DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 18/532,014. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/7/2023 and 4/24/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 (line 6), claim 14 (line 6), and claim 19 (line 7), the phrase “a battery housing” appears it should be –the battery housing—as this is the second time this element is recited (e.g. claim 1, line 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1, 3, 4, and 12-13 be found allowable, claim 14-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Alternatively, an explanation of the scope difference would be considered.
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 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burja (German document DE102019121682, cited on the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Burja discloses a motor vehicle (paragraph [0001]), comprising: a carrier structure comprising at least two longitudinal beams (40), at least two cross-beams (14), and a battery frame ring (underbody module 10) that integrally forms at least a radially inner portion of the at least two longitudinal beams and/or the at least two cross-beams (e.g. Fig. 7); a battery housing formed at least partially by the battery frame ring(e.g. Fig. 7); and a high-voltage battery (60) arranged in a battery housing, the high-voltage battery being arranged in a space delimited by the at least two longitudinal beams and the at least two cross-beams (e.g. Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Burja discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, wherein the battery frame ring is formed as a deep-drawn component (e.g. Fig. 7).
The examiner notes that claim 2 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 2 is present in the Burja reference, claim 2 is included in the above 102(a)(1) rejection.
Regarding claim 14, Burja discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: a carrier structure comprising longitudinal beams, cross-beams, and a battery frame ring that integrally forms at least a radially inner portion of the longitudinal beams and/or the cross-beams; a battery housing formed at least partially by the battery frame ring; and a high-voltage battery arranged in a battery housing, the high-voltage battery being arranged in a space delimited by the longitudinal beams and the two cross-beams (see claim 1 annotations above).
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard (US Patent Publication 2020156486, cited on the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a motor vehicle (paragraph [0003]), comprising: a carrier structure (Figs. 1-3) comprising at least two longitudinal beams, at least two cross-beams (e.g. 210), and a battery frame ring (300) that integrally forms at least a radially inner portion of the at least two longitudinal beams and/or the at least two cross-beams; a battery housing (Fig. 1) formed at least partially by the battery frame ring; and a high-voltage battery (paragraph [0021]) arranged in the battery housing, the high-voltage battery being arranged in a space delimited by the at least two longitudinal beams and the at least two cross-beams (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a battery housing cover (lid 400).
Regarding claim 4, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is joined at an upper side thereof to the battery housing cover in a gas-tight manner (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is joined at an upper side thereof to the battery housing cover via laser-welding (e.g. Fig. 1).
The examiner notes that claim 5 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 5 is present in the Howard reference, claim 5 is included in the above 102(a)(1) rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is joined at an upper side thereof to the battery housing cover via laser-soldering (e.g. Fig. 1).
The examiner notes that claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 6 is present in the Howard reference, claim 6 is included in the above 102(a)(1) rejection.
Regarding claim 8, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is joined at an upper side thereof to the battery housing cover via screwing (paragraph [0042]) with a seal (paragraph [0040]).
The examiner notes that claim 8 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 8 is present in the Howard reference, claim 8 is included in the above 102(a)(1) rejection.
Regarding claim 9, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is sealed at an upper side thereof with the battery housing cover in a gas-tight manner (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, wherein the battery housing cover is formed as a substantially planar metal sheet (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, wherein the battery housing cover is formed via a base component (base plate 100) which terminates an interior of the motor vehicle in a downward direction.
Regarding claim 12, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a base forming vehicle underbody closure (base plate 100) that delimits the battery housing at an underside thereof.
Regarding claims 14-17, see corresponding claims 1, 3, 4, and 12-13 above.
Regarding claim 19, Howard discloses a motor vehicle (paragraph [0003]), comprising: a carrier structure (Figs. 1-3) comprising longitudinal beams (e.g. 210), cross-beams, and a battery frame ring (300) that integrally forms at least a radially inner portion of the longitudinal beams and/or the cross-beams; a battery housing (Fig. 1) formed at least partially by the battery frame ring; a battery housing cover (paragraph [0040]); and a high-voltage battery (paragraph [0021]) arranged in a battery housing, the high-voltage battery being arranged in a space delimited by the longitudinal beams and the two cross-beams (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 19, further comprising a base forming vehicle underbody closure (base plate 100) that delimits the battery housing at an underside thereof.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US Patent Publication 2020156486, cited on the IDS) in view of Hasegawa (US Patent Publication 20080184544).
Regarding claim 7, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 3, wherein the battery frame ring is joined at an upper side thereof to the battery housing cover via a roller hemming flange with a seal (e.g. Fig. 1).
The examiner notes that claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 7 is present in the Howard reference, claim 7 could be included in a 102(a)(1) rejection.
Howard does not disclose the process of joining via a roller hemming flange as noted above, furthermore this is a known process.
Hasegawa discloses a roller hemming flange process applied to the vehicle body (e.g. Figs. 12-13). Hasegawa teaches this method of hemming prevent warp and deformation (paragraph [0022]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Howard to incorporate a roller hemming flange of Hasegawa with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent warp and deformation.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (US Patent Publication 2020156486, cited on the IDS) in view of Ikeda (US Patent Publication 20160318556).
Regarding claim 13, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least two longitudinal beams and/or the at least two cross-beams comprise at least one or more sheet metal shells joined to the battery frame ring (paragraph [0049], “hollow beams”, “metallic”).
Also, regarding claim 18, Howard discloses the motor vehicle of claim 14, wherein the longitudinal beams and/or the cross-beams comprise at least one or more sheet metal shells joined to the battery frame ring (paragraph [0049], “hollow beams”, “metallic”).
Howard does not explicitly state the sheet metal shells are part of the support structure/beams (200).
Ikeda discloses at least two longitudinal beams and/or the at least two cross-beams comprise at least one or more sheet metal shells joined to the battery frame (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0047], “the battery frame 10 (the first reinforcements 14 and the second reinforcements 16) is configured by metal (sheet steel)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Howard to incorporate one or more sheet metal shells of Ikeda with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of both strength from the sheet metal and light weight of the shell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ayukawa (US Patent Publication 20180148106) discloses carrier structure and battery housing.
Stephens (US Patent Publication 20200398652) discloses a vehicle battery tray.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655