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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a fiber-reinforced polymer composite component, classified in H01M2220/20.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a process of making a fiber-reinforced polymer composite component, classified in B29C70/745.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the fiber-reinforced polymer composite component invention in Group I need not be made by injection molding as specified by Group 2, Claim 15; for example, it could be formed by casting. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
A search for methods used to make a fiber-reinforced polymer composite component would not yield results for a fiber-reinforced polymer composite battery casing for use in vehicles, as evidenced by their divergent classifications.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mark Levine (60300) on Aug 6, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US-9331321-B2) in view of Kitaru (JP-2014141048-A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to as Berger and Kitaru, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Berger teaches a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite component (“FIG. 7 shows, in perspective exploded view a representative battery support and cover fabricated of woven fiber reinforced polymers,” Description, paragraph 7; Fig. 7), comprising: a component body formed with a polymer matrix material (“The polymer matrix may be a heat-curable, thermosetting resin which may be impregnated into the reinforcements to form a prepreg and then cured in a shaped mold at elevated temperature,” Background/Summary, paragraph 10); a fiber preform encapsulated within the component body and formed with a cluster of fibers bound together in a predefined formation (“Components may be fabricated by cutting a suitable length of the composite rolled fabric, heating it above the polymer glass transition temperature placing it in a mold and allowing the flowable thermoplastic to impregnate the reinforcing fibers, and cooling to below its glass transition temperature while in the mold,” Background/Summary, paragraph 11); and a polymer seal (“The battery pack enclosure structure may generally resemble a closed box formed of an upper section, or cover, and a lower section, or support, secured together by mechanical fasteners, such as bolts, rivets or clamps, along a joint line and secured against intrusion by an elastomeric seal,” Background/Summary, paragraph 14; 56 in Fig. 7).
Berger does not teach that the polymer seal includes a seal head and a mounting base, the mounting base stitched to the fiber preform and at least partially encapsulated within the component body, and the seal head protruding from the fiber preform and extending through an aperture in the component body. However, Kitaru teaches a functional member-integrated fiber-reinforced polymer composite material comprising a component body formed with a polymer matrix material and a fiber preform encapsulated within the component body and formed with a cluster of fibers bound together in a predefined formation (“The fiber structure 2 to which the vertical thread Z has been added is impregnated with resin 12 and solidified,” paragraph 23; “While epoxy resin is used, other thermosetting or thermoplastic resins can also be used,” paragraph 23). Kitaru teaches a functional member, e.g., for fastening or sealing, where the mounting base is stitched to the fiber preform and at least partially encapsulated within the component body, and the head protruding from the fiber preform (Figs. 5a-d show that the mounting base is stitched to the fiber preform and is encapsulated in the component body, while the head protrudes out of the fiber preform). Kitaru teaches that the benefit is “to enable accurate and easy connection” (paragraph 7) and to ensure “the functional components are firmly bonded to the fibrous structure” (paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the FRP composite component and polymer seal taught by Berger and modify the polymer seal such that the seal include a seal head and mounting base, where the mounting base is stitched into the preform using the strategy taught by Kitaru. Doing so enables an easier, more accurate sealing contact and more firmly bonds the seal to the fibrous structure of Berger’s FRP component body, as taught by Kitaru.
Regarding Claim 2, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein Kitaru further teaches the mounting base includes a first face abutting the fiber preform, a second face opposite the first face and at least partially exposed through the aperture in the component body, and opposing first and second edges extending between and connecting the first and second faces (Figs. 5a and 5b show the first face is abutting the fiber preform, and the second face is at least partially exposed, where the first and second edges connect the first and second faces).
Regarding Claim 3, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 2, wherein Kitaru further teaches the first face, the first and second edges, and a portion of the second face are covered by the polymer matrix material (Fig. 5b).
Regarding Claim 4, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein Kitaru further teaches the polymer seal is stitched to the fiber preform via stiches looping through the mounting base and the cluster of fibers (“the flange having multiple through holes is embedded inside the fiber structure, increasing the contact area with the fiber structure. As a result, it can work in cooperation with the wire connecting the functional member and the fiber structure to firmly bond the functional member to the fiber structure,” paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein Kitaru further teaches the fiber preform includes a dry multiaxial-fiber fabric sheet (“Fabrics 4a and 4b are plain weave fabrics in which multiple weft threads X and warp threads Y, using carbon fibers as reinforcing fibers, intersect at right angles in the planar direction,” paragraph 18; “woven fabrics 4a and 4b may also be constructed by adding threads that intersect diagonally with the weft threads X and warp threads Y that intersect at right angles,” paragraph 18).
Regarding Claim 12, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein the modification by Kitaru teaches that the FRP component body, the functional member, and the fiber preform are fabricated as a single-piece structure and joined together without adhesives and fasteners (Figs. 5a-d show that the functional member and fiber preform are fabricated as a single-piece structure and joined together via stitching not adhesives or fastening, and the component body is also joined not by adhesive of fastening: “The fiber structure 2 to which the vertical thread Z has been added is impregnated with resin 12 and solidified,” paragraph 23).
Regarding Claim 13, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 12, wherein Berger further teaches the component body is shaped as a rigid battery tray configured to receive thereon a cluster of rechargeable battery cells (“this invention pertains to the design and use of a molded, resin bonded, woven glass or carbon fiber fabric structure for a battery pack support, tray, cover, enclosure or the like,” Background/Summary, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Berger teaches a motor vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body; a plurality of road wheels attached to the vehicle body; a traction motor attached to the vehicle body and configured to drive one or more of the road wheels to thereby propel the motor vehicle; a traction battery pack attached to the vehicle body and configured to power the traction motor, the traction battery pack including a plurality of battery cells; and a battery enclosure attached to the vehicle body and containing therein the traction battery pack, the battery enclosure including (“it may be preferred to accommodate multiple battery packs into a single enclosure,” Background/Summary, paragraph 12; “The enclosure may be of uniform or variable thickness and of uniform or variable strength depending on the mounting and loading requirements of a particular vehicle. An enclosure may also incorporate pads, supports or hooks attached to or embedded in the enclosure to enable lifting and transporting the enclosure, and its battery, during fabrication of the enclosure or during installation of the enclosure, and battery, in a vehicle,” Background/Summary, paragraph 13):
an enclosure lid; and a battery tray sealed to the enclosure lid (Fig. 7), the battery tray formed with a polymer matrix material and a fiber preform encapsulated entirely within the polymer matrix material, the fiber preform formed with a cluster of fibers bound together in a predefined formation (“Components may be fabricated by cutting a suitable length of the composite rolled fabric, heating it above the polymer glass transition temperature placing it in a mold and allowing the flowable thermoplastic to impregnate the reinforcing fibers, and cooling to below its glass transition temperature while in the mold,” Background/Summary, paragraph 11), the battery tray having an elastomer seal extending through an elongated slot in the battery tray, compressed against the enclosure lid (56 in Fig. 7).
Berger does not teach that the elastomer seal is integrally formed with the battery tray and has a seal head and a mounting base, the mounting base stitched to the fiber preform and at least partially encapsulated within the polymer matrix material, and the seal head protruding from the fiber preform. However, Kitaru teaches a functional member-integrated fiber-reinforced polymer composite material comprising a component body formed with a polymer matrix material and a fiber preform encapsulated within the component body and formed with a cluster of fibers bound together in a predefined formation (“The fiber structure 2 to which the vertical thread Z has been added is impregnated with resin 12 and solidified,” paragraph 23; “While epoxy resin is used, other thermosetting or thermoplastic resins can also be used,” paragraph 23). Kitaru teaches a functional member, e.g., for fastening or sealing, where the mounting base is stitched to the fiber preform and at least partially encapsulated within the component body, and the seal head protruding from the fiber preform (Figs. 5a-d show that the mounting base is stitched to the fiber preform and is encapsulated in the component body, while the head protrudes out of the fiber preform). Kitaru teaches that the benefit is “to enable accurate and easy connection” (paragraph 7) and to ensure “the functional components are firmly bonded to the fibrous structure” (paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery tray and seal taught by Berger and modify the seal to include a mounting base stitched into the preform and seal head protruding out of the preform, through the design taught by Kitaru. Doing so enables an easier, more accurate connection between the two sides of Berger’s FRP battery tray and more firmly bond the seals to the fibrous structure of Berger’s FRP battery tray, as taught by Kitaru.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Kitaru and in further view of Elasto Proxy (“Extruded Rubber Seals: Five Types You Need to Know”), hereafter referred to as Elasto Proxy.
Regarding Claim 5, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein Kitaru further teaches the mounting base includes first and second flanges projecting transversely from one side of the functional member.
Neither Kitaru nor Berger teach that the seal head includes a hollow bulb head. However, Elasto Proxy teaches a bulb seal that includes first and second flanges projecting transversely from one side of the hollow bulb head (“Bulb seals have an open, rounded or teardrop-shaped area that gives these distinctive-looked rubber products their name,” paragraph 3 and accompanying image of the bulb seal).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the FRP composite component and polymer seal taught by Berger and modified by Kitaru and further modify the seal head to have a hollow bulb in order to establish a robust seal, as taught by Elasto Proxy.
Regarding Claim 6, Berger modified by Kitaru and Elasto Proxy teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein Elasto Proxy teaches that the polymer seal, including the seal head and the mounting base, is formed with an elastomeric material (“Elasto Proxy stocks extrusions made of solid rubber,” paragraph 1; the accompanying image shows the bulb seal comprises a mounting base and seal head as a single structure made of rubber). However, Elasto Proxy does not specify that the elastomeric material having an elasticity of at least about 0.45 gigapascals (GPa) and a melting point of at least about 145 degrees Celsius (oC). However, the instant application provides examples of elastomeric materials that satisfy these properties: “In this instance, the elastomeric material may be a natural or synthetic rubber, a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) polymer, or a silicone polymer” (paragraph 15). Elasto Proxy’s extrusion seals, including the bulb seals, are made of natural or synthetic rubber. Thus, the bulb seal taught by Elasto Proxy inherently satisfies the claim, per the instant application.
Regarding Claim 7, Berger modified by Kitaru and Elasto Proxy teaches the composite component of claim 6, wherein Elasto Proxy teaches that the elastomeric material is a natural or synthetic rubber, a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) polymer, or a silicone polymer (“Elasto Proxy stocks extrusions made of solid rubber,” paragraph 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Kitaru and in further view of Harrington (US-20150299407-A1), hereafter referred to as Harrington.
Regarding Claim 9, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 8, wherein Kitaru further teaches that the polymer matrix material includes an epoxy resin (“While epoxy resin is used, other thermosetting or thermoplastic resins can also be used,” paragraph 23). Kitaru does not specify that the epoxy resin be fast-curing with a cure time of about 3 minutes or less at about 100-140 oC. However, Harrington teaches a fast-curing epoxy resin for use in fiber-reinforced resin composites. Harrington teaches a fast-curing epoxy resin with a cure time of about 3 minutes or less at about 100-140 oC (“the invention provides a prepreg comprising fibrous reinforcement and an epoxy resin formulation that can be cured at 150° C. in no more than 150 seconds,” paragraph 35; “and can be cured at 120° C. in no more than 30 s to 220 s, preferably from 80 s to 200 s, more preferably from 130 s to 190 s,” paragraph 36). Harrington explains that the benefit is to “allow faster moulding cycles to be employed in the production of articles therefrom. Articles are often manufactured from fibre reinforced epoxy resins,” paragraph 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the FRP composite component taught by Berger and modified by Kitaru and further modify the epoxy resin to specifically be the fast-curing epoxy resin taught by Harrington, in order to more quickly manufacture the fiber-reinforced epoxy resin composite component.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Kitaru and in further view of Hollander (US-20140265020-A1), hereafter referred to as Hollander.
Regarding Claim 10, Berger modified by Kitaru teaches the composite component of claim 1, wherein the mounting base of the polymer seal is stitched to the fiber preform using a polymer thread (“vertical thread Z is continuously inserted through 54 insertion holes 9 so as to sew the flange 7 into the woven fabric 4a, integrating the fastening member 3 with the fiber structure 2,” paragraph 22; “The wire material used for the weft X, warp Y, or vertical Z constituting the fiber structure 2 is not limited to carbon fiber; aramid fiber, glass fiber, ceramic fiber, etc., can also be used,” paragraph 52; Figs. 5a-d). Kitaru does not specify that the stitch be a chain stitch or a tricot stitch. However, Hollander teaches a method for robustly weaving materials into fiber preforms. Therein, Hollander teaches that one such stitching method for this is chain stitch [“fiber connections may be used to connect layers with interlayer fibers, such as sewing (for example using a lock stitch, chain stitch, or overlock stitch),” paragraph 85].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the FRP composite component and seal taught by Berger and modified by Kitaru and further modify such that the seal is stitched specifically via a chain stitch in order to provide a robust connection using a very well-established stitching technique, as taught by Hollander.
Regarding Claim 11, Berger, modified by Kitaru and further modified by Hollander, teaches the composite component of claim 10, wherein Hollander further teaches the polymer thread is formed with a polyester material or a nylon material (“high strength fiber, such as nylon fiber, which will be used to form a supporting shelf for a fiber layer in the layer assembly stage,” paragraph 107). As noted in the excerpt, Hollander teaches that the benefit of nylon is that it is a high-strength fiber for use as structural support.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to take the FRP composite component and seal taught by Berger and modified by Kitaru and Hollander, and further modify to use stitching fibers specifically made of nylon, as taught by Hollander. Please see MPEP § 2144.07: “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.”
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights