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 because:
The description of the embodiment in paragraphs [00145-00151] does not match the representation in FIG. 10.
FIG. 10 shows the side portions 21 extending in the D2 direction and connected by a plurality of cross members 10 in the D3 direction. The cross members 10 extend in the D3 direction and are spaced apart in the D2 direction. Additionally, front-rear portions 23 extend in the D3 direction and connect the side portions 21 in the D3 direction.
However, Paragraph [00148-00151] describe the side portions 21 extending in the front and rear directions D3 and being spaced apart in the left and right directions D2. The front-rear portions 23 are described as extending in the left and right directions D2 and spaced apart in the front and rear directions D3. The cross member is described extending in the left and right direction D2 to connect the side portions 21 and being spaced apart in the front and rear directions D3.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0014], [0036], [00143], [00158], and [00160] have no content associated with these paragraphs.
In Paragraph [00152], “may be configured connect two opposing” should be rewritten as “may be configured to connect two opposing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 and 16 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 12, it is unclear what the terminology of “2-1” and “2-2” specifies in regards to the horizontal plates as these terms do not appear to have well-recognized meaning in the art. For the purpose of further examination, the terms “2-1” and “2-2” have been ignored.
In Claim 16, it is unclear if it is the cross member of the side portions are being referred to as “extending in the left and right directions, and installed in plural to be spaced apart in front and rear directions”. For the purpose of further examination, this has been interpreted to indicate the side portion extends in a left to right direction and at least two are separated from each other in a front to rear direction.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "connecting opposing side portions" in Line 3, but the term “side portion” has not been previously introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herten et al (DE 102017209342 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
518
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 5, Herten teaches a battery case with a first frame portion (partitions 140/150), a second frame portion (partitions 140/150), and a connection frame portion (node element 160) disposed between and connecting the first frame portion and the second frame portion. The connection frame portion (node element 160, aluminum; Abstract) and the first and second frame portions (partitions 140/150, fiber-plastic composite; Abstract) are made from different materials.
Regarding Claim 2,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 1, wherein the first frame portion and the second frame portion (partitions 140/150) are formed from a fiber-plastic composite and the connection frame portions (node elements 160) are formed from aluminum.
Regarding Claim 6,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 1, wherein the connection frame portion (node element 160) contains a connection body (160) and multiple insertion grooves 161 in which the first and second frame portions (partitions 140/150) are inserted, as seen in FIG. 5.
Regarding Claim 8,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 6, including a connection body (node element 160), which is essentially comprised of intersecting H-shaped cross sections, as seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding Claim 11,
PNG
media_image2.png
274
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 6, and teaches the second frame portion (partition 150) consisting of a second frame body (web 151) in an ‘inverted U-shape’ with flanges 152 extending outward from a lower side of the frame body, as seen in Figs. 3a-3d.
Regarding Claim 15,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 1. Although not shown in drawings, Herten teaches fastening of the first frame portion, second frame portion, and connection frame portion through the following passage: “The node and/or connecting elements are preferably formed with insertion grooves, in which the partitions are inserted with their front ends and thereby positively connected to the respective node or connecting element. Optionally, in addition, a bonding and/or screwing done. The bond can also have a sealing function.”
Regarding Claim 16,
Herten teaches a battery case (battery housing; Abstract) with the cross member of claim 1 connecting opposing side portions of the battery case in the left and right directions and in the front and rear directions. The cross member of claim 1 is installed in plural to space apart individual compartments in the front and rear and the left and right directions.
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.
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 3-5, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten in view of Chen (US 20210020877 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 1, and teaches the connection frame portion (node elements 160) made from aluminum. However, Herten further teaches the material for the first and second frame portions (partitions 140/150) as being a nonmetal, plastic-fiber composite, with a smaller specific gravity than the connection frame portion. Herten does not teach that the first and second frame portions (partitions 140/150) may also be made of metal and may be made specifically from a steel material.
Chen teaches a first frame portion and a second frame portion (supporting bracket 13) and a connection frame portion (cross beam 12), where in the connection frame portion can be made from aluminum (Paragraph [0052]) and the first and second frame portions can be made from steel (Paragraph [0054]), which has a larger specific gravity than aluminum. Chen discloses improved impact resistance to mitigate potential damage to the battery system enclosed as a reason for the design, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the plastic-fiber composite used in the cross member taught by Herten with the steel material taught by Chen with the expectation of better protecting the battery from damage done by external impact.
Regarding Claim 4,
In view of Chen, Herten teaches the cross member of claim 3. Additionally, Herten teaches the thickness of the connection frame portion (node element 160) is greater than the thickness of the first and second frame portion (partitions 140/150). This can be particularly seen when using the particular embodiment of the node element 160 which includes an additional extending web 162, as seen in FIG.
PNG
media_image3.png
515
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
6.
Regarding claim 9,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 6 and a first frame body (partition 150) of which a lower portion is inserted into a first insertion groove 161 and includes a ‘U-shaped’ cross-section with a pair of flanges 152 extending outwardly (Figs. 3a-3d), but does not teach that these flanges extend from the upper side of the first frame body.
However, Chen teaches a first frame portion 13 and a second frame portion 13 on opposite ends of a connection frame part 12, wherein both first and second frame portions 13 have a pair of flanges 131b extending in an outward direction from an upper side of the frame body 131a. Chen describes an improved connection strength between the side portion 11 of the battery case and the first frame portion 13 as a result of fixing the first frame portion 13 to the side portion through a hole in the flange 131b. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first frame body (partition 150) of Herten to include the pair of flanges taught by Chen in order to improve the connection between the cross member and
PNG
media_image4.png
286
727
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the battery case.
Regarding Claim 10,
In view of Chen, Herten teaches the cross member of claim 9, but does not teach the first frame body (web 151) and the flange portion 152 being formed from a single sheet. However, Herten lists an objective of the invention as creating a battery case which is lightweight and stable and describes a hollow embodiment of the frame body 151. When using a first frame portion which has been modified to use a steel material instead of a fiber-plastic composite, trying to lower the weight would be part of routine optimization. Bending a single sheet of metal in multiple stages is a well-known technique in the art, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a single metal sheet in order to balance weight and stability.
Regarding claim 13,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 11, but does not teach a ‘c-shaped’ reinforcing member on the second flange 152 or a second bonding plate bonded to the second side plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
357
381
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Chen teaches a second flange with a substantially c-shaped cross-section facing the side plate 132 of the frame body 131a and forming a closed cross-section together with the side plate 132, formed by parts 131b, 132, and 134 as seen in Fig. 5. Although a portion bent from the reinforcing member 134 and disposed parallel to the side plate 132 is not shown, it would only require a small modification as part of routine optimization in experimenting to find the ideal balance of low weight to high strength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flange 152 of Herten with the flange design of Chen.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten in view of Hara et al (US 20150243950 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 6, but does not teach a specific difference in length of the first and second frame portions in the up/down direction or the depth of the first and second insertion grooves in the up/down direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
360
326
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, based on the instant application, the upper and lower direction corresponds to the insertion direction in which the first and second frame portions are inserted into the respective insertion grooves of the connection frame portion. As seen in Fig. 2, the length of a first connection portion 140 in its insertion direction appears different than the length of a second connection portion 150 in its insertion direction. The insertion grooves 161 taught by Herten appear to be of similar depth with no description to suggest otherwise.
However, Hara teaches a connection frame portion comprising a partition board 10, an upper side connecting piece 16, an intermediate portion 17, an upper side protruding portion 18, and a lower side protruding portion 19. This connection frame portion connects the first frame portion (upper side wall 8) and the second frame portion (lower side wall 12). One embodiment described by Hara is seen in Fig. 11, where a difference in groove shape and depth of the first insertion groove and the second insertion groove is shown. Hara provides drawings of several other embodiments in which the first and second insertion grooves are similar or differ, therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to experiment with different groove designs as part of routine optimization.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herten in view of Lee (KR 20010037909 A).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14,
Herten teaches the cross member of claim 11 and a horizontal plate (flange 152) extending from the lower side of the second frame body (web 151). However, Herten does not teach a vertical plate intersecting this horizontal plate or a second horizontal plate intersecting the vertical plate and extending outward. Herten is also silent on the pair of flanges forming a c-shaped reinforcing member or the flanges being formed of a single plate, bent in multiple stages.
Lee teaches an impact beam structure with the purpose of protecting a vehicle body and absorbing impact energy from collision. As seen in Modified FIG. 3 of Lee, a pair of flanges 30 extend orthogonally (B1) in relation to the insertion direction of the second frame body (32), then bend orthogonally in a direction away from the insertion direction (B2), before bending orthogonally outward from the insertion direction again (B3), and finally bending orthogonally in a direction toward the insertion direction (B4). When taken in relation to the insertion direction of the second frame body 32, the pair of flanges 30 extend in a pattern which matches the horizontal extension outward, vertical extension downward, and horizontal extension outward limitations of Claim 12. Additionally, Lee describes formation of the second frame body and the second flanges by bending a steel sheet material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the frame body and flange design of Herten with the design of Lee in order to improve resistance to collision and reduce weight by using a single sheet of material.
[AltContent: textbox (Modified FIG. 3)]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights