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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of DE 10 2022 101 390.1 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in WO on December 14, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/EP2022/085857 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Please note the priority document retrieval failure dated January 10, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
Claims 19-30 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 19 includes the limitation that the electrical feedthrough is configured for an electrical storage device. “[T]he use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.” MPEP at 2173.05(g) citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, it is unclear what additional structure is required by this limitation. Claims 20-30 are also rejected as depending upon claim 19.
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.
Claims 18-19, 21-22 and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naugler (US Pat. No. 5,709,724).
Regarding claims 18 and 31, Naugler teaches an electrical feedthrough comprising an eyelet 12 (taken to be the claimed main body) including a cylindrical cavity 18 (claimed through-opening), glass tubing 14 (taken to be the claimed fixing material), the bottom of figures 1 and 2 is taken to be the claimed first side of the electrical feedthrough, and a gold-coated conductive pin 16 (taken to be the claimed terminal pin), which is arranged in the through-opening and is held in the through opening in an electrically insulating manner via the fixing material, where the core of the pin can be iron-nickel alloy and the covering preferably covers the entire surface in gold, such that the core is inaccessible on the first side of the electrical feedthrough (column 5, line 28 – column 7, line 19; figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, as is set forth above, Naugler teaches that the pin is preferably completely coated in gold, such a pin having a second end face (figures 1-2), such teachings reading on the limitation of a third electrically conductive material identical to the second electrically conductive material, and the electrical feedthrough is configured in such a way that it could be used for an electrical storage device.
Regarding claim 21, Naugler teaches that the glass has a softening point of less than about 450 °C (column 4, lines 29-31), such being well below the melting points of gold, iron and nickel.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation is directed to the method of making the electrical feedthrough, and not the structure of the electrical feedthrough. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP at 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regardless, Naugler teaches using a barrel plating electroplating process (column 7, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 25, Naugler teaches that the main body includes a surface, and the second end face of the terminal pin is flush with the surface of the main body (figure 2).
Regarding claim 26, Naugler teaches that the main body includes a surface, and the first end face is arranged projecting beyond the surface of the main body (figure 2).
Regarding claims 27-28, Naugler teaches that the first electrically conductive material of the core can be an iron-nickel alloy or Alloy 42/Kovar (column 6, lines 47-55) and the main body can be made of stainless steel (column 5, lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 29, as was set forth above, Naugler teaches that the second and third electrically conductive material can be gold.
Regarding claim 30, gold has a melting point of 1,064°C, which is lower than a melting point of Alloy 42 of about 1,425°C – 1,435°C.
Regarding claim 32, Naugler teaches that the CTE of the main body is about 178 x 10-7 per °C (column 5, lines 44-45) and the CTE of the fixing material is about 89x10-7 per °C (column 6, lines 4-5), therefore the coefficient of expansion of the main body is greater than a coefficient of expansion of the fixing material, as claimed.
Claims 18-19, 23-24, 26-32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartl (WO2020/104571; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0280934 relied upon).
Regarding claims 18, 29 and 35-36, Hartl teaches an electrical storage device such as a battery or capacitor (paragraph [0002]) comprising an electrical feedthrough 1001 comprising a housing component 1002 (taken to be the claimed main body) including a through-opening 1005, glazing 1020 (taken to be the claimed fixing material), the top of figure 16 is taken to be the claimed first side of the electrical feedthrough, and a metal pin 1010 (taken to be the claimed terminal pin) which can have a gold cover, which is arranged in the through-opening and is held in the through opening in an electrically insulating manner via the fixing material, where the core of the pin can be ferritic high-grade steel, and due to the coating the core is inaccessible on the first side of the electrical feedthrough (paragraphs [0146]-[0151]; figure 11).
Regarding claim 19, as is set forth above, Hartl teaches that the pin is coated in gold, such a pin having a second end face (figure 11), such teachings reading on the limitation of a third electrically conductive material identical to the second electrically conductive material, and the electrical feedthrough is configured for an electrical storage device (paragraph [0146]).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, Hartl teaches the use of a flexible flange 1500 (taken to also read on the claimed relief device of claim 34) (paragraph [0163]; figure 16).
Regarding claim 24, Hartl teaches a flange in the region of the through opening having a second thickness EL (paragraph [0144]; figure 16), and a first thickness outside of the region of the through opening significantly smaller than the second thickness EL (see figure 16).
Regarding claim 26, Hartl teaches that both the first and second end face of the terminal pin are arranged projecting beyond the surface of the main body (figure 11).
Regarding claim 27, Hartl teaches that the main body and first electrically conductive material of the core can be iron-nickel alloy, iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, Kovar, steel, or titanium (paragraph [0151]).
Regarding claim 28, Hartl teaches that the steel can be stainless steel, high-grade steel, or ferritic high-grade steel (paragraph [0151]).
Regarding claim 30, gold has a melting point of 1,064°C, which is lower than a melting point of ferritic high-grade steel of about 1,425°C – 1,510°C.
Regarding claim 31, Hartl teaches that the fixing material is glass or glass-ceramic (paragraph [0149]).
Regarding claim 32, Hartl teaches that it is particularly preferred if the thermal coefficient of expansion of the main body and fixing material is approximately the same (taken to read on “matched to one another”) (paragraph [0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-22 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 Hartl (WO2020/104571; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0280934 relied upon).
Regarding claim 21, while Hartl does not specifically disclose the melting points of the fixing material and the materials of the terminal pin, Hartl discloses the same materials as those of the instant invention, and therefore the properties of such materials are taken to be the same as well (compare paragraphs [0150]-[0151] of Hartl to paragraphs [0033] and [0026]-[0028]). Accordingly, either Hartl teaches that the melting point of the fixing material is lower than the melting point of all materials of the terminal pin, or else it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create such an embodiment because Hartl teaches using the same materials for the fixing material and terminal pin as those of Applicant. “’When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’” MPEP § 2112.01 citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.” MPEP § 2112.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation is directed to the method of making the electrical feedthrough, and not the structure of the electrical feedthrough. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP at 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As was set forth above, this product is believed to be the same as the product of Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naugler (US Pat. No. 5,709,724).
Regarding claim 20, Naugler teaches that the core includes a lateral surface facing the fixing material directly adjacent to the fixing material (figures 1-2), as well as teaching that the gold can cover only a portion of the exterior surface of the core (column 7, lines 14-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not cover the portion of the core facing the fixing surface, because the purpose of the coating is to prevent corrosion (see Naugler at column 1, lines 61-65), but the glass fixing material itself is bonded to the core and will already prevent corrosion.
Claims 23-24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naugler as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hartl (WO2020/104571; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2021/0280934 relied upon).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, Naugler does not specifically disclose a flexible flange/relief device. In a similarly configured electrical feedthrough, Hartl teaches using a flexible flange 310 (such also taken to read on the claimed relief device) (paragraph [0144]; figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flexible flange/relief device as taught by Hartl in the feedthrough of Naugler in order to prevent the breaking of the glass during temperature fluctuations (see Hartl at paragraph [0144]).
Regarding claim 24, Naugler does not specifically disclose teach first and second thicknesses d1 and 2 as claimed. Hartl teaches a flange in the region of the through opening having a second thickness EL (paragraph [0144]; figure 10), and a first thickness outside of the region of the through opening significantly smaller than the second thickness EL (see figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flange having thicknesses as taught by Hartl in the feedthrough of Naugler in order to prevent the breaking of the glass during temperature fluctuations (see Hartl at paragraph [0144]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naugler or Hartl as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen (US Pub. No. 2021/0249720).
Regarding claim 33, Naugler (figures 1-2) and Hartl (figures 11 and 16) each teach a wall, the fixing material being in connection with the wall, but do not specifically disclose that the fixing material, the wall of the through-opening and the terminal pin are configured in such a way that a safety valve function is provided by way of a predetermined press-out force. Chen teaches a central portion 13 (claimed terminal pin) and borosilicate glass pressure relief portion 12 (claimed fixing material) (paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; figure 8), where the pressure relief portion 12 is configured crack and split at a first set pressure value, and detach from the housing body at a second set pressure value (paragraph [0055]), and a person skilled in the art can adjust the pressure values by setting the thickness of the housing body, the material strength of the housing body, the width and height of the pressure relief portion, and the like, so as to meet the pressure relief requirements of the energy storage device (paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to create a safety valve provided by way of a predetermined press-out force by adjusting various parameters as taught by Chen in the electrical feedthrough of Naugler or Hartl in order to ensure safety of the energy storage device (see Chen at paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 24, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
