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.
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 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0271627 to Norita et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0190857 to Schuerz.
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Norita et al. teach a method for manufacturing a tubular enclosure for a battery cell, comprising: bending a sheet made of steel into a tubular body having a prismatic shape, wherein the steel comprises: iron (Fe); carbon in a range from 0.0001-0.015 wt% (fully encompassed the range of 0.01 wt% to 0.1 wt%); niobium in a range from 0-0.2 wt% (fully encompassed the range 0.01 to 0.2 wt%); and a second group, wherein the second group comprises: titanium in a range from 0-0.2 wt% (overlapping range from 0.1 to 0.2 wt%); and silicon in a range from 0.001-1.0 wt% (overlapping range from 0.1 to 1.0 wt%) (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
Norita et al. also acknowledges welding the tubular enclosure, however, Norita et al. suggests using a method of diffusion bonding instead of welding (Norita et al.: Section [0007]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have welding opposite edges of the tubular body to form a weld seam since it was known in the art.
Norita et al. do not specifically teach the method, wherein age hardening the tubular body after welding; wherein the tubular body is age-hardened by heating to a temperature in a range from 400° C to 600° C for a predetermined soak period.
However, Schuerz teaches a method, wherein age hardening a steel corrugated tube 69 (the tubular body); wherein the steel corrugated tube 69 (the tubular body) is age-hardened by heating to a temperature in a range from 400-500 °C (400 °C to 600 °C) for a predetermined soak period (Schuerz: Section [0048]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Norita et al. with the teaching above from Schuerz with the motivation of having a means such it would increase strength of the tube.
With respect to claims 2, Norita et al. teach the method, further comprising forming a cup component 2 (attaching a bottom portion onto one end of the tubular enclosure) (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
With respect to claims 3, instant claim is proviso upon limitation “wherein: the steel comprises the first group and the second group, a weight ratio of Ni/Cu is greater than 0.3, a weight ratio of Ni/Al is in a range from 2 and 5, a weight ratio of Ni/Mn is in a range from 1 to 3, and a weight ratio of Si/Ti is in a range from 1.5 and 3,” which is not required by the claim 1; therefore, the limitation of instant claims do not come into force.
With respect to claims 4, Norita et al. teach the method, wherein: the steel comprises the second group, and a weight ratio of Si/Ti is in a range encompassed the claim range of 1 to 3 (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
With respect to claims 5, instant claim is proviso upon limitation “wherein: the steel comprises the first group, a weight ratio of Ni/Cu is greater than 0.3, a weight ratio of Ni/Al is in a range from 2 to 5, and a weight ratio of Ni/Mn is in a range from 1 to 3,” which is not required by the claim 1; therefore, the limitation of instant claims do not come into force.
With respect to claim 7, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have a precipitation fraction of the steel is in a range from 2 vol % to 20 vol %, and a precipitation particle size is in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 9, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have a thermal conductivity of the steel is greater than 40 W/mK as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 10, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have the steel has a yield strength greater than 700 MPa at room temperature, and the steel maintains a yield strength greater than 200 MPa at 600° C as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claims 11, 12 and 16, Norita et al. teach a tubular enclosure for a battery cell, comprising: bending a sheet made of steel into a tubular body having a prismatic shape, wherein the steel comprises: iron (Fe); carbon in a range from 0.0001-0.015 wt% (fully encompassed the range of 0.01 wt% to 0.1 wt%); niobium in a range from 0-0.2 wt% (fully encompassed the range 0.01 to 0.2 wt%); and a second group, wherein the second group comprises: titanium in a range from 0-0.2 wt% (overlapping range from 0.1 to 0.2 wt%); and silicon in a range from 0.001-1.0 wt% (overlapping range from 0.1 to 1.0 wt%) (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
Norita et al. teach the tubular enclosure, further comprising forming a cup component 2 (a bottom portion attached to one end of the tubular body) (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
Norita et al. also acknowledges welding the tubular enclosure, however, Norita et al. suggests using a method of diffusion bonding instead of welding (Norita et al.: Section [0007]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have welding opposite edges of the tubular body to form a weld seam since it was known in the art.
Norita et al. do not specifically teach the tubular body, wherein age hardening the tubular body after welding; wherein the tubular body is age-hardened by heating to a temperature in a range from 400° C to 600° C for a predetermined soak period.
However, Schuerz teaches a tube, wherein age hardening the steel corrugated tube 69 (the tubular body); wherein the steel corrugated tube 69 (the tubular body) is age-hardened by heating to a temperature in a range from 400-500 °C (400 °C to 600 °C) for a predetermined soak period (Schuerz: Section [0048]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Norita et al. with the teaching above from Schuerz with the motivation of having a means such it would increase strength of the tube.
With respect to claims 13, instant claim is proviso upon limitation “wherein: the steel comprises the first group and the second group, a weight ratio of Ni/Cu is greater than 0.3, a weight ratio of Ni/Al is in a range from 2 and 5, a weight ratio of Ni/Mn is in a range from 1 to 3, and a weight ratio of Si/Ti is in a range from 1.5 and 3,” which is not required by the claim 1; therefore, the limitation of instant claims do not come into force.
With respect to claims 14, Norita et al. teach the tubular enclosure, wherein: the steel comprises the second group, and a weight ratio of Si/Ti is in a range encompassed the claim range of 1 to 3 (Norita et al.: Sections [0011]-[0014]).
With respect to claims 15, instant claim is proviso upon limitation “wherein: the steel comprises the first group, a weight ratio of Ni/Cu is greater than 0.3, a weight ratio of Ni/Al is in a range from 2 to 5, and a weight ratio of Ni/Mn is in a range from 1 to 3,” which is not required by the claim 1; therefore, the limitation of instant claims do not come into force.
With respect to claim 17, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have a precipitation fraction of the steel is in a range from 2 vol % to 20 vol %, and a precipitation particle size is in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 19, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have a thermal conductivity of the steel is greater than 40 W/mK as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 20, Norita et al. teaches the same method of making and composition of the steel enclosure, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed method of making and composition of the steel enclosure and those disclosed by Norita et al., it would have expected for the method of making and composition of the steel enclosure of Norita et al. to have the steel has a yield strength greater than 700 MPa at room temperature, and the steel maintains a yield strength greater than 200 MPa at 600° C as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0271627 to Norita et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0190857 to Schuerz in further view of US Patent Application Publication 2025/0101555 to De et al.
The method of claim 8, Norita et al. do not specifically teach the method, wherein the steel includes nanoprecipitates of Cu, Ni/Al/Ti intermetallics, and Fe.sub.2SiTi intermetallics.
However, De et al. teach a method, wherein the steel includes nanoprecipitates of Cu (De et al.: Section [0020]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Norita et al. with the teaching above from De et al. with the motivation of having a means such it would increase strength of the steel.
The method of claim 18, Norita et al. do not specifically teach the tubular enclosure, wherein the steel includes nanoprecipitates of Cu, Ni/Al/Ti intermetallics, and Fe.sub.2SiTi intermetallics.
However, De et al. teach a steel material, wherein the steel includes nanoprecipitates of Cu (De et al.: Section [0020]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Norita et al. with the teaching above from De et al. with the motivation of having a means such it would increase strength of the steel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights