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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant’s response filed on 2/2/26 has been considered and provides amendments and arguments which are not found persuasive and in several cases moot in view of the additional cited prior art found in an updated search. As such, new ground(s) of rejection are made throughout this office action.
Applicant's amendment filed on 2/2/26 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1-21 and 23-27 presented in this Office Action response. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Shank (US PG PUB NO 2006/0117862).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Moschet discloses a method for shielding of a vehicle component or other electro-magnetic interference emitting device in a vehicle comprising the steps of: forming a battery box enclosure (62) with a shielding material (150) attached to the enclosure.
-However, Moschet fails to disclose wherein the shielding material is a metallized woven fabric.
-Nevertheless, Shank discloses in paragraph [0103] use of metallized woven fabric.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Moschet to have sheet/plate metalized woven fabric as taught by Shank with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide optimum and flexible shielding.
,
PNG
media_image1.png
717
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
732
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
502
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Moschet/Shank disclose the method in accordance with claim 1 wherein the shielding material is coated with aluminum, copper, nickel, brass, silver or a combination of these (Moschet discloses an exemplary aluminum shield).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Moschet/Shank disclose the method in accordance with claim 1 wherein the shielding material has a thickness of from 0.01 to 0.9 mm (Any desired thickness can be selected based on the desired product size and application without altering battery function).
2. Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Shank (US PG PUB NO 2006/0117862) and in view of Sonta (US PG PUB NO 2012/0100414).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Moschet/Shank disclose the method of claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the enclosure is formed from a sheet molding compound and the shielding material is embedded in the enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Sonta discloses in paragraph [0010] a thermoplastic polymer composite/compound and claim 4 discloses metal mesh material.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have a TP compound as taught by Sonta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize molding and end item quality.
PNG
media_image4.png
689
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Moschet/Shank disclose the method of claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the enclosure is a sheet molding compound preformed enclosure or an injection molded thermoplastic
preformed enclosure, and the shielding material is attached to the enclosure on an interior of the enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Sonta discloses in paragraph [0010] a thermoplastic polymer composite/compound and claim 4 discloses metal mesh material generally provided in sheets for high temperature molding/thermoforming.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have optional sheet compound/composite TP as taught by Sonta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve manufacturing processes and part durability.
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Moschet/Shank/Sonta disclose the method in accordance with claim 2 wherein the shielding material is preformed to correspond to a surface shape and dimensions of at least part of the enclosure, and the shielding material is secured to the enclosure during formation of the enclosure.
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Moschet/Shank disclose the method in accordance with claim 1 wherein the enclosure and shielding material are formed in a mold cavity for embedding the shielding material in the enclosure (Moschet/Shank are exemplary and the forming processes can be modified as desired for vehicle applications/components).
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Shank (US PG PUB NO 2006/0117862) in view of Sonta (US PG PUB NO 2012/0100414) and in view of Brause et al. (US 7,597,833).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Moschet/Shank/Sonta disclose the method in accordance with claim 3.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein an adhesive is used to attach the shielding material to the enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Brause discloses in Column 12, Lines 20-25 in conjunction with overmolding and any known binder can be used to adhere shielding and the housing.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to use adhesives as taught by Brause with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve manufacturing efficiency and enclosure strength.
PNG
media_image5.png
740
667
media_image5.png
Greyscale
3. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Shank (US PG PUB NO 2006/0117862) and in view of Brause et al. (US 7,597,833).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Moschet/Shank disclose the method in accordance with claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein an adhesive is used to attach the shielding material to the enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Brause discloses in Column 12, Lines 20-25 in conjunction with overmolding and any known binder can be used to adhere shielding and the housing.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to use adhesives as taught by Brause with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve manufacturing efficiency and enclosure strength.
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Moschet/Shank/Brause disclose the method in accordance with claim 8 wherein the adhesive includes hot melt adhesive, one component liquid adhesive, two component acrylic, polyurethane (Any known adhesive can be selected as desired for particular molding applications), epoxy, silicone adhesives and combinations thereof (Any known binder can be selected/used to improve the forming/molding efficiency and enclosure strength).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Moschet/Shank/Brause disclose the method in accordance with claim 8 wherein the adhesive covers from 10 to 100% of the portion of the enclosure where the shielding material is to be applied (Brause discloses in Column 12, Lines 20-25 use of molding and adhesive and any preferred coverage can be employed for a robust manufacturing process).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Moschet/Shank/Brause disclose the method in accordance with claim 8 wherein the adhesive covers from 50 to 100% of the portion of the enclosure where the shielding material is to be applied.
(Brause discloses in Column 12, Lines 20-25 use of molding and adhesive and any preferred coverage can be employed for a robust manufacturing process.
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Moschet/Shank discloses the method in accordance with claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the enclosure is formed in a first mold and then the enclosure is placed on a bonding fixture and thereafter the shielding material is molded with adhesive into the form of the enclosure in the bonding fixture.
-Nevertheless, Brause discloses in Column 12, Lines 10-25 adhesive in conjunction with molding and fixtures are required to maintain part shape during bonding).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have adhesive used in molding as taught by Brause with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce manufacturing time and improve part robustness.
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Moschet/Shank/Brause disclose the method in accordance with claim 8 wherein the shielding material and adhesive are applied using a removeable carrier liner (Liners are conventional in the art of molding to process the compound to a molding machine).
4. Claims 15-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Yoshikawa (US PG PUB NO 2007/0011863).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Moschet discloses a method for shielding of a vehicle component or other electro-magnetic interference emitting device in a vehicle comprising the steps of: forming an enclosure (62) with a shielding material (150) attached to the enclosure.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the shielding material is an aluminum foil with a pressure sensitive adhesive and a release layer, and the shielding material is preformed to match a shape of at least part of the enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Yoshikawa discloses adhesive layer(s) 34A-34B which can be pressure sensitive if desired as it will be compressed in a mold, also Anti-reflection film, 3 which can serve as a release layer when molding. The shielding material’s shape can match the enclosure shape of Moschet’s enclosure and Yoshikawa’s molds 43-44.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Moschet to have adhesive, release layer and shielding material that matches the shape of the component being formed as taught by Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to perform efficient molding/manufacturing.
PNG
media_image6.png
641
720
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 15 wherein the aluminum foil is drawn in a vacuum for forming the aluminum foil with pressure sensitive adhesive and a release layer (Drawing a vacuum (Yoshikawa, paragraph [0099] discloses vscuum-evacuation) is conventional in forming individual layers of a part for good fitment by mating the layers. Such drawing can include all desired layers and adjust the vacuum in order to get a good fitment).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 16 further comprising the step of removing the release layer and attaching the vehicle component (Release layers conventionally are used in the molding process and removed after cooling. All components ultimately attach to the vehicle at final assembly).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 17 wherein either a vacuum or a mold is used to join the aluminum foil and the vehicle component together (Yoshikawa discloses using vacuum-evacuation which can be employed in the molding process to remove air pockets allowing the layers to join, after cooling, the component can be installed in a vehicle at final assembly).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Moschet discloses a method for shielding of a battery box or other electro-magnetic interference emitting device in a vehicle comprising the steps of: forming a battery box enclosure (62); with an effective amount of a connecting an electro-magnetic interference shielding (150) to the enclosure (62) using an adhesive.
-However, it fails to disclose using an adhesive in forming a battery enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Yoshikawa discloses exemplary adhesive 34A-34B in a layered molding operation.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Moschet to have adhesive as taught by Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve adhesion of the layers during molding and possibly shortening cure time per part.
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 19 wherein the enclosure is formed from a sheet molding compound (See Yoshikawa, FIG 1 below showing the molds containing sheets which can comprise any desired compound to improve mold conformance) and is compression molded (Yoshikawa discloses in paragraph [0022] pressure bonding, pressure application and heating being used) and the shielding material (Moschet 150) is connected to the enclosure after the enclosure has been formed.
PNG
media_image7.png
329
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 21] Regarding claim 21, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 20 wherein the shielding material is first placed in a heated sheet molding tool and an effective amount of sheet molding compound is placed in the mold adjacent the mold material, thereafter the mold is closed for forming sheet molding compound part with the shielding material embedded thereon.
[CLAIM 26] Regarding claim 26, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 20 wherein the shielding material has a thickness of from about 0.01 to about 0.6 mm (Any desired thickness can be employed based on molding requirements and end-part desired thickness without substantially altering the battery function).
5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Yoshikawa (US PG PUB NO 2007/0011863) and in view of Foran et al. (2022/0006150).
[CLAIM 23] Regarding claim 23, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of 20.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the sheet molding compound includes polyester, vinyl ester, phenolic, and epoxy sheet molding compound materials and mixtures thereof which contain glass fiber, carbon fiber or basalt fillers and strengtheners.
-Nevertheless, Foran discloses in at least paragraphs {0055, 0062 and 0065] material for forming a battery and components including inter alia, polyester, vinyl esters, epoxy and fibers of which any kind of fiber can be selected from the known group of fiber types as desired.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have a plurality of materials compounded as taught by Foran which is exemplary and readily modified with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce parts with maximum strength and robust characteristics.
6. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Yoshikawa (US PG PUB NO 2007/0011863) and in view of Shank (US PG PUB NO 2006/0117862).
[CLAIM 24] Regarding claim 24, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 20.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the shielding material is a woven or non-woven fabric coated with copper, nickel, silver or a combination of these.
-Nevertheless, Shank discloses woven fiber in paragraph [0103] for use in manufacturing. Any desired coating can be selected from the known group of fiber coatings if desired
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have fiber as taught by Shank with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve strength and rigidity.
-Nevertheless, Shank discloses woven fiber in paragraph [0103] for use in manufacturing. Any desired coating can be selected from the known group of fiber coatings if desired
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have fiber as taught by Shank with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve strength and rigidity.
[CLAIM 25] Regarding claim 25, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 20.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the shielding material is a woven or non-woven fabric comprising nickel coated graphite fabric.
-Nevertheless, Shank discloses woven fiber in paragraph [0103] for use in manufacturing. Any desired coating can be selected from the known group of fiber coatings if desired.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have fiber as taught by Shank with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve strength and rigidity.
7. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moschet (US 10,283,824) in view of Yoshikawa (US PG PUB NO 2007/0011863) and in view of Miloaga et al. (US PG PUB NO 2021/0305544).
[CLAIM 27] Regarding claim 27, Moschet/Yoshikawa disclose the method of claim 19.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein the enclosure is a composite battery enclosure.
-Nevertheless, Miloaga discloses in paragraph [0019] a composite battery enclosure.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have a composite battery enclosure as taught by Miloaga with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase part strength and rigidity.
PNG
media_image8.png
690
650
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
Claim 1, Applicant respectfully made arguments regarding “Moschet” not having metalized woven fabric. However, as stated above the “Shank” reference teaches such exemplary woven fabric and the rejection above is incorporated herein. Additionally, Applicant asserts that the USC 102 rejections are deficient but this is moot in view of the sole use of USC 103 rejections above. Claims 2-14 are rejected above based on prior art found in subsequent searching.
Claim 15, Applicant respectfully made arguments regarding limitations that are not taught or suggested by Moschet, however, Yoshikawa discloses these limitations and are explained in the rejection above and incorporated herein to the response to Applicant’s arguments. Dependent claims 16-18 are rejected above based on prior art found in subsequent searching.
Independent claim 19 while not addressed by Applicant via arguments is rejected under USC 103 and the rejection set forth above is incorporated herein. Dependent claims 20-21 and 23-27 are rejected above based on prior art found in subsequent searching.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights