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 .
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 1-5 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “an inner flange” in line 17 is indefinite because it is unclear whether this “inner flange” is intended to refer to the previously recited inner flange or a different inner flange. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the inner flange” instead of “an inner flange” in line 17.
In claim 1, the limitation “the reinforcing wall” in line 20 is indefinite because it is unclear which of the “at least one reinforcing wall” is being referred to or if the limitation is intended to refer to a different reinforcing wall. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “the at least one reinforcing wall”.
In claims 2 and 4, the limitation “a plurality of the reinforcing walls” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to require that the “at least one reinforcing wall” recited in claim 1 is a plurality of reinforcing walls or that the second member makes up a plurality of reinforcing walls different from the “at least one reinforcing wall”. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a plurality of reinforcing walls” (by removing “the” before “reinforcing”).
In claim 5, the limitation “the thickness of the first member” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a first member’s thickness and therefore it is unclear what thickness of the first member is being referred to (e.g., longitudinal thickness or lateral thickness). This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a thickness of the first member”
Claims 2-5 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20220029224 A1) in view of Toyota (US 20190157642 A1) and Arai (US 20240047809 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chung (US 20220029224 A1) teaches a battery case for a vehicle having a lateral frame (case side wall) having a hollow portion (tubular portion) with a closed cross-sectional structure made up of an upper wall (see location of element 3 in Fig. 3), an inner wall (between elements 11 and 15 in Fig. 4), an outer wall (between elements 5 and 14 in Fig. 4), and a lower wall (between elements 14 and 15 in Fig. 4), a plate 2 (inner flange) disposed along a longitudinal direction of the tubular portion and erected on the inner wall, an outer flange 4 disposed along the longitudinal direction of the tubular portion and erected at a position between an upper edge (5) and a lower edge (14) of the outer wall, and a shock absorption part 30 (at least one reinforcing wall) disposed along the longitudinal direction of the tubular portion in an internal space of the tubular portion at a same height or below the outer flange 4 with an inner side in a vehicle width direction (i.e., the direction from the outer wall to inner wall of the hollow portion) reaching the inner wall and an outer side in the vehicle-width direction reaching the outer wall, wherein the lateral frame (case side wall) is formed of a steel material (plate) that makes up the inner flange, a portion from an upper edge of the inner wall to an erect portion of the inner flange, the upper wall, a portion of the outer wall above the outer flange and the reinforcing wall, wherein the reinforcing wall/shock absorption part may strengthen the resistance to a side impact/collision load and therefore a strength of the case wall below the outer flange (where the shock absorption part/reinforcing wall is placed) would necessarily be higher in strength than the strength of the case wall above the outer flange (para 0009, 0020, 0026-0028, 0031, 0034, 0044-0045; Fig. 3-4).
Chung fails to explicitly teach the inner flange is joined to a lower cover of the battery case and the outer flange is joined to a load receiving member that receives a load in a side collision where the case side wall faces the load receiving member at a portion below the outer flange. However, Toyota (US 20190157642 A1), in the analogous art of vehicle batteries, teaches a battery case 10 having a bottom plate 16 (lower cover) of the battery case that may be connected to a lower inner flange (22H) made of a steel plate/panel (para 0025, 0033, 0036-0037; Fig. 3). Chung teaches the plate 2 may function as a floor member (lower cover) supporting the battery cell and the plate may be connected to the lateral frame by welding (para 0026, 0040; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the floor member and lateral frame attachment of Chung with the bottom plate below a lower inner flange formed by the steel plate because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Arai (US 20240047809 A1), in the analogous art of vehicle batteries, teaches a structural member 108 for absorbing impact energy from a side collision (load receiving member) fastened (joined) to an outer flange of a sidewall of a battery container upper cover by a bolt 1101 such that a portion of the side wall below the flange faces the load receiving structural member (para 0103, 0105, 0196, 0254, 0269-0270; Fig. 10-11). Chung teaches that the sidewall of the case is configured to resist side impact/collision by absorbing shock, wherein the flange 4 may be secured to another body, such as an upper or lower case body, by fasteners such as bolts and nuts (para 0021-0022, 0030, 0044-0045; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the outer flange of Chung to both the upper cover of the battery case and a structural member for absorbing impact energy (load receiving member), as described by Arai, in order to further prevent a side collision from causing damage to the battery and/or battery case.
The previous combination of Chung, Toyota, and Arai fails to explicitly teach the case side wall includes a first member made of one steel plate that makes up an inner flange, a portion from an upper edge of the inner wall to an erect portion of the inner flange, the upper wall, a portion of the outer wall above the outer flange, and the outer flange, and a second member made of one steel plate that makes up the reinforcing wall. However, Toyota teaches that the sidewall may include an outer panel 24 and an inner panel 22 (first and second member) each made of steel plates where the inner panel suppresses deformation of the side wall (reinforcing wall) (para 0031, 0033, 0048, 0075; Fig. 3-4, 14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single steel plate side wall of Chung with two separate steel plates including one steel plate making up the reinforcing walls, as described by Toyota, and the other steel plate making up the rest of the side wall because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chung, Toyota, and Arai teaches a plurality of reinforcing walls 30 formed by the second member where the reinforcing wall at an uppermost position is situated at the same height as the outer flange 4 (Chung Fig. 4; Toyota para 0031, 0033, 0048, 0075, Fig. 3-4). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach a portion of the second member overlaps with the first member to make up the outer flange together with the first member. However, Toyota teaches a side wall may be formed of two steel plates (204, 206), wherein the two steel plates may combine to form flanges (para 0057; Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single steel plate flange arrangement of Chung with flanges formed by combining the two steel plates of Toyota such that they overlap to make the inner and outer flanges because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20220029224 A1) in view of Toyota (US 20190157642 A1) and Arai (US 20240047809 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seok (US 20230420778 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chung, Toyota, and Arai fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the second member is greater than that of the first member. However, Seok (US 20230420778 A1), in the analogous art of battery cases, teaches a side frame with a rectangular closed cross section may be formed of a steel plate with a thickness of 0.8 to 1.0 mm and a reinforcement material installed on the inner surface of the case body made of a steel plate having a thickness of 1.0 to 1.2 mm and thicker than the steel plate of the side frame, where the thickness may be controlled to increase resistance to a collision (para 0038-0039, 0061, 0082-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thicknesses of the first and second member of Chung in view of Toyota with a second member comprising the reinforcement material/wall having a thickness greater than the first member making up the rest of the side wall to control the resistance of the side wall to collisions and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20220029224 A1) in view of Toyota (US 20190157642 A1) and Arai (US 20240047809 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (US 20250313269 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chung, Toyota, and Arai teaches a plurality of reinforcing walls 30 formed by the second member (Chung Fig. 4; Toyota para 0031, 0033, 0048, 0075, Fig. 3-4). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach the case wall further includes a third member made of one steel plate that makes up a portion of the outer wall below the outer flange and that also partially overlaps with the first member to make up the outer flange together with the first member. However, Saito (US 20250313269 A1), in the analogous art of battery cases, teaches a battery frame assembly 13 including a plurality of steel sheet parts including a first sheet forming an inner wall, upper wall, and outer flange, a second sheet disposed within a space (reinforcement wall), and a third sheet forming a lower wall, outer wall, and joining with the first steel sheet to form an outer flange (para 0027; Fig. 2). Toyota teaches a side wall may be formed of two steel plates (204, 206), wherein the two steel plates may combine to form flanges (para 0057; Fig. 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two steel sheet arrangement of Chung in view of Toyota with a three steel sheet arrangement including a first steel sheet (first member) covering the outer flange to the inner flange along the upper wall, a second steel sheet (second member) forming the reinforcement walls within the space created by the other steel sheets, and a third steel sheet (third member) covering from the outer flange to the inner flange along the lower wall and overlapping with the first member to form the outer and inner flanges together with the first member because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20220029224 A1) in view of Toyota (US 20190157642 A1), Arai (US 20240047809 A1), and Saito (US 20250313269 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Seok (US 20230420778 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chung, Toyota, Arai, and Saito fails to explicitly teach thicknesses of the second member and the third member are greater than the thickness of the first member. However, Seok (US 20230420778 A1), in the analogous art of battery cases, teaches a side frame with a rectangular closed cross section may be formed of a steel plate with a thickness of 0.8 to 1.0 mm and a reinforcement material installed on the inner surface of the case body made of a steel plate having a thickness of 1.0 to 1.2 mm and thicker than the steel plate of the side frame, where the thickness may be controlled to increase resistance to a collision (para 0038-0039, 0061, 0082-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thicknesses of the first and second member of Chung in view of Toyota with a second member comprising the reinforcement material/wall having a thickness greater than the first member making up the rest of the side wall to control the resistance of the side wall to collisions and because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the thickness of the third member is greater than the thickness of the first member. However, Seok teaches that the side frame may have a thickness of 0.8 to 1.0 mm (para 0038-0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thicknesses of the first and third members, which both make up the side wall/frame surrounding the reinforcing wall, with thicknesses of 0.8 to 1.0 mm because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the combination of Chung, Toyota, Arai, Saito, and Seok fails to explicitly teach the third member has a larger thickness than the first member, the thickness of the third member must necessarily be larger, the same, or smaller than the thickness of the first member. Additionally, Seok teaches that the thickness of the plate materials influences the collision performance of the battery case (para 0078), thus recognizing the thickness of the plates as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of plate thickness for each of the first and third members by routine optimization, which can include a larger thickness of the third member than the first member. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Alternatively, one would have expected the use of any values within the Seok range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.8 to 1 mm as the thicknesses of the first member and third member, including values where the thickness of the third member is greater than the thickness of the first member, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights