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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 04 December 2023, but claims priority to German Patent Application No. DE 10-2021-120-234.5, filed on 04 August 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 December 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 14-27 are pending in the present application. Claims 1-13 are canceled following the preliminary amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, the recitation “comprising an absorber structure according to claim 4” should read “comprising the absorber structure according to claim 4”. 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 14-27 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.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “wherein the main body is a plastics body, and wherein the main body comprises an additional element made of fiber…” is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the additional element is part of the plastics body, or a separate, attached component.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation is interpreted to mean “wherein the main body comprises a plastics body and wherein the main body further comprises an additional element made of fiber”.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation “to have low flammability” contains a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation is interpreted to mean “to be inflammable”.
Claims 15-26 are rejected, as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject
matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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)(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 14-19, 21, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rausch et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0212530, see Instant IDS).
Regarding claim 14, Rausch teaches an absorber structure for high-voltage stores (5, Fig. 2, [0033] see explanation, below), comprising:
a main body (10, Fig. 3) which has, on an upper side, an arrangement surface (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3) configured for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (4, Fig. 2),
wherein the main body is a plastics body (13, Fig. 3, [0043], see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation),
and wherein the main body (10) comprises an additional element (11, Fig. 3) made of fiber material (fiber-reinforced plastic, [0044]) and which is configured to provide a shielding or protective action (protect energy store 4, [0037]) with respect to the upper side (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3).
It is the position of the Examiner that the underride guard (5) of Rausch constitutes an absorber structure for high voltage stores because Rausch teaches it provides improved energy absorption in the event of sudden loads (see [0006]) and is used to protect high-voltage stores (energy stores or HV modules, [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, Rausch teaches wherein the plastics body (13, Fig. 3) is a foam body (filling foam, [0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Rausch teaches wherein the additional element (11, Fig. 3) is an organosheet or a glass fiber mat (plate consisting of fibers made of glass, [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Rausch teaches wherein the additional element (11, Fig. 3) forms the arrangement surface ((top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Rausch teaches wherein the fiber material comprises inorganic fibers (fibers made of glass, [0044]).
It is the position of the Examiner that glass fibers are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be inorganic.
Regarding claim 19, Rausch teaches wherein the additional element is configured to have low flammability (see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation) or to be non-combustible (see explanation, below).
It is the position of the Examiner that glass fibers are known to one of ordinary skill in the art to be inflammable and non-combustible.
Regarding claim 21, Rausch teaches wherein the plastics body (13, Fig. 3) is formed from an expanded plastic (plastics material, [0020]) which is foamed (filling foam, [0043]) or formed (originally formed, [0043]) onto the additional element (11, Fig. 3, see [0036]).
Regarding claim 23, Rausch teaches an energy storage arrangement (2, Fig. 2), comprising: an absorber structure according to claim 14 (5, Fig. 2); and the multiplicity of energy storage cells (4, Fig. 2) arranged on the arrangement surface (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 2, see explanation below) of the absorber structure (5).
It is the position of the Examiner that while Rausch teaches a base plate (6) and cooling plates (17) disposed between the top surface of 11 and the energy storage cells (4), Rausch still teaches the cells are arranged on the surface of the absorber structure, albeit indirectly.
Regarding claim 26, Rausch teaches further comprising: a housing (3, Fig. 2) to which the absorber structure (5, Fig. 2) is fastened (see [0039]).
Claims 14 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietz et al. (DE 102012015919, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 14, Dietz teaches an absorber structure for high-voltage stores (18, Fig. 2, [0029]), comprising:
a main body (layers 44, Fig. 6) which has, on an upper side, an arrangement surface (top surface of 18, up in Z-direction, Fig. 6) configured for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (batteries, not shown, fastened on upper side of housing base 18, [0039]),
wherein the main body is a plastics body (fiber-reinforced plastic, [0040]), see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above for interpretation),
and wherein the main body (layers 44) comprises an additional element made of fiber material (carbon or glass fibers, [0040]) and which is configured to provide a shielding or protective action (increase rigidity and stability, [0012]) with respect to the upper side (top surface of 18, up in Z-direction, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 27, Dietz teaches a method for producing an absorber structure (18, Fig. 2, [0040]) for an energy store housing (12, Fig. 2), the method comprising the steps of producing a main body (layers 44, Fig. 6) from plastic (fiber-reinforced plastic, [0040]), the main body having (44), on an upper side, an arrangement surface configured for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells (batteries, not shown, fastened on upper side of housing base 18, [0039]), arranging an additional element made of fiber material (carbon or glass fibers, [0040]), in or on the main body (in reinforced plastic, [0030 and 0040]), the additional element providing a shielding or protective action (increase rigidity and stability, [0012]) with respect to the upper side (top surface of 18, up in Z-direction, Fig. 6).
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.
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 20, 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rausch et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0212530, see Instant IDS), in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2015/0064514, see Instant IDS).
Regarding claim 20, Rausch teaches the additional element (11, Fig. 3),
but does not teach wherein the additional element is configured to be permeable to gas at least in certain regions.
However, Wu teaches an additional element (214/220, Fig. 7, see [0083]) is configured to be permeable to gas at least in certain regions (236, Fig. 7, see [0094-0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additional element of Rausch, such that it comprises gas permeable regions, as taught by Wu, to equalize pressure within the module (see [0095]).
Regarding claim 22, Rausch teaches the main body (10, Fig. 3), the arrangement surface (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3) and the additional element (11, Fig. 3),
but does not teach wherein the main body comprises ventilation openings which extend away from the arrangement surface, and the additional element covers the ventilation openings in the direction of the energy storage cells.
However, Wu teaches wherein the main body (218, Fig. 7) comprises ventilation openings (242, Fig. 7) which extend away (see Fig. 10) from the arrangement surface (top of 220, Fig. 7), and the additional element (220, Fig. 7) covers the ventilation openings (242) in the direction of the energy storage cells (up towards cells within 200, Fig. 7, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the main body of Rausch, such that it comprises ventilation openings, as taught by Wu, to reduce the risk of the cell module bursting under high pressure (see [0094]).
Regarding claim 24, Rausch teaches the main body (10, Fig. 3), the arrangement surface (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3), the additional element (11, Fig. 3), and the energy storage cells (4, Fig. 2),
but does not teach wherein the main body comprises ventilation openings which extend away from the arrangement surface, the additional element covers the ventilation openings in the direction of the energy storage cells, the energy storage cells are round cells which are arranged on the arrangement surface so as to be upright and to extend along a vertical direction, and the ventilation openings are each formed in the extension direction of the energy storage cells.
However, Wu teaches wherein the main body (218, Fig. 7) comprises ventilation openings (242, Fig. 7) which extend away (see Fig. 10) from the arrangement surface (top of 220, Fig. 7), the additional element (220, Fig. 7) covers the ventilation openings (242) in the direction of the energy storage cells (up towards cells within 200, Fig. 7, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the main body of Rausch, such that it comprises ventilation openings, as taught by Wu, to reduce the risk of the cell module bursting under high pressure (see [0094]).
Further, in an alternate embodiment, Wu teaches the energy storage cells (46, Fig. 3) are round cells (round cylinder, [0098]) which are arranged on the arrangement surface (top of 42, Fig. 3) so as to be upright and to extend along a vertical direction (see Fig. 3), and the ventilation openings are each formed in the extension direction (vertical direction, Fig. 3) of the energy storage cells (46, see explanation, below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the energy storage cells of Rausch, such that they were round cylinders that extend in the direction of the ventilation openings, as taught by Wu, to align the cells with the biased vents, allowing for a release of pressure buildup in the cell module (see [0087 and 0090]).
It is the position of the Examiner, that while the ventilation openings (242) are not present in the embodiment of Fig. 3, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine embodiments of Fig. 3 and 7, such that the ventilation openings (242) are provided extending away from the arrangement surface (42) in a manner similar to the depiction of Fig. 7, thereby formed in the vertical extension direction of the cells (46). This is because Wu teaches both embodiments as effective equivalents that would yield the same predictable result of providing a shock absorber to protect the electrical energy storage cells from impact damage ([0011]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 25, Rausch, in view of Wu, teaches wherein the main body (10, Fig. 3) is formed such that ventilation is provided (via 242, Fig. 7 of Wu, see rejection of claim 24 for modification) in a transverse direction (down, Fig. 7, see explanation below).
It is the position of the Examiner that a transverse direction is one that crosses a body or structure; from this interpretation, the ventilation provided by openings 242 in Fig. 7 of Wu is transverse with respect to the thickness direction of the main body (218, Fig. 7).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14, 15 18, 23 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-17, 23, and 27 of copending Application No. 18/294,333 [hereinafter ‘333], in view of Rausch et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0212530).
Regarding claim 14, ‘333 teaches an absorber structure for high-voltage stores, comprising: a main body which has, on an upper side, an arrangement surface configured for arrangement of a multiplicity of energy storage cells, wherein the main body is a plastics body (claim 15 of ‘333), and wherein the main body comprises an additional element (additive, claim 15 of ‘333) which is configured to provide a shielding or protective action (increasing heat resistance, claim 15 of ‘333) with respect to the upper side (claim 17 of ‘333),
but does not teach an additional element made of fiber material.
However, Rausch teaches wherein the main body (10) comprises an additional element made of fiber material (glass fibers, [0044]) and which is configured to provide a shielding or protective action (protect energy store 4, [0037]) with respect to the upper side (top surface of 11, up in Z-direction, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additional element of ‘333, such that it comprises a fiber material configured to shield or protect the upper surface, as taught by Rausch, to mechanically reinforce the energy storage housing assembly (see [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, ‘333, in view of Rausch, teaches wherein the plastics body is a foam body (claim 16 of ‘333).
Regarding claim 18, ‘333, in view of Rausch, teaches wherein the fiber material (added glass fibers of Rausch, see rejection of claim 14 for modification) comprises inorganic (glass, [0044] of Rausch) fibers.
Regarding claim 23, ‘333, in view of Rausch, teaches an energy storage arrangement, comprising: an absorber structure according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14, above); and the multiplicity of energy storage cells arranged on the arrangement surface of the absorber structure (claim 23 of ‘333).
Regarding claim 26, ‘333 teaches further comprising: a housing to which the absorber structure is fastened (claim 27 of ‘333).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights