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 .
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 11-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the EPDM" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the EPDM seal--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the assembly" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --an assembly--.
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 11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruhler et al. (US 2020/0408303; hereinafter “Gruhler”).
In regard to claim 11, Gruhler discloses an electric battery housing capable of housing at least one module of a battery (“battery box;” [0007]), said housing being produced in two parts, comprising: a bottom housing (second object 114 such as “a box base part of the battery;” [0127]) necessarily having at least flat junction edge to delineate the fluid space 104 and a top housing (first object 112 such as “a box lid of a battery;” [0127]) necessarily having at least flat junction face for which the sealing element 110 fits against, the bottom housing and the top housing being configured to come to bear against one another to form the housing via placement of the flat junction edge in contact with the flat junction face such that the second fluid space 104 is created and separated from the exterior (i.e. the first fluid space 102), an EPDM seal (“elastic sealing body 118 and/or the elastic sealing body parts 126” which are made from elastomer material 133 which can be EPDM; [0137]) necessarily being inserted between the flat junction edge and the flat junction face to render the housing seal-tight (i.e. to form the interior second fluid space 104), wherein a metal frame (“base body 116 and/or the base body parts 124” which are made from metallic base body material 135; [0138]) is fixed to the EPDM seal, and an assembly composed of the EPDM seal and the metal frame is necessarily inserted between the flat junction edge of the bottom housing and the flat junction face of the top housing to form the interior second fluid space 104. See [0125]-[0138] and Figure 1.
In regard to claim 15, Gruhler discloses wherein the EPDM seal is overmolded (“injection molded;” [0142]) on the metal frame.
In regard to claim 16, Gruhler discloses wherein a total length of the metal frame is less than or equal to the total length the EPDM seal. See [0151]-[0155] and Figure 1.
In regard to claim 17, Gruhler discloses wherein the total length of the metal frame is strictly less than that of the EPDM seal, so that said metal frame appears discontinuous along said EPDM seal as the metal frame (base body parts 124) are provided in two distinct pieces which meet at an abutment region 134. See [0151]-[0155] and Figure 1. Thus, the EPDM seal does not have a metal frame at the abutment region 134 and the length of the metal frame is strictly less than that of the EPDM seal.
In regard to claim 20, Gruhler discloses wherein the metal frame is produced in a metal to be chosen from steel and aluminum. See [0138].
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.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhler in view of Olivier (FR 3067436 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation).
In regard to claim 17-19, the following rejection is applied in case it is held that Gruhler does not disclose wherein the length of the metal frame is strictly less than that of the EPDM seal.
Olivier discloses a rigid frame and elastomer seal comprised of a metal frame and EPDM elastomeric material for use with batteries of electric vehicles. Olivier teaches that the seal 1 has discontinuous segments 2A-2J of metal frame having a continuous elastomeric seal (elastomeric sealing material 21) joined by connecting elements 3A to 3J. Thus, the seal 1 has zones without any metal frame wherein the zones each comprise a main segment linking two zones having the metal frame as defined by the connecting elements 3A-3J. As the connecting elements 3A-3J each have a wavy shape, the main segments linking the two zones have at least one secondary segment crossing the main segment by being at right angles thereto and has three parallel secondary segments crossing the main segment by being at right angles thereto as the wavy shape contains perpendicular segments of connecting elements. See Figures 1-9, pages 2-5 of the translation and the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of discontinuous metal frame pieces with connecting flexible seal segments as disclosed by Olivier with the seal arrangement of Gruhler for the purpose of enabling the seal to be condensed in size prior to installation and to keep a stable seal even when connection elements have been twisted during assembly of the seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach, suggest or render obvious wherein the EPDM seal is arranged to occupy a central position and the metal frame is arranged to occupy an off-centered position as the EPDM seal is disclosed to be on the periphery of the metal frame in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774