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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 4/1/2026, where:
Claims 15, 19, 20, 24 and 27 have been amended;
Claims 29-34 added;
Claims 15-34 pending in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to Claims 15, 19, 20, 24 and 27 has obviated the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that Figure 4 shows the forebody 52, afterbody 54 and longitudinal elements 50 are found persuasive and the drawing objection for the subject matter of Claim 24 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on page regarding the “cross member” of claim 26 and the “multiplicity of energy-storage device housings” of Claim 28 are not found persuasive as these features are not found in the drawings.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the limitation that the “middle portion is formed from coated steel strip” is not met by the disclosure of Takashina’s base plate (40) formed by “a pressed-forming metal plate made from steel or other iron alloy that is metal-plated or coated” because “the (already) coated steel strip is used” and “[t]he coating in this case is already expediential designed to provide anti-corrosion protection.”
It is noted that these features (“designed to provide anti-corrosion protection”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The office maintains that middle portion is formed from coated steel strip is met by the base plate (4) formed by pressed-forming metal plate made from steel or other iron alloy that is metal-plated or coated.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that using “die-casting” for the top cover as a known fabrication method is improper hindsight reconstruction is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As disclosed in section 12 of the Office Action Takashina discloses in paragraph [0052]) that die-casting is known fabrication method and the office maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a die-casting process to form the end portions (6), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the preferred method of manufacturing involves only routine skill in the art.
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:
“cross members, designed for seat rail fastening, arranged on the housing upper part” (as claimed in Claim 26);
“multiplicity of energy-storage device housings” (as claimed in Claim 28);
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 § 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) 15-23, 27-29 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0164504 issued to Takashina et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Takashina et al. teach in Figures 1-19 and respective portions of the specification of a high-voltage storage-device housing (100) for a motor vehicle (HV; shown in Figures 17 and 18), comprising:
a housing upper part (7) and a housing lower part (4), wherein the housing lower part (4) has a middle portion (4) and two end portions (6),
wherein the middle portion (4) comprises a base element (4) on which wall elements (4a) are realized laterally and extend along a longitudinal axis, thereby together with the base element (4) forming an arrangement space in regions, and
wherein the end portions (6) are arranged at the ends of the middle portion (4) and have wall elements (6) that contribute to shaping the arrangement space;
wherein and wherein the middle portion (4) is formed from coated steel strip (paragraph [0052] discloses the middle portion is a pressed-forming metal plate made from steel or other iron alloy that is metal-plate coated—this is taken to meet the limitation of a coated steel strip).
Takashina et al. is silent if the end portions (6) are cast parts; Takashina et al. does disclose (paragraph [0052]) that die-casting is known fabrication method, used for the top cover (7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a die-casting process to form the end portions (6), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the preferred method of manufacturing involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Takashina et al. teach the coating is formed by a metal, a metal alloy, and/or an organic material—paragraph [0052] disclose “metal-plated or coated”.
Regarding Claim 17, Takashina et al. teach the shape of the middle portion (4) is created by bending—paragraph [0052] disclose press-forming which is a bending process.
Regarding Claim 18, Takashina et al. teach flange elements (4a), orientated parallel to the base element (4), are realized adjoining the wall elements (4A) and extend, parallel to the base element (4), away from the arrangement space—see Figures 1-4.
Regarding Claim 19, Takashina et al. teach the housing upper part (7) is fastened (see figure 7) to the wall elements and/or to the flange elements (a).
Regarding Claim 20, Takashina et al., as modified above in Claim 15, the end portions (6) are produced die casting.
Regarding Claim 21, Takashina et al. teach the end portions (6) are connected in a materially bonded manner to the middle portion (4) along a joining plane, and wherein the joining plane is sealed (with sealing pieces 16).
Regarding Claim 22, Takashina et al. teach the joining plane is orientated so as to be flat and perpendicular with respect to the base element—see Figures 1 and 3 which shows the end portion (6) is perpendicular with the base element (4); this geometric configuration also orients the joining place to be perpendicular with the base element (4).
Regarding Claim 23, Takashina et al. teach the arrangement space is realized without any barrier (Figure 4 shows no barrier), and wherein there is a multiplicity of energy storage-device cells (1) arranged in the arrangement space so as to fill the space (Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 27, Takashina et al. teach an electric energy storage device (100) comprising an energy storage-device housing (see Figures).
Regarding Claim 28, Takashina et al. show a single housing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that multiple housings could be provided to meet the power requirements for a vehicle; such a modification would be a mere duplication of parts which has been found to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the multiple housings could differ in size by bending the middle portions (4) to size the housings to fit on a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 29, Takashina et al. is silent for the material for the end portions (6), specifically is an aluminum material is used. Takashina et al. does disclose in paragraph [0046] “A battery cell 1 has a closed-bottom external case that is metal such as aluminum and the top of the external case is sealed closed with a sealing plate that is also metal such as aluminum.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use aluminum material for the end portions to simplify construction by using the same material for the end portions as the top of the case.
Regarding Claim 34, Takashina et al.. teach the housing upper part (7) is fastened to the housing lower part (4) in a gas-tight manner (see at least paragraph [0046] which disclose the case is sealed in an “airtight manner”).
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0164504 issued to Takashina et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0140021 issued to Grottke et al.
Regarding Claim 24, Takashina et al. teach a motor vehicle (HV; see Figures 17-18), but does not show a forebody and an afterbody that are connected via longitudinal elements, and wherein an energy storage-device housing is fastened to the longitudinal elements, in particular in a load-free manner.
Grottke et al. teaches of a battery housing (9; shown in Figure 4) attached to longitudinal element (5) for a vehicle (1) with a fore and afterbody.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the energy-storage device (100 of Takashina et al.) on a pair of longitudinal elements for a vehicle, as taught by Grottke et al. One would be motivated to attach the energy-storage device to a pair of longitudinal members to provide the advantage of locating the energy-storage device in the middle of the vehicle, under the floor which would advantageous to lower and center the center of gravity for the vehicle which will help increase the vehicle’s stability and control.
Regarding Claim 25, in the modified invention of Takashina et al. the housing upper part of the energy storage-device housing forms a floor of the vehicle interior (see Figures 2-4 of Grottke et al) which shows the battery housing is located in the floor, and thus forms the floor, for the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 26, in the modified invention of Takashina et al. there are cross members (see element 33 in Figure 2 of Grottke et al.), designed for seat rail fastening (paragraph [0084]), arranged on the housing upper part (Figure 2). Takashina et al. as modified by Grottke et al. does not explicitly show the cross members (33) are connected to the longitudinal elements (5). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the cross members with the longitudinal elements to increase the rigidity of the vehicle and to provide a secure connection between the seat cross members and the frame to increase the safety of the vehicle in the event of a crash.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0164504 issued to Takashina et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296269 issued to Monishmith et al.
Regarding Claim 30, Takashina et al. is silent if the sealing pieces (16) for the joining plane is selected from silane-modified polymer, 2- component polyurea, and/or polyvinyl chloride.
Monishmith et al. teaches that it is known to use polyvinyl chloride as a for a sealing piece (170) for a vehicle battery cell.
It would at the time the invention was filed to select polyvinyl chloride as the material, as taught by Monishmith et al., for the sealing pieces (16) taught by Takashina et al. One would be motivated to use polyvinyl chloride as the material for the sealing piece as an engineering expedient for using a known material for the sealing pieces.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0164504 issued to Takashina et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0138565 issued to Lee et al.
Regarding Claim 31, Takashina et al. is silent if the end portions (6) are fastened to the middle portion (4) by a fusion welding process. Takashina et al. does teach of a laser-welding process in paragraph [0046].
Lee teaches that laser welding is a fusion welding method (see paragraph [0098]).
It would at the time the invention was filed to use a fusion welding process for fastening the end portions for the middle portions, as taught by Lee, for the welding the end portions (6) to the middle portion (4) taught by Takashina et al. One would be motivated to use Lee’s teaching that fusion welding is laser welding method as known welding method to secure the end portions to the middle portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in this case is the inclusion of: in re claim 32 where the flange elements form a circumferential flange region on the middle portion and the end portions and in re claim 33 where the end portions each have a base element and wall elements that continue the geometry of the middle portion, in combination with the other elements recited, not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9-5).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
BRIAN SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights