Additionally, (see Mueller figures 2 and figure 3 showing the inserted stopper and the deformed sealing element).
Regarding claim 5, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that the sealing region is configured to receive the sealing element such that a sealing effect of the sealing element is created by a force acting at least partially in an axial direction of the stopper (By inserting the plug 6, a press connection is thus obtained between the plug 6 and the sealing element 5 and between the sealing element 5 and the filling opening 3 [0028] and see figures 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that a cross-section of the sealing element includes an L-shape when in an uninstalled state (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Mueller discloses discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further teaches that the sealing element has a first region on a side of the sealing element facing the sealing region, and a second region on a side of the sealing element facing away from the sealing region (see figure 1 above: Mueller fig. 5 showing the inserted stopper with sealing element facing the plug towards the inner opening and facing away from the plug towards the outer side of the opening).
Regarding claim 8, Mueller teaches the stopper of claim 7 and discloses that the second region of the sealing element, in particular in an uninstalled state of the stopper, has a larger outer diameter than the first region of the sealing element (see figure 3 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
587
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Mueller Figure 4
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (DE102012222203A1; “Mueller” hereinafter) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Olsson et al. (US 20130164567 A1; “Olsson” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Mueller discloses the stopper according to claim 7 and discloses the sealing element in an installed state but fails to disclose that , the sealing element is in engagement with a sealing rib which extends upward in a direction of the sealing region of the stopper, viewed in an axial direction of the stopper, along an inner periphery of the opening receiving the stopper, and wherein the sealing rib is configured to exert a force acting on the sealing element, the force acting at least partially in the axial direction of the stopper. Olsson however discloses a sealing element 214, which may be a layer of silicone foam or other flexible sealing material, may be sandwiched between housing 110 and PCB element 152, such that an inner rib 216 clamps down on the sealing element 214 to provide a waterproof seal [0118]. Mueller and Olsson are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely energy storage devices and their sealings.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply a sealing rib as disclosed by Olsson to the sealing system discloses by Mueller as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (DE102012222203A1; “Mueller” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1/11 and further in view of Altmann (DE 4440852 C1, “Altmann” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that the sealing region includes a groove running along a periphery of the stopper (see figure 3 (Mueller figure 4)) but fails to disclose, that at least a portion of the sealing element is injection-molded into the groove. Altmann discloses that the sealing member is produced by a 2- component injection molding technology and discloses that the battery plug is produced by directly molding a sealing ring on the stopper molded part. Altmann further discloses that the direct injection molding leads to an intimate bond at the contact surface between the groove and molding [0045].
Regarding claim 11, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that the stopper is formed from a first plastic material (preferably the sealing element 5 and the plug 6 are made of plastic or of aluminum [0031]) but fails to disclose that the sealing element is formed from a second plastic material. Altmann discloses the molded part of the battery plug is preferably made of thermoplastic and that cross-linked and uncross-linked elastomeric polymer materials (TPE) are used as the material for the sealing ring [0045].
Regarding claim 12, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 11 and further discloses that the stopper is formed from a first plastic material (preferably the sealing element 5 and the plug 6 are made of plastic or of aluminum [0031]) but fails to disclose that the first plastic material is a thermoplastic material, and the second plastic material is an elastomer. Altmann discloses that the molded part of the battery plug is preferably made of thermoplastic and that cross-linked and uncross-linked elastomeric polymer materials (TPE) are used as the material for the sealing ring [0045].
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (DE102012222203A1; “Mueller” hereinafter) in view of Olsson et al. (US 20130164567 A1; “Olsson” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Mueller discloses a system for closing and sealing an opening (plug and sealing element, abstract) in a housing of an energy storage (abstract) system comprising: a stopper comprising: a connection region configured to engage with the opening of the energy storage system (see figure 1); and a sealing region provided along a section of the stopper, the sealing region being configured to receive a sealing element (see for example figure 1); and a sealing rib provided on the housing (an inner rib [0118]), the sealing rib configured to engage the sealing element along the sealing region (inner rib clamps down on the sealing element [0118]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mueller discloses the system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 13 and further discloses that a cross-section of the sealing element includes an L-shape when in an installed state (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mueller discloses the system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 13 and further discloses that a first portion of the sealing region extends in a radial direction of the stopper (A press connection is thus obtained between the plug 6 and the sealing element 5 and between the sealing element 5 and the filling opening 3 [0028]), see figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mueller discloses a system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 15 and further discloses that a second portion of the sealing region extends along an axial direction of the stopper (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mueller discloses a system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 13 and discloses the sealing element in an installed state but fails to disclose that , the sealing element is in engagement with a sealing rib which extends upward in a direction of the sealing region of the stopper, viewed in an axial direction of the stopper, along an inner periphery of the opening receiving the stopper, and wherein the sealing rib is configured to exert a force acting on the sealing element, the force acting at least partially in the axial direction of the stopper. Olsson however discloses a sealing element 214, which may be a layer of silicone foam or other flexible sealing material, may be sandwiched between housing 110 and PCB element 152, such that an inner rib 216 clamps down on the sealing element 214 to provide a waterproof seal [0118].
Regarding claim 18, modified Mueller discloses a system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 17 and further discloses that in the installed state, the sealing element deforms in both a radial direction of the stopper and the axial direction of the stopper (see for example figure 2. The sealing element is compressed both radially in the opening and along the x-axis).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (DE102012222203A1; “Mueller” hereinafter) in view of Olsson et al. (US 20130164567 A1; “Olsson” hereinafter) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Altmann (DE 4440852 C1, “Altmann” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Mueller discloses a system for closing and sealing an opening according to claim 13 and further discloses that the sealing region includes a groove running along a periphery of the stopper (see figure 3/Mueller figure 4) but fails to disclose, that at least a portion of the sealing element is injection-molded into the groove. Altmann discloses that the sealing member is produced by a 2- component injection molding technology and discloses that the battery plug is produced by directly molding a sealing ring on the stopper molded part. Altmann further discloses that the direct injection molding leads to an intimate bond at the contact surface between the groove and molding ([0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Mueller discloses the stopper of claim 1 and further discloses that the stopper is formed from a first plastic material (preferably the sealing element 5 and the plug 6 are made of plastic or of aluminum [0031]) but fails to disclose that the stopper is formed from a first plastic material, and wherein the sealing element is formed from a second plastic material, the first plastic material being different from the second plastic material. Altmann discloses the molded part of the battery plug is preferably made of thermoplastic and that cross-linked and uncross-linked elastomeric polymer materials (TPE) are used as the material for the sealing ring ([0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Yamaguchi (US2003/0047884) teaches a closure structure with a plug
.
Cramer (US2001041286A1) teaches a plug arrangement for a storage battery.
Liu et al. (US 2017/0098805) teaches a frame for portable electronic energy storage cells and further discloses materials and production methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights