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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the term "said" in line 5, which is legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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 1, the term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” 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, this term will be interpreted as definite rather than probably, and will not be ref.
Regarding claim 4, the term “strictly superior than” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strictly superior” 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, this term will be interpreted as "greater than".
Regarding claim 5, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation "greater than or equal to 280 MPa", and the claim also recites "and in particular greater than or equal to 320 MPa and more particularly greater than or equal to 340 MPa" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation "greater than or equal to 200 MPa", and the claim also recites "and more particularly greater than or equal to 240 MPa, and in particular greater than or equal to 280 MPa" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is indefinite because it recites the term “fixed to the at least one external profile (30) by fixing means”, while being dependent on claim 1, which recites “said at least one internal profile (10) being integral with said at least one internal profile (30)”, and it is unclear how the two pieces can be formed integrally and also fixed by a fixing means.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, & 10-15 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nierhoff et al. (DE 102016115037 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nierhoff teaches a manufacturing process of a battery holder (battery box 1) for a transport vehicle (Par. 0001) comprising the following steps: a. a step of forming at least one internal profile (reinforcing structure 6) in which a first material having a first yield strength value (Par. 0028, manganese-boron steel is used with a yield strength of 1350 MPa) is formed so as to form said at least one internal profile (Par. 0020 describes formation of the reinforcing structure 6); b. a step of provision of at least one external profile (connecting profile 12) formed in a second material distinct from the first material (Par. 0013, any kind of steel may be used, including those different than manganese-boron steel) and having a second yield strength value (Par. 0013, 750 MPa) (Par. 0013 describes formation of the connecting profile 12); c. a step of manufacturing of a frame part (side wall construction 2) by securing said at least one internal profile with said at least one external profile means (Par. 0020, the reinforcing structure 6 and box profile 4 are integrally formed; Par. 0071, the connecting profile 12 is fastened to the box profile 4; thus, the two parts are secured through the box profile 4), said frame part defining at least part of a periphery of a frame (Par. 0011; Fig. 10), said frame being configured to absorb all or part of shocks by an external element likely to be applied to the battery holder (Par. 0020, 0038; the side wall construction 2 comprising the connecting profile 12 and reinforcing structure 6 is configured to absorb the load generated by an impact).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierhoff et al. (DE 102016115037 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nierhoff teaches a battery holder (battery box 1) for a transport vehicle (Par. 0001), the battery holder comprising a frame (box profile 4) and a floor (base 10) delimiting between them a housing intended to receive all or part of a battery (Par. 0054), said frame comprising at least one frame part (side wall construction 2, Fig. 1) extending over all or part of a circumference of the frame (Par. 0011), said at least one frame part being configured to absorb all or part of shocks by an external element to be applied to the battery holder (Par. 0038), said frame part comprising at least one internal profile (reinforcing structure 6) and at least one external profile (connecting profile 12), said at least one internal profile being positioned between said at least one external profile and the floor (Fig. 1, a portion of the reinforcing structure 6 is positioned between the connecting profile 12 and base 10), wherein said at least one internal profile is a profile formed from a first material having a first yield strength value (Par. 0028, manganese-boron steel is used with a yield strength of 1350 MPa), said first yield strength value being chosen so as to limit or prevent deformation of the at least one internal profile (Par. 0029, crash performance of the reinforcing structure 6 is improved), wherein said at least one external profile is formed from a second material distinct from the first material (Par. 0013, any type of steel may be used, including those different than manganese-boron steel) and having a second yield strength value (Par. 0013, 750 MPa), the at least one external profile being configured to deform prior to the internal profile, so as to absorb all or part of the energy coming from said shocks to be applied to the battery holder by said external element (Par. 0013, “forms a first barrier in the event of a crash and allows a load to be introduced into the side wall structure”). Nierhoff fails to teach the at least one internal profile being integral with the at least one external profile, which is being interpreted as being formed with the at least one external profile as one piece, as the disclosure is ambiguous regarding the term “integral.”
However, the examiner notes that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Nierhoff is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, the examiner notes that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. As the claimed least one external profile is obvious over that taught by Nierhoff, the claim is unpatentable even though the at least one external profile taught by Nierhoff was made by a different process that does not involve extrusion.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner notes that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. As the claimed least one internal profile is obvious over that taught by Nierhoff, the claim is unpatentable even though the at least one internal profile taught by Nierhoff was made by a different process that does not involve extrusion.
Regarding claim 4, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 1, wherein the first yield strength value is greater than the second yield strength value (Par. 0028, 0013; the first yield strength of the reinforcing structure 6 is 1350 MPa, and the second yield strength of the connecting profile 12 is 750 MPa).
Regarding claim 5, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 5, wherein the first yield strength value of the first material constituting the at least one internal profile is greater than 340 MPa (Par. 0028, 1350 MPa).
Regarding claim 6, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 6, wherein the second yield strength value of the second material constituting the at least one external profile is greater than 280 MPa (Par. 0013, 750 MPa).
Regarding claim 7, Nierhoff fails to teach the at least one internal profile and at least one external profile being integral with each other along a longitudinal direction.
However, the examiner notes that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Nierhoff is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See MPEP 2144.04(V)(A)).
Regarding claim 8, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 7, wherein at least one of said internal and external profiles has a cross section, viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, which is constant along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 1, wherein the at least one internal profile is fixed to the at least one external profile by fixing means (Par. 0020, the reinforcing structure 6 and box profile 4 are integrally formed; Par. 0071, the connecting profile 12 is fastened to the box profile 4; thus, the two parts are fixed together through the box profile 4).
Regarding claim 10, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 1, wherein the circumference of the frame has a closed shape encircling the floor (Par. 0011, Fig. 10; the box profile 4 is formed the entire way around the frame), said frame circumference further comprises a plurality of frame edges meeting two by two at their ends (Fig. 10), at least one of said frame edges among the plurality of frame edges being constituted by said frame part (Par. 0007, the box portion has a side wall that is constituted by the side wall structure 2; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Nierhoff teaches the battery holder of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a plurality of frame parts (Par. 0014; the battery box 1 may have multiple connection profiles 12 on each side, thus it may have multiple side wall constructions 2 on each side, as the connection portions 12 are part of the side wall constructions 2).
Regarding claim 12, Nierhoff teaches an electric transport vehicle comprising at least one battery holder of claim 1 (Par. 0054, battery box 1 is used in a vehicle; Par. 0005, “electric vehicles”).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierhoff, in view of Guener et al. (DE 102012209349 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nierhoff fails to teach the second material being extruded to form the at least one external profile.
However, Guener teaches an external profile (Par. 0007; “The extruded profile further comprises an outer wall which is directed outwards”) which is formed by extruding steel (Par. 0010; the starting material for the extruded profile may be steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery holder manufacturing process taught by Nierhoff by incorporating a step of extruding the external profile material to form the external profile, as taught by Guener. As the process of extrusion and its advantages are known in the art, one of ordinary skill would have determined that it would be predictable to use extrusion to form an external profile.
Regarding claim 15, Nierhoff fails to teach the first material being extruded to form the at least one internal profile.
However, Guener teaches an internal profile (Par. 0007; “This at least one extruded profile of the battery housing comprises an inner wall which defines one side of the interior space”) which is formed by extruding steel (Par. 0010; the starting material for the extruded profile may be steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery holder manufacturing process taught by Nierhoff by incorporating a step of extruding the internal profile material to form the internal profile, as taught by Guener. As the process of extrusion and its advantages are known in the art, one of ordinary skill would have determined that it would be predictable to use extrusion to form an internal profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights