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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show
every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the means for
reproducible position of claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the
claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in
reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended
replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate
prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure
number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure
is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet,
and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate
changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, and 27 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 13 recites "wherein an indentation on the side opposite the insertion part of
the region of the battery shell receiving the insertion part has a corresponding opposite
indentation." This language is confusing. At what location is a side opposite the insertion
part and how is the insertion part "of" the region that receives the insertion part?
Claim 15 recites "wherein an insertion part is arranged in an inner stiffening
means of the battery shell, in particular is arranged in a rib." It is unclear if the inner
stiffening means, which without recited structure would be interpreted under 112(f),
includes the rib as the structure that performs the stiffening function.
Claim 20 recites "means for introducing a molding compound into the article
cavity. This feature is interpreted under 112(f). However, no means is disclosed
structurally in the specification.
Claim 25 recites a battery produced by a specific tool of claim 20. It is unclear
what structure is intended by claim 20. Is the tool incorporated into the battery such that
the stop and spring loaded clamping for example is part of the batter of claim 25? A
product that is claimed in terms of the product via which it is made is not limited by that
process but only by any structure imparted through that process. In this case it is
unclear what structure would be imparted. Claim 25 also recites "one indentation" after
reciting "at least one indentation." It is unclear if this refers to the same indentation or
distinct indentations.
Claim 26 recites a vehicle comprising a batter shell produced with a tool
according to claim 20. For the same reasons as claim 25, it is unclear whether claim 26
includes any of the structure of the tool itself.
Claim 27 recites “a material thickness of the molding compound between a surface of the battery shell and the insertion part is zero millimeters.” However, claim 1, from which claim 27 depends, recites that the battery shell is formed from the molding compound. Thus, the molding compound is the battery shell according to claim 1. How can a thickness of part of the battery shell be defined between any element and the battery shell?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 12, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 2024/0204325; hereinafter "Zhao").
Claim 1
Zhao discloses a battery shell (e.g., 102, 170, 104), in particular a battery shell of a traction battery, wherein the battery shell has a base (102) and at least four side walls (see FIGS. 1, 2, or 4 illustrating at least four walls), wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side,
wherein
the battery shell is formed in hybrid design from an insertion part (160) and a molding compound (see paragraph [0171] disclosing that the battery shell is injection molded),
wherein the battery shell has at least one indentation (groove in which 160 is disposed), wherein the at least one indentation extends in a region (region of 160) of the battery shell formed by the molding compound, wherein the at least one indentation has a location (identical) corresponding to the insertion part (160) and wherein a distance from the corresponding location of the at one least indentation to the insertion part is less than or equal to 2 mm (the distance on all sides of 160 is zero since the insert 160 is entirely enclosed).
Claim 6
Zhao discloses wherein the battery shell is formed using an injection-molding process or a compression-molding process (see paragraph [0173]).
Claim 7
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation has a straight line (the vertical sides are all straight) at least in some regions at a location corresponding to the insertion part (see FIG. 2).
Claim 8
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation has the form of a groove (the hole is interpreted as a groove).
Claim 9
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation at a location corresponding to the insertion part has, at least in some regions, a plane (plane along the sides) that runs parallel to a plane of the insertion part (see FIG. 2 illustrating the vertical direction of the 160 the same as the vertical direction of the hole; see also FIG. 4 illustrating one vertical and one horizontal portion of 160). Alternatively, the bottom of the insert 160 is horizontal and so is the very bottom and top of the groove.
Claim 10
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation opposite the base of the battery shell runs horizontally and/or vertically, at least in some regions (see FIG. 2 illustrating a vertical indentation/hole). Alternatively, if the figure is rotated 90 degrees the indentation would be horizontal.
Claim 12
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation encloses one edge of the insertion part at least in some regions (see e.g., FIG. 2 illustrating the top and bottom edges of 160 enclosed).
Claim 17
Zhao discloses wherein the insertion part comprises a thermoplastic, a thermosetting or a metallic base material (paragraph [0043] discloses that plastic is preferably thermoplastic the layer 160 is the same material reinforced with fibers).
Claim 18
Zhao discloses wherein the molding compound has a thermoplastic or a thermosetting base material (paragraph [0043] discloses that plastic is preferably thermoplastic the layer 160 is the same material reinforced with fibers).
Claim 25
Zhao discloses a traction battery, in particular a traction battery for a motor vehicle (see Abstract), comprising
a battery shell (e.g., 102, 170, 104), comprising a base (102) and at least four side walls (see FIGS. 1, 2, or 4 illustrating at least four walls), wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side,
wherein the battery shell is formed in hybrid design from an insertion part (160) and a molding compound (see paragraph [0171] disclosing that the battery shell is injection molded),
wherein the battery shell has at least one indentation (groove in which 160 is disposed), wherein the at least one indentation extends in a region (region of 160) of the battery shell formed by the molding compound,
wherein one indentation has a location (identical) corresponding to the insertion part (160) and wherein a distance from the corresponding location of the at least indentation to the insertion part is less than or equal to 2 mm (the distance on all sides of 160 is zero since the insert 160 is entirely enclosed),
producible with a tool according to claim 20.
As noted above, the tool itself or the process used in the assembly of the device is not limited on a product by process claim and therefore the steps or structure of the tool itself is not interpreted as being a positive limitation of claim 25.
Claim 26
Zhao discloses a motor vehicle (see e.g., Abstract) comprising a battery shell (e.g., 102, 170, 104), comprising a base (102) and at least four side walls (see FIGS. 1, 2, or 4 illustrating at least four walls), wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side,
wherein the battery shell is formed in hybrid design from an insertion part (160) and a molding compound (see paragraph [0171] disclosing that the battery shell is injection molded),
wherein the battery shell has at least one indentation (groove in which 160 is disposed), wherein the at least one indentation extends in a region (region of 160) of the battery shell formed by the molding compound,
wherein one indentation has a location (identical) corresponding to the insertion part (160) and wherein a distance from the corresponding location of the at least indentation to the insertion part is less than or equal to 2 mm (the distance on all sides of 160 is zero since the insert 160 is entirely enclosed),
producible with a tool according to claim 20.
As noted above, the tool itself or the process used in the assembly of the device is not limited on a product by process claim and therefore the steps or structure of the tool itself is not interpreted as being a positive limitation of claim 26.
Claim 27
As best understood, Zhao discloses wherein in at least some of the at least one indentation, a material thickness of the molding compound between a surface (inner surfaces contacting insert) of the battery shell and the insertion part is zero millimeters. A surface of the battery shell is interpreted in Zhao as being a surface of the molding compound which is right up against the side of the insert meaning zero thickness between these elements.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0238963; hereinafter "Kim").
Claim 20
Kim discloses a tool (320) wherein the tool forms an article cavity, wherein the tool comprises means for reproducibly positioning an insertion part (spring loaded clamp 310a 320b pressed outwardly by 330, and/or inner surface stop that supports 330) within the article cavity, wherein the tool comprises means (opening on bottom of 320 in FIG. 2) for introducing a molding compound into the article cavity.
The means for reproducibly positioning the insertion part is interpreted under 112(f) as structurally being a stop, a guide, a spring loaded clamp or a clamp.
The means for introducing a molding compound is interpreted under 112(f) but does not include any structure disclosed in the specification and is therefore indefinite under 112(b).
Claim 21
Kim discloses wherein the tool has at least one stop (inner surface that supports 330), wherein the at least one stop is at least part of the means for reproducibly positioning the insertion part.
Claim 22
Kim discloses wherein the tool has at least one guide region (inner surface that guides 330 or hole into which 341 is inserted), wherein the at least one guide region is configured to guide the insertion part at least on one side corresponding to one another via the insertion part, wherein the at least one guide region is at least part of the means for reproducibly positioning the insertion part.
Claim 23
Kim discloses wherein the means for reproducibly positioning the insertion part is spring- loaded (the spring loaded legs 320a and 320b).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arai et al. (US 2024/0047809; hereinafter "Arai").
Claim 1
Arai discloses a battery shell (105 including e.g., 206, 207, 303), in particular a battery shell of a traction battery, wherein the battery shell has a base (3030) and at least four side walls (see FIG. 2 four outer boundary walls), wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side,
wherein the battery shell is formed in hybrid design from an insertion part (409) and a molding compound (see paragraph [0209] disclosing that the walls 205, 206 and bottom 303 are integrally molded),
wherein the battery shell has at least one indentation (412), wherein the at least one indentation extends in a region (region of molded 205 and 206) of the battery shell formed by the molding compound, wherein the at least one indentation (412) has a location corresponding to the insertion part (409) and wherein a distance from the corresponding location of the at least one indentation to the insertion part is less than or equal to 2 mm.
Various heights of the features of the walls are disclosed by Arai including the overall height of the portion of the wall holding the bolt t1 and the thickness of the walls as being 1 mm. However, the specific size of the space between the bottom of the bolt 409 and the bottom of the hole it is within is not disclosed. Nonetheless, assuming the wall thickness is 1 mm, the space would be roughly 1 mm. The drawings may be relied upon for what they reasonable illustrate and in this case, the space at the end of the bolt is reasonably illustrated as being small and approximately the size of the thickness of the walls. However in an effort to provide compact prosecution, as an alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified
Arai so that the space was made to be less than or equal to 2 mm since this is an obvious optimization to try in view of the illustrated sizes of the space versus the wall thickness and in order to attempt to minimize the wasted space without abutted the bolt to the bottom prior to full tightening.
Claim 3
Arai discloses wherein a contact area between the insertion part (409) and the molding compound (at inner surface of 412) is greater than or equal to 50% of a surface area of the insertion part (409) (see FIG. 4 illustrating most of the bolt except of the bottom surface of the bolt contacting the surface of the hole).
Claim 4
Arai discloses wherein a contact area between the insertion part and the molding compound is less than or equal to 99.5% of a surface area of the insertion part since not the entirety of the bolt is covered. The drawings may be relied upon for what they reasonably illustrate and in this case less than 99.5% is clearly illustrated.
Claim 6
Arai discloses wherein the battery shell is formed using an injection-molding process or a compression-molding process (see e.g., paragraph [0209]).
Claim 7
Arai discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation has a straight line (the vertical sides are all straight) at least in some regions at a location corresponding to the insertion part (see FIG. 4).
Claim 8
Arai discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation has the form of a groove (the hole is interpreted as a groove).
Claim 9
Arai discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation at a location corresponding to the insertion part has, at least in some regions, a plane (plane along the sides) that runs parallel to a plane of the insertion part (see FIG. 4 illustrating the vertical direction of the bolt the same as the vertical direction of the hole). Alternatively, the bottom of the bolt is horizontal and so is the very bottom of the hole.
Claim 10
Arai discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation opposite the base of the battery shell runs horizontally and/or vertically, at least in some regions (see FIG. 4 illustrating a vertical indentation/hole). Alternatively, if the figure is rotated 90 degrees the indentation would be horizontal.
Claim 27
As best understood, Arai discloses wherein in at least some of the at least one indentation, a material thickness of the molding compound between a surface (surfaces contacting long side(s) of the bolt) of the battery shell and the insertion part is zero millimeters. A surface of the battery shell is interpreted in Arai as being a surface of the molding compound which forms the bolt hole and is right up against the side of the bolt meaning zero thickness between these elements.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13-16, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haussmann (DE 102009058808A1).
Claim 1
Haussmann discloses a battery shell, in particular a battery shell of a traction battery, wherein the battery shell has a base (23 or alternatively bottom flat portion of 24) and at least four side walls (see e.g., FIG. 10 illustrating more than four side walls; or alternatively see FIG. 12 illustrating fourteen side walls), wherein the battery shell has an inner side and an outer side (see overall FIGS. 2, 10 and 12),
wherein the battery shell is formed in hybrid design from an insertion part (38 or alternatively 28) and a molding compound (23 or 24),
wherein the battery shell has at least one indentation (indent in which 38 or 28 are disposed), wherein the at least one indentation extends in a region of the battery shell formed by the molding compound, wherein the at least one indentation has a location corresponding to the insertion part (see FIGS. 2 and 12 illustrating parts 38 and 28 within indents).
With regard to the option where the insert is element 28, Haussmann discloses wherein a distance from the corresponding location of the at least indentation to the insertion part is less than or equal to 2 mm (the distance is zero in FIGS. 2 and 12 for element 28).
With regard to the option where the insert is element 38, the distance is illustrated as being small however the specification describes the element 38 moves vertically and is limited by the bottom of 40 and therefore at times during use, the distance is also zero. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Haussmann so that the distance was sufficiently small so as to be within the claimed range of 2 mm or less since this is an obvious optimization to try in view of the illustrated sizes of the space versus the wall thickness and in order to attempt to minimize the wasted space without abutted the bolt to the bottom prior to full tightening.
Claim 3
Haussman discloses wherein a contact area between the insertion part and the molding compound is greater than or equal to 50% of a surface area of the insertion part (see FIGS. 2 or 12 illustrating more than half of each of 28 and 38 contacting the inside of the indents).
Claim 13
Haussmann discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation on the side opposite the insertion part of the region of the battery shell receiving the insertion part has a corresponding opposite indentation (see FIG. 12 illustrating two spaced apart/opposite inserts and indentations either using 28 or 38).
Claim 14
Haussmann discloses wherein a first indentation of the at least one indentation on the side opposite the insertion part of the region of the battery shell receiving the insertion part has a second indentation, which is arranged offset to a position opposite the first indentation (see FIG. 12 illustrating two spaced apart/opposite inserts and indentations either using 28 or 38).
Claim 15
Haussmann discloses wherein an insertion part (middle tongues 38 inserted into the same indentation) is arranged in an inner stiffening means (dual ribs or rib with a hole in the center thereof) of the battery shell, in particular is arranged in a rib (see FIG. 2 or 12).
Claim 16
Haussmann discloses wherein an insertion part (outer-most tongue 38 in its associated rib) is arranged in an outer stiffening means (rib that appears in FIGS. 2 and 12 as two walls but is in fact a rib with a hole as best understood in light of FIG. 4) of the battery shell. The stiffening means is interpreted under 112(f) to correspond to a profiled side wall of the battery shell that increases the moment of inertia of the side wall relative to a sidewall without the profiling. This profile is disclosed as a rib.
Claim 27
As best understood, Haussman discloses wherein in at least some of the at least one indentation, a material thickness of the molding compound between a surface (surfaces contacting sides of 28 or 38 in FIG. 2) of the battery shell and the insertion part is zero millimeters. A surface of the battery shell is interpreted in Haussman as being a surface of the molding compound abuts the sides of 28 as well as the sides of 38 meaning zero thickness between these elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haussmann in view of Zhao.
Claim 2
Haussman does not disclose wherein the insertion part is reinforced with
continuous fibers. However, Zhao discloses an insert (160) that has continuous-fiber-reinforced material to increase the rigidity (see e.g., paragraph [0207]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Hausmann so that the insert was fiber reinforced in order to increase the stiffening effect of the insert and/or to increase rigidity overall of the battery case.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haussmann in view of Lucchesi et al. (CN 112042002A; hereinafter "Lucchesi").
Claim 5
Haussman does not disclose wherein the insertion part is produced using a pultrusion process. However, Lucchesi discloses wherein the insertion part (300) is produced using a pultrusion process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Haussmann so that the insertion part were manufactured using a pultrusion process in order to provide consistent quality, high strength to weight, and/or a cost-effective way to manufacture the insertion part.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhao.
Claim 11
Zhao discloses wherein an indentation of the at least one indentation has a transverse extension (one of the portions of the two 160 in FIG. 6 running traverse to the other of the portions 160 in FIG. 6). Zhao does not disclose the width of either of the extensions of the indentation or insertion part and therefore does not disclose a width in the range of 1 to 20 mm.
However, Zhao notes various dimensions of the fibers in the shell, the length of shell walls, the thickness of shell walls (see claims 7 and 8), and the length of a deformation element which is an injection molded structure adjacent the walls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Zhao to have tried a width of either one of the portions 160 in FIG. 6 that was within the large range of 1 to 20 mm since this is an obvious optimization to try in view of the illustrated sizes of the member 120 versus 160 and in order to attempt to optimize the desired characteristics of the insert versus the molded shell.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Arai.
Claim 19
Arai FIG. 4 does not illustrate wherein the insertion part has a chamfer. However, Arai FIG. 11 illustrate a similar insert (bolt 1101 includes two chamfers, one on its head and one further inward/downward). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Arai FIG. 4 to have added a chamfer to the insert as in FIG. 11 in order to provide a smoother lip on the fastener or to provide an indent on the fastener that allows for easier insertion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With reference to claim 24, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a method for producing a battery shell comprising the specific structural combination as recited using the method of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive and partially not persuasive.
Rejections under 112(b)
The amendments to claims 1, and 7-10 overcome the prior rejection under 112(b) related to the double inclusions of indentation. The arguments related to the indentation being opposite the base, that the indentation is on a portion of the shell remote from the base add contexts sufficient to overcome the rejection. The arguments related to the directions of horizontal being parallel to the base and vertical being normal to the base is sufficient to overcome the rejection. In addition, the amendments related to claims 17, 19, and 23 overcome the prior rejection.
The arguments related to claim 13 are not persuasive. The phrase “on the side opposite the insertion part of the region of the battery shell receiving the insertion part." Applicant argues that the phrase “of the region of the battery shell receiving the insertion part" is a post-nominal modifier of "side," not of "insertion part." However, the phrase does not state this. Instead, that phrase follows the insertion part. In addition, is the phrase “has a corresponding opposite indentation” modifying the insertion part, the region, or the one indentation of the at least one indentation?
Claim 15 remains unclear based on the claim language. It is unclear based on the claim language whether a rib is a required structure or is merely an example of one option for a means of stiffening. The specification does not disclose what is included as the specific stiffening means. The Applicant’s statement that the stiffening means is a rib is not sufficient to overcome a lack of this disclosure in the specification. Since the specification does not describe what structure corresponds to the recited stiffening means, there is no structure tied to this feature.
With reference to claim 20, the actual structure that performs the introducing of the molding compound is at issue in this rejection. That structure is not disclosed. For example, no nozzle, screw, or gun is disclosed for performing this function. Instead, both portions of the specification referenced by Applicant refer to a “device” as performing this function. As such, Applicant attempts to impermissible encompass all possible structures for performing this function. When claim language does not include any structure in the claim recitation for performing the recited structure, the claim must be construed to cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing that function and equivalents thereof (see 112(f)). If no examples or structure are provided that correspond to the means plus function, then the claimed means feature is indefinite.
With regard to part of the rejection of claim 25 related to the new “at least one indentation,” Applicant asserts that this new at least one indentation is one of the previously recited “at least one indentation”(s). This is not clear in the claim language. Instead, the claim recites a traction battery including at least one indention produced by a tool that is for producing a battery shell that also is recited as including at least one indention. This combination of claim recitations is confusing and indefinite.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 25 and 26, Applicant argues that the structural features imparted by the tool of claim 20, which is for a battery shell of claim 1, are all recited fully in claims 25 and 26. However, since the claims recite a battery produced along with a tool that is recited as being for producing a battery shell of a different independent claim (namely claim 1), and the tool includes two means, one of which is not disclosed, it is unclear what structure is intended to be included in claims 25 and 26.
Rejections under 102 and 103 related to Zhao
The arguments related to Zhao center on the definition of “indentation.” The Examiner is required to interpret the claim language as broad as is reasonably possible. In this case, the Examiner agrees that the Applicant has provided a definition of indentation as being “a hollow shape in the relief of the surface area of the battery shell.” The question is whether this hollow shape can be in the battery shell or must be open to an outside of the battery shell. None of the definitions of “relief” fit the present scenario well. The definition of relief can include “a sharpness of outline due to contrast” or the “state of being distinguished” (see www.Merriam-Webster.com). Definitions related to projections extending out from a surface, and to art or sculptures do not apply to a battery shell. Some definitions of a relief include differences in height however, this is contrary to the present application which illustrates a flat outer surface. Zhao discloses a hollow shape that is in a contrasting or distinguished area of overall surface area taken up by the battery shell. As such, the Examiner is broadly interpreting this to fit the broad definition of the claim language.
In addition for claim 12, the Applicant argues the same argument related to the indentation be at the outside edge of the shell. For the same reasons as above, this is not persuasive since the claim does not require this.
Rejections under 102 and 103 related to Arai
Applicant argues that the phrase “formed in hybrid design from an insertion part and a molding compound” means that the insertion part of the molding compound must co-participated and that in Arai, the bolt is inserted into an already formed hole. Thus, Applicant is arguing that the method of forming the insertion part and molding compound must be limiting in the claim. The Examiner disagrees that this is a limitation of the claim. There is no claim language that requires this feature. The word co-participates is not clear and is also not present in the claim.
Applicant also argues that an “insertion part” must be construed as a solid body for stiffening and that the bolt weakens the location by introducing a discontinuity. A solid body is not recited in the claim. Furthermore, a bolt is stiffening relative to a hole without a bolt in it. In addition, the stiffening requirement is not recited in this claim.
Applicant also argues that the hole in which the bolt is positioned is also not a hollow shape in the relief. As it relates to this reference, Applicant argues that the hollow shape in the relief must be a localized tapering and that the hole is a cavity rather than an indentation. The Examiner disagrees and points to the above arguments related to the definition of indentation and relief, as well as to point out the taper is not recited in this claim and that nonetheless, the hole does have a taper in Arai.
Rejections under 102 and 103 related to Haussman
Applicant argues that elements that the Examiner uses as the options for the insertion part do not “co-participate” to form the shell. Firstly, the word “co-participate” is not in the claim. Secondly, these elements are operatively connected to the other components and therefore the Examiner would argue that these elements do in fact “co-participate.” Applicant also argues that the insertion part is a solid body to stiffen the shell and that the components used in Haussman are either a fluid line or an electrical conductive plate. These can both be considered reinforcing. Applicant argues that these elements require material removal which is akin to the Applicant’s invention where the insertion part is not taken up by molding material.
For Applicant’s arguments related to the definition of indentation, see above response.
Rejection under 102 related to Kim and claims 20-23
Applicant notes the rejection under 112(b) as potentially being inconsistent with the ability to make a 102 rejection. This is in fact a requirement at the PTO. If there is an enablement rejection, there is typically no substantive 102 or 103 rejection, however with a rejection under 112(b), the Examiner must make the best interpretation or any interpretation possible within the context of the clarity issues, in order to make a rejection under 102 or 103.
Applicant argues that the tool of Kim does not for its cavity for the purpose of molding. This argument notes the issue with the definiteness of claim 20. The Examiner has taken the position that the use related to molding is not a positive recitation in the claim. Claim 20 is a tool that is capable of forming a cavity and that includes the claimed means for position and the means for introducing (which in itself has a definiteness issue). This claim was interpreted as best possible given the lack of disclosure for what devices may be the devices that introduce.
Objection to the Drawings
Applicant argues that the indentation itself is the means for positioning. However, if claim 20 recites that the tool includes the means, how can the indentation on another element, i.e., the battery shell, be the means? Claim 20 is not directed toward the battery shell, but toward a tool alone. Is the indentation that is referred to for the positioning an indentation on the tool itself? Applicant states that the indentation is a mirror of the tools cavity, implying that the tool may have its own indentation. If so, this is not illustrated in the drawings.
Conclusion
To the extent the rejections have been altered, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights