DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/578,373.
This is a 371 national stage filing of PCT/EP2021/074261, also claiming priority to German document DE10 2021 119 194.7.
Claims 1-12 were preliminarily cancelled.
Claims 13-24 were added and are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 17 refer to “the support layer” but seems to mean “the supporting layer”. 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.
Claim 24 is 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.
The metes and bounds of claim 24 are unclear in terms of the drive battery which “increases body stiffness” wherein the components do not change upon use. While understandable that the battery could provide stiffness in the event of a collision or driving, it is unclear how the components are intended to “increase” stiffness, a value which is inherent to the material itself.
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.
Claim(s) 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al (WO 2021235783A1, wherein an English machine translation is provided and cited herein), in view of YOO et al (US PG PUB 2020/0194853A1).
Regarding claim 13, CHOI et al teaches a drive battery for a motor vehicle (technical field), comprising:
a drive battery housing (module case) having a top wall (cover portion, 217) and a bottom wall (bottom portion, 218);
a battery cell layer (100) with a multiplicity of battery cells (100), which multiplicity of battery cells are arranged vertically and next to one another (see figure 2); and
the battery cell layer (100) has a battery cell layer support structure (220/220, “reinforcing member”) which forms a collision load path in a vertical direction of the drive battery (2nd full paragraph of page 7 teaches the reinforcing member to be fixed to the top wall and the bottom wall. 1st full paragraph of page 7 teaches the reinforcing member to have “excellent mechanical rigidity”. 3rd full paragraph of page 7 teaches the reinforcing member can help precent deformation upon external impact. Together these teachings indicate the reinforcing layer or battery cell layer support structure will form a “collision load path in the vertical direction”.)
CHOI et al teaches the use of an internal space wherein the batteries can be inserted and accommodated, but CHOI et al fails to teach a supporting layer which is arranged between the battery cell layer and the bottom wall, wherein the battery cell layer and the supporting layer are arranged in the drive battery housing.
YOO et al teaches a battery case comprising vertically oriented cylindrical batteries, just as in CHOI et al, as shown in figure 1. YOO et al further teaches the use of a supporting layer (200 and/or 300, “fixing layer” or “adhesive solution”) for supporting and fixing the batteries in a vertical pattern (paragraphs [0039] and [0047]) within the case (see figure 1).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the fixing frame and/or adhesive (supporting layer) of YOO et al to hold the battery arrangement of CHOI et al so as to provide support and a fixed location for the batteries, rendering a supporting layer which is arranged between the battery cell layer and the bottom wall, wherein the battery cell layer and the supporting layer are arranged in the drive battery housing.
Regarding claim 14, modified CHOI et al teaches the battery cell layer support structure (CHOI et al, 220) is formed between the battery cells (see figure 3 of CHOI et al) and, in an event of a collision load, is supported in the vertical direction on the support layer and on the top wall (CHOI et al teaches extending from top to bottom (2nd full paragraph of page 7) and wherein inclusion of the support layer of YOO et al such as the adhesive or as in the walls would enable vertical engagement between the top wall and support layer), and the battery cell layer support structure substantially fills an intermediate space between the battery cells (figure 4 of CHOI et al shows layer 220/232 to substantially fill an intermediate space between the central batteries).
Regarding claim 15, CHOI et al teaches the battery cell layer support structure is formed such that a collision load in the vertical direction, at a beginning of a collision, acts only on the battery cell layer support structure and not on the battery cells (2nd paragraph of page 8 of CHOI et al teaches the reinforcing wall to be taller than the batteries, rendering any vertical impact to impinge the tallest portion (support structure) first).
Regarding claim 16, CHOI et al teaches the battery cell layer support structure (200/220), in the vertical direction of the drive battery, has a higher strength and/or stiffness than the battery cells (The final 2 full paragraphs pf page 2 teach the batteries to be metal can type while the reinforcing member is taught to be metal with “excellent mechanical rigidity” (2nd full paragraph of page 7). While not directly compared, it would have been obvious to utilize a material with higher strength and/or stiffness for the reinforcing member than the batteries so as to use the rigid member to protect the less rigid interior components. Moreover, the interior components of the battery (including a separator/electrolyte etc.) would obviously be less rigid than the metal material selected for its rigidity.).
Regarding claim 17, modified CHOI et al teaches the support layer (YOO et al, 200) is plastically deformable (paragraph [0056] teaches component 200 to be made of plastic) at a lower force level than the battery cell layer support structure (taught to be made of rigid metal) (the plastic structure is obviously plastically deformable at a lower force level than the rigid metal selected for its non-deforming properties).
Regarding claim 18, CHOI et al teaches the battery cell layer support structure (200/220) is of single-piece form (200) or at least consists essentially of single-piece battery cell layer support structure parts (200/220) which are each configured to receive a plurality of battery cells (figure 4 shows the wavy or curved shape of the support structure to conform with the battery shape or receive the batteries), and the battery cell layer support structure (200/220) has receiving spaces for receiving a respective battery cell in a form-fitting manner (shown in figure 4 to fit the shape of the battery cell).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations regarding cells being “pressed into the battery cell layer support structure” and the deformation which occurs “when introducing the battery cells into the battery cell layer support structure” are product-by-process limitations. The claim is directed to a product and the method by which these projections or deformations occur does not impact the final structure. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product -by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).) For this reason, the structure required by the claim only necessitates the battery cell layer support structure to have projections (either elastic or plastic) which mirror the battery shaping. For this reason, CHOI et al teaches the battery cells are pressed into the battery cell layer support structure, and/or the battery cell layer support structure has deformable projections which are elastically and/or plastically deformable when introducing the battery cells into the battery cell layer support structure (curved shape of battery cell layer support structure 200 which is formed to the shape of the battery, see figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, CHOI et al teaches the battery cells are glued into the battery cell layer support structure (adhesive 230 bonds the batteries to the support structure 200, see figure 4).
Regarding claim 21, CHOI et al teaches the battery cell layer support structure is formed from a metallic material (1st full paragraph of page 7), and the battery cell layer support structure is extruded (This is a product-by-process limitation and is not given patentable weight within the product claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product -by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).).
Regarding claim 22, CHOI et al teaches the use of a metal battery cell layer support with adhesive thereon (see figures 4 and 6). YOO et al teaches the use of a thermally conductive adhesive to assist in rapidly dissipating heat to the outside of the module (paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to utilize the thermally conductive adhesive of YOO et al as the adhesive present in the battery cell layer support structure, to assist is dissipating heat generated within the batteries. Therefore, modified CHOI et al teaches the device is further comprising: a heat exchanger for controlling the temperature of the battery cells formed in the battery cell layer support structure.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein the drive battery is configured for fitting to a floor subassembly of a body of the motor vehicle , wherein the bottom wall at least partially forms an undertray of the motor vehicle” is interpreted as intended use of the device, as the vehicle, undertray and arrangement are not positively cited. For this reason, the shape of modified CHOI et al with a solid, flat box (figure 1) is interpreted to render a drive battery capable of fitting to a floor subassembly of a body of the motor vehicle, wherein the bottom wall at least partially forms an undertray of the motor vehicle.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al, in view of YOO et al and GUNTHER (WO 2021/105328 A1, wherein US PG PUB 2023/0006297 is cited herein as the English equivalent).
Regarding claim 24, modified CHOI et al teaches a drive battery according to claim 13, comprising a reinforcing member (CHOI et al, 200) which provides stiffness as addressed in the rejection of claim 13. In light of the 35 USC 112 rejection above, it is the position of the Examiner the use of a stiffening member installed for vibration and impact from driving will necessarily increase body stiffness for driving operation of the motor vehicle and in an event that the motor vehicle is subjected to a collision load. Modified CHOI et al fails to teach the motor vehicle to comprise a body wherein the device battery is fitted to a floor subassembly of the body from below.
GUNTHER teaches a battery housing for a vehicle, just as in modified CHOI et al, in figures 1 and 2. GUNTHER further teaches the vehicle to utilize the battery installed on the frame in the floor region, while emphasizing the importance of low-deformation battery units for installation thereon (paragraph [0002]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to utilize the battery device of modified CHOI et al in the floor of the vehicle body of GUNTHER so as to provide power in a low deformation unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 20 2018 106 177 U1 shows a supporting layer within a battery module with vertically oriented batteries, just as in claim 13, but absent a “battery cell layer support structure”. This could be combined with a reference like EP 2626922 (provided by the Applicant) which details the use of a plastic material intermediate to the cells which provides support and rigidity, teaching claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights