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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 3/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 8-9, and 20 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.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first beam component and the second beam component are connected via an adhesive component” however in claim 1 it recites that the first and second beam component are connected via a weld seam. It is unclear how the beam components can be connected via both an adhesive component and a weld seam unless the weld seam is to be interpreted to as an adhesive component. Claim 20 has an identical issue to that of claim 8 claim 19 recites where the beam components are connected with a weld but claim 20 recites where the beam components are connected via an adhesive. It is unclear which connection method is actually present.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bluemel (US 20210273285).
In regards to claim 1, Bluemel discloses a frame (200) for a traction battery assembly of a vehicle (see fig. 10-15), the frame (200) comprising: a first beam component (222); and a second beam component (224), wherein the first beam component and the second beam component are connected via a weld seam (278, 286), wherein the weld seam comprises at least one curved section (see fig. 11), and wherein the weld seam further comprises a friction stir weld seam (see para. 0062).
Examiner notes Bluemel discloses the battery is an on vehicle high voltage pack used for vehicle operation but fails to explicitly disclose the battery characterization of a traction battery. Examiner notes "traction battery assembly " as recited in the preamble is considered to state an intended use or field of use and does note positively recite structural limitations beyond those set forth in the body of the claim, therefore, the structure of Bluemel meets this claim limitation.
In regards to claim 2, Bluemel discloses wherein the first beam component extends along a first beam direction and the second beam component extends along a second beam direction (222 and 224 extend in perpendicular directions), and wherein at least a portion of the weld seam extends along a direction being perpendicular to both the first beam direction and the second beam direction (the weld seam has a thickness extending perpendicular to the surfaces of the beams, see fig. 11, see fig. 15 weld 278).
In regards to claim 5, Bluemel discloses wherein the weld seam (278, 286) is a continuous weld seam (see fig.11).
In regards to claim 7, Bluemel discloses wherein the weld seam is arranged on an exterior side of the frame (see weld 278, 286 on the exterior side of the fame member 224 fig. 11).
In regards to claim 10, Bluemel discloses wherein one of the first beam component (222) or the second beam (224) component is a longitudinal beam component and one of the first beam component (222) or the second beam component (224) is a transversal beam component (see fig. 11).
In regards to claim 11, Bluemel discloses wherein the frame (200) is a structural floor component of the vehicle (see para. 0045, the battery frame may be mounted within a floor… of a vehicle such as a passenger car or truck).
In regards to claim 19, Bluemel discloses a method for producing a frame (200) for a traction battery assembly of a vehicle, the method comprising: providing a first beam component (222) and a second beam component (224); and connecting the first beam component and the second beam component via a friction stir weld seam comprising at least one curved section (278, 286, see fig. 11, para. 0062).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluemel (US 20210273285).
In regards to claim 12, Bluemel discloses A traction battery assembly for a vehicle, the traction battery assembly comprising: a frame (200) (see fig. 10-15)comprising: a first beam component (222); and a second beam component (224), wherein the first beam component and the second beam component are connected via a weld seam (278, 286), wherein the weld seam comprises at least one curved section (see fig. 11), and wherein the weld seam further comprises a friction stir weld seam (see para. 0062) and at least one battery cell arranged inside the frame(battery cells inside of the battery boxes held by the frame 200). Examiner notes Bluemel discloses the battery is an on vehicle high voltage pack used for vehicle operation but fails to explicitly disclose the battery characterization of a traction battery. Examiner notes "traction battery assembly " as recited in the preamble is considered to state an intended use or field of use and does not positively recite structural limitations beyond those set forth in the body of the claim, therefore, the structure of Bluemel meets this claim limitation.
Bluemel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one battery cell is connected to the first beam component or the second beam component via an adhesive component.
Adhesive is a known securement means for connection of two separate pieces, Bluemel teaches in another embodiment, adhesive for connecting the battery cell to the frame (see para. 0054, the battery box 140 holding the battery cell has a lid 154 that is connected to the frame structure housing 150 via adhesives). Examiner notes combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness (Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. V. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of these two embodiments, substituting equivalent connections methods, thereby utilizing an adhesive for a secure connection of the battery cell to the frame on the first or second beam component as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 13, Bluemel discloses wherein the first beam component extends along a first beam direction and the second beam component extends along a second beam direction (222 and 224 extend in perpendicular directions), and wherein at least a portion of the weld seam extends along a direction being perpendicular to both the first beam direction and the second beam direction (the weld seam has a thickness extending perpendicular to the surfaces of the beams, see fig. 11, see fig. 15 weld 278).
In regards to claim 16, Bluemel discloses wherein the weld seam (278, 286) is a continuous weld seam (see fig.11).
In regards to claim 18, Bluemel discloses wherein the frame (200) is a structural floor component of the vehicle (see para. 0045, the battery frame may be mounted within a floor… of a vehicle such as a passenger car or truck).
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluemel (US 20210273285) as applied to claims 1, and 12 above, and further in view of Hilfrich (US 20190131602).
In regards to claim 3-4 and 14-15, Bluemel discloses wherein the weld seam crosses at the edges (see fig. 11). But fails to teach at least one (or at least two) of the first beam component (222) or the second beam component (224) comprises at least one rounded edge, and wherein the weld seam crosses the at least one rounded edge. Hilfrich teaches a frame for a vehicle battery with first and second beams of a rectangle similar to Blumel wherein the frame is at least partially curved at its corners for the advantage of increased stability (see para. 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Bluemel with a reasonable expectation of success with the rounded edges Hilfrich teaches in order to increase stability of the frame and in combination the weld seam crossing the rounded edges, see fig. 1 Hilfrich with at least two rounded edges.
Claims 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluemel (US 20210273285) as applied to claims 1, and 12 above, and further in view of Ruech (US 10576836).
In regards to claim 6 and 17, Bluemel fails to explicitly disclose wherein the weld seam comprises at least two weld seam segments, and wherein the at least two weld seam segments at least partially overlap.
Ruech teaches a weld seam of a first and second beam of a battery frame in a vehicle similar to that Bluemel discloses wherein the weld seam comprises at least two weld seam segments and wherein the at least two weld seam segments at least partially overlap (see col. 5 lines 55-65, beams 2, and 3 connected by two separate weld seams overlapping for sufficiently loaded leak tight welds). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Bluemel, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the weld seam improvement technique with two weld seam segments that overlap at the corner as Ruech teaches these welds are sufficiently loadable.
Claims 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluemel (US 20210273285) as applied to claim 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Kaneshige (JP 2018037268).
In regards to claim 8 and 20, Bluemel discloses the first and second beam components are connected via a friction stir weld, examiner notes the friction stir weld is understood as an adhesive component, Kaneshige teaches surface members similar to the frame beam components of Bluemel are connected "via an adhesive such as friction stir welding". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for Bluemel's frame wherein the first beam component and the second beam component are connected via an adhesive component (the friction stir weld as taught in para. 0062) and further as taught in Kaneshige to ensure a stable connection with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 9, Bluemel discloses wherein the adhesive component is arranged on an interior side of the frame (see fig. 11, friction stir weld 278 on the interior portion of the frame beam component 222).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SEE PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach vehicles with frames for battery assemblies similar to that claimed in the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614