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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “vertically” is used by the claim to mean “perpendicularly,” while the accepted meaning is “extending at a right angle to the horizontal.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term.
Regarding claim 6, this claim is indefinite, because it recites “or a random combination thereof”. The inclusion of the term “random” effectively makes scope of the claim dependent on random chance, such that the persons skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beighton (GB2346626).
Regarding claim 1, Beighton teaches a cabinet (Fig. 6) for receiving a battery system, comprising: a plurality of first edge bars (A in Fig. 6 Annotated) substantially extending in a direction; a plurality of second edge bars (B) substantially extending perpendicularly to the first edge bars (Fig. 6); a plurality of third edge bars (C) substantially extending perpendicularly to the first edge bars (Fig. 6), wherein the first edge bars, the second edge bars, and the third edge bars co-form a substantially cube-shaped frame (Fig. 6), the frame defining an accommodating space (i.e., space within A-C); a plurality of concrete side plates (D), a flange (9) being formed on a surface of each concrete side plate facing away from the accommodating space (implied by Fig. 4), wherein the flange of each of the concrete side plates abuts against the first edge bar, the second edge bar, and the third edge bar so that the concrete side plates being surrounded by the first edge bar, the second edge bar, and the third edge bar (implied by Figs. 4 & 6); a concrete bottom plate (E), wherein the concrete bottom plate is surrounded by the second edge bars (Fig. 6); a concrete top plate (F), wherein the concrete top plate is surrounded by the third edge bar (Fig. 6); and a space (i.e., space between D, E, & F) surrounded by the concrete side plates, the concrete bottom plate, and the concrete top plate and configured to receive the battery system (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 4 & 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beighton (GB2346626).
Regarding claim 4, Beighton teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including concrete side, top, & bottom plates (D-F) each having an unspecified unit structural weight & thermal conductivity. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the unit structural weight of each of the concrete side, top, & bottom plates 2300 kg/m3, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the weight of the cabinet; and to make the thermal conductivity of each of the concrete side, top, & bottom plates 1.6 W/m‧K, in order to provide improved insulation to the contents of the cabinet.
Regarding claim 7, Beighton teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a first edge bar (A), the second edge bar (B), and/or the third edge bar (C) that comprise(s) a cross-section structure (Fig. 6); but fail(s) to teach an L-shaped cross-section structure. However, an alternative embodiment of Beighton teaches a bar (14) that comprise(s) a substantially L-shaped cross-section structure (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the cross-section structure of each of the first, second, and third edge bars of Beighton L-shaped, as taught by Beighton’s alternative embodiment, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost & weight of the structure. Hence, Beighton as modified would teach a first edge bar (A), the second edge bar (B), and/or the third edge bar (C) that comprise(s) a substantially L-shaped cross-section structure (as with 14 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Beighton teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a concrete side plate (D); but fail(s) to teach sub-plates. However, an alternative embodiment of Beighton teaches a concrete side plate (2, 15, 16) has at least two sub-plates (2, 15, 16) abutting against each other (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a concrete side plate, as taught by Beighton’s alternative embodiment, for one of the concrete side plates of Beighton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to contain the contents of the cabinet thereof, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known side plate for another.
Regarding claim 9, Beighton as modified teaches a surface of each of the sub-plates (2, 15, 16) facing away from the accommodating space has a flange (9 – see Figs. 3-4), the flanges of the sub-plates abutting against each other (implied by Figs. 4 & 6). Additionally, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that using a fastener to connect one flange to another flange is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange fasteners on the flanges of each of the sub-plates of Beighton as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce extraneous movement therebetween. Hence, Beighton as modified would teach a first fastener being arranged on the flanges (9) of the sub-plates (2, 15, 16) and configured to connect the sub-plates.
Claims 2-3 & 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beighton (GB2346626) in view of Tagnit-Hamou (WO2014153671).
Regarding claim 2, Beighton teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including concrete side, top, & bottom plates (D-F); but fail(s) to teach ultra-high performance concrete. However, Tagnit-Hamou teaches making a concrete component from ultra-high performance concrete (par. 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make each of the concrete side, top, & bottom plates of Beighton from ultra-high performance concrete, as taught by Tagnit-Hamou, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the strength & durability of the panels (as suggested by par. 23-24 of Tagnit-Hamou), thereby reducing their thickness & the space occupied by the cabinet.
Regarding claims 3 & 6, Hence, Beighton as modified teaches a concrete side plate (D of Beighton), the concrete bottom plate (E of Beighton), and/or the concrete top plate (F of Beighton) that each comprise(s) silica fume in a content of 120 kg/m3 to 250 kg/m3 and quartz powder in a content of 30 kg/m3 to 300 kg/m3 (as in p. 18 of Tagnit-Hamou).
Regarding claims 5 & 6, Hence, Beighton as modified teaches a concrete side plate (D of Beighton), the concrete bottom plate (E of Beighton), and/or the concrete top plate (F of Beighton) that each comprise(s) synthetic fibers in a content of 30 kg/m3 to 60 kg/m3, and the thickness is less than or equal to about 2.5 cm (as in p. 18 of Tagnit-Hamou).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beighton (GB2346626) in view of Wang (20070227416). Beighton teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a concrete bottom plate (E) that has a surface (i.e., bottom surface of E) facing away from the accommodating space (i.e., space between D-F); but fail(s) to teach ribs. However, Wang teaches the inclusion, on a bottom surface of a plate (10), of a plurality of ribs (21) extending in a mutually interlaced manner (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add ribs, as taught by Wang, to the concrete bottom plate of Beighton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement thereto. Hence, Beighton as modified would teach a rib (21 of Wang) of a concrete bottom plate (E of Beighton) that has a through hole (211 of Wang), the through hole being configured to receive a second fastener for fixing the battery system into the accommodating space (as in par. 20 of Wang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights