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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “132” has been used to designate both cover layers [0170] and spacer element [0170] and core [0171]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0170] line 25 states “cover layers 13” this appears to be a typographical error and should be “cover layers 134”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 and 21 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 19 recites the limitation "the stiffening means " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the holding structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the at least one outer stiffening means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1 and 3-11, 14-18 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberl et al (DE 102018206100 A1, US 2021/0146766A1 is an English equivalent) in view of Choi et al. (US 2012/0103714 A1) and exemplified by SpecialChem (https://www.specialchem.com/plastics/guide/elongation-at-break).
As to claim 1, Haberl et al discloses a battery shell system comprising:
a battery shell (1-housing), wherein the battery shell has a base (figure 2- the bottom of section 1) and at least four side walls [0048], wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side (figure 5),
wherein the battery shell has a maximum longitudinal extent in a longitudinal direction, a maximum transverse extent in a transverse direction, and a maximum vertical extent in a vertical direction (the housing has a set length, width and depth), and
wherein the battery shell has a receiving space on the inner side for receiving at least one battery module [0048]; and
at least one deformation element (7’ -reinforcement element) which is connectable to the outer side of the battery shell and is formed separately from the battery shell (figure 5 and 6),
wherein the deformation element has a deformation element transverse extent which extends in the transverse direction of the battery shell (figures 5 and 6), and
PNG
media_image1.png
381
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least one deformation element is formed from a ductile plastic [0054] (discloses the plastic is thermoplastic or thermosetting. While many Thermoplastics and thermosetting have an elongation greater than 0.3. Harberl does not explicitly disclose having an elongation at break greater than or equal to 0.3 .
Choi et al. discloses a housing for a battery and teaches that the lower plate and upper plate and the cross sectional area are impact energy absorbing performances against external impact [0044]. Choi et al. discloses the composite material of the upper and lower housing and the section S as seen in figure 6 are made of a polymer thermoplastic resin selected from the group consisting of polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or a thermosetting resin selected from the group consisting of unsaturated polyester (UP), epoxy, and polyurethane (PU) [0020]. Of these PET has a value of 30-70, PA is from 3-300 as exemplified by SpecialChem.com (Page 6 and 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include a polymer of PET or PA because this would allow for impact energy absorbing performances against external impact.
As to claim 3 and 4, Choi further discloses that the plastic composite material is a at least one of: polycarbonate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyphenylene ether, polystyrene, or a polyamide [0042]. While not explicitly stating a polymer blend, however it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP 2144.06).
As to claim 5. Haberl et al the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the deformation element is formed by an injection-molding method [0027]. Furthermore, the product-by- process limitations of claim 5 (injection molding) are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 5 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 6. The battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the deformation element has a honeycomb structure having a hexagonal cross-section (figure 6), and
having at least one honeycomb with a longitudinal axis (figure 6), wherein the longitudinal axis of the at least one honeycomb corresponds substantially to the transverse direction of the battery shell in an installed state of the deformation element (figure 5).
As to claim 7. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 6, but not wherein the at least one honeycomb has a side length in a range of 8 mm to 16 mm.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.
As to claim 8, Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one honeycomb has a wall thickness greater than or equal to 1.2 mm (1-4 mm [0051]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 9. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 6, but not wherein the at least one honeycomb has a ratio of wall thickness to side length in a range of greater than or equal to 0.08 and less than or equal to 0.18.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.
As to claim 10. Haberl et al discloses the battery shell system according to claim 6, but not that wherein the at least one honeycomb has a deformation element vertical extent greater than or equal to 50 mm, preferably greater than or equal to 60 mm, and particularly preferably greater than or equal to 70 mm.
However it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.
As to claim 11. Haberl et al. the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell has an outer stiffening means formed monolithically with the battery shell (fig 5),
wherein the outer stiffening means (annotated in figure below) is arranged between the receiving space of the battery shell and the at least one deformation element (7’) is connected to the battery shell,
wherein the outer stiffening means has a stiffening means transverse extent in the transverse direction of the battery shell. (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
381
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14. Haberl et al the battery shell according to claim 11, wherein the outer stiffening means has a structured core in a middle of two cover layers bounding the structured core, wherein the structured core has a cross-rib structure. (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
193
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 15. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 11, wherein a ratio of the deformation element transverse extent to the stiffening means transverse extent is greater than or equal to 1. (depicted in figure 5, the transverse length of 7 is longer than transverse length of the stiffening means)
As to claim 16. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell has a holding structure for guiding and/or connecting the deformation element (the walls of cavity 5, longitudinal support 3 will hold the reinforcement elements 7), wherein the holding structure is monolithically formed with the battery shell (see figure 5), and arranged on the outer side of the battery shell, and arranged outside the stiffening means as viewed from the receiving space (see figure 5).
As to claim 17. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 16, wherein the holding structure has a connecting means which is configured for connection to the at least one deformation element.
Per applicants’ definition of “connecting means” is understood to mean any means which is configured for connecting a deformation means to the battery shell [0156]. The walls of cavity 5 hold the deformation element thus fulfilling applicants’ definition.
As to claim 18. Haberl et al discloses the battery shell system according to claim 16, but not wherein a wall thickness of the holding structure is less than or equal to 4 mm.
However it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.
As to claim 19. Haberl et al discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell has at least one inner stiffening means (3) on the outer side of the battery shell (1) also extends over the deformation element transverse extent ( length of 7’), which extends on the outer side of the battery shell also over the deformation element transverse extent (length of 7’) and the stiffening means transverse extent (figure 5).
As to claim 22, Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell system is implemented in a traction battery, for a motor vehicle [0001].
As to claim 23. Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell system is implemented in a motor vehicle [0001].
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberl et al (DE 102018206100 A1, US 2021/0146766A1 is an English equivalent) in view of Choi et al. (US 2012/0103714 A1) and exemplified by SpecialChem as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shayan et al. (US 2021/0151830).
As to claim 20. Modified Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, wherein the battery shell formed of aluminum alloy but not of plastic.
Shayan et al. discloses a battery housing can be made of aluminum or polymeric material or a reinforced polymeric material [0141].
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case Shayan teaches they are equivalents for a battery housing therefore it would obvious to replace the aluminum with the polymeric material.
As to claim 21. Modified Haberl et al. discloses the battery shell system according to claim 1, but not wherein the at least one outer stiffening means and/or the holding structure have a fiber-reinforced reinforcement layer.
Shayan et al. discloses a battery housing can be made of aluminum or polymeric material or a reinforced polymeric material [0141].
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case Shayan teaches they are equivalents for a battery housing therefore it would obvious to replace the aluminum with the polymeric material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record discloses a rectangular stiffening means and does not suggest or disclose the outer stiffening means has a U-profile which is open in the vertical direction of the battery shell or the outer stiffening means has a T-profile open in the vertical direction of the battery shell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights