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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 02/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“Claim 1 specifically states that the battery assembly is configured to be mounted within at least one wing of at least one aircraft, in line with the method of mounting the battery assembly in the wing per claim 15. Hence, the feature of method claim 15 "mounting the battery assembly in the wing" is included in claim 1 as a functional feature. While the assembly of claim 1 could potentially be suitable to be mounted in further environments, e.g., in a car, claim 1 demands that the battery assembly at least must be configured to be mounted in a wing of an aircraft.
Further still, claim 15 appears to simply be slightly narrower than claim 1 in the sense that claim 15 is specifically directed to mounting the battery assembly in the wing, whereas the corresponding language of claim 1 "configured to be mounted within at least one wing of at least one aircraft" leaves open whether the assembly may be suitable to be mounted in further environments, as discussed above. However, this does not amount to distinct inventions. Instead, the differences between claims 1 and 15 merely reflect the different formulation necessitated by the nature of product claims and method claims themselves.
Hence, claims 1 and 15 relate to the same invention.
Moreover, claims 12 and 13 recite the features of claim 1 relating to the battery assembly. Hence, claims 1, 12, and 13 relate to the same invention. (See Page 2 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
This is not found persuasive because claim 1 only recites the wing of the aircraft as the intended use of the invention. I.e., the phrase “configured to be mounted within at least one wing of at least one aircraft” only requires any prior art battery assembly being “capable of” being placed within a wing of an aircraft, with the prior art NOT being required to explicitly teach a wing of an aircraft. As such, there is prior art which would be applicable to claim 1 and not claims 12-15 which actually require the prior art to teach the wing of an aircraft.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 15, Line 2, replace “replace” with “replaced.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation of “battery module” as recited in claim 1 would normally qualify as invoking 112(f). However, claim 1 goes on to recite structure in the form of “at least one battery cell”. Therefore, the limitation “battery module” is understood to NOT invoke 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “battery assembly configured to be mounted within at least one wing…” which appears to imply that the “wing” is the intended use/functional aspect of the battery assembly. However, the claims go on to recite the “wing” in great detail with regards to the “battery assembly” so that it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the aspects of the “wing” are actually being claimed? For purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed that throughout claims 1-11, the “wing” is not being positively recited.
Claim 3 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
Claim 4 recites “wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the battery module is mountable to one side of the support structure and at least a second battery module is mountable to a second side of the support structure”. However, the examiner notes that everything following the term “configured such that” appears to be reciting intended use/functional limitations; and thus it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant is actually claiming the “a second battery module”? For purposes of examination, as the “a second battery module” is only recited as the functional/intended use of the battery assembly; the “a second battery module” is understood to NOT be positively recited.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the temperature" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
Claim 6 recites “wherein the compartment is at least partially integrated in the support structure.” However, the “support structure” is only recited in claim 1 as being the intended use of the battery assembly. Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is actually being positively recited as part of the battery assembly?
Claim 8 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the top" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
Claim 10 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
Claim 11 recites “particularly.” However, the phrase " particularly " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “particularly” is even required?
Claim 11 recites “preferably.” However, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). I.e., it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the language following “preferably” is even required?
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No 12,384,514 (Linde et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-4, Linde et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a battery assembly configured to be mounted within at least one wing of at least one aircraft, including: at least one battery module (5 or 6) which includes at least one battery cell (5 or 6); at least one mounting structure (adhesive or weld as described in at least claim 3) configured to mount the battery module (5 or 6), along a mounting side of the battery module (5 or 6), to at least one support structure (3) within the wing; wherein the battery assembly (5 or 6) is free of a mounting structure for mounting the battery module (5 or 6) along a second side of the battery module (5 or 6), the second side being substantially opposite from the mounting side, (Figures 1-9); Claim 2 – wherein the support structure (3) is a rib (3) arranged within the wing, preferably wherein the support structure (3) is a rib (3) which at least partially defines a wingbox of the wing, and wherein, preferably, the support structure (3) extends parallel to the mounting structure (adhesive or weld as described in at least claim 3) and perpendicular to the wing span direction, (Figures 1-9); Claim 3 - wherein the battery assembly is configured to be arranged within a wingbox of the wing, preferably wherein the wingbox is at least partially defined by a front spar (2 or 112), a rear spar (4 or 114), an upper skin and a lower skin of the wing, (Figures 1-9); Claim 4 - wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the battery module (5 or 6) is mountable to one side of the support structure (3) and at least a second battery module (5 or 6) is mountable to a second side of the support structure (2) which is substantially opposite from the first side, (Figures 1-9).
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No 12,199,305 (Villanueva et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Villanueva et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a battery assembly configured to be mounted within at least one wing of at least one aircraft, including: at least one battery module (1600) which includes at least one battery cell (1600); at least one mounting structure (1604) configured to mount the battery module (1600), along a mounting side of the battery module (1600), to at least one support structure (1806 or 1808) within the wing; wherein the battery assembly (1600) is free of a mounting structure for mounting the battery module (1600) along a second side of the battery module (1600), the second side being substantially opposite from the mounting side, (Figures 16-24); Claim 2 – wherein the support structure (1806 or 1808) is a rib (1806 or 1808) arranged within the wing, preferably wherein the support structure (1806 or 1808) is a rib (1806 or 1808) which at least partially defines a wingbox of the wing, and wherein, preferably, the support structure (1806 or 1808) extends parallel to the mounting structure (1604) and perpendicular to the wing span direction, (Figures 16-24); Claim 3 - wherein the battery assembly is configured to be arranged within a wingbox of the wing, preferably wherein the wingbox is at least partially defined by a front spar (seen in Figure 18), a rear spar (seen in Figure 18), an upper skin and a lower skin of the wing, (Figures 16-24); Claim 4 - wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the battery module (1600) is mountable to one side of the support structure (1806 or 1808) and at least a second battery module (1600) is mountable to a second side of the support structure (1806 or 1808) which is substantially opposite from the first side, (Figures 16-24); Claim 5 - at least one thermal management system (a “fluid circulation system” as described in at least Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 15) configured to at least partially control the temperature of at least a portion of the battery module (1600), preferably of the battery cell, wherein the thermal management system (a “fluid circulation system” as described in at least Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 15) includes at least one compartment which includes at least one channel configured to guide at least one working medium therethrough (a “fluid circulation system” as described in at least Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 15; and at least Column 23, Lines 4-11 describing the various embodiments sharing features) to transfer heat to and/or from the battery module (1600), (Figures 1-24).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 12,199,305 (Villanueva et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0055611 (WALTERS et al.).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Villanueva et al. teaches: Claim 7 – wherein the battery assembly includes a plurality of the at least one battery module (embodiment of Figure 19 shows several battery modules (104)), wherein the plurality of battery modules (104) are mountable in series within the wing, wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (104) of the plurality of battery modules (104) are mechanically decoupled from each other at least along the second side of the battery modules (104), preferably along each side of the battery modules (!04), preferably along each side of the battery modules except (104) for the mounting sides, (Figure 19).
Villanueva et al. does not teach: wherein the compartment is at least partially integrated in the support structure (assuming the support structure is meant to be a rib of the wing) (Claim 6). However, WALTERS et al. teaches: Claim 16 – wherein it is well known for systems (such as (15A)) to be placed through ribs (9) of a wing (5) of an aircraft, (Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in te art to modify the battery assembly of Villanueva et al. to have wherein the compartment is at least partially integrated in the support structure (assuming the support structure is meant to be a rib of the wing) (Claim 6) as taught by WALTERS et al. for the purposes of allowing the fluid circulation system of Villanueva et al. to easily move through the wing of the aircraft. The examiner additionally noting that a 112 rejection was made above to indicate that the metes and bounds of the support structure of claim 6 are indefinite.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 12,199,305 (Villanueva et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0055611 (WALTERS et al.), and further in view of U.S. Patent application publication No. 2024/0123838 (LU et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Villanueva et al. as modified by WALTERS et al. teaches the battery assembly as described above, but does not teach: at least one encapsulation device configured to at least partially encapsulate the battery cell(s), preferably wherein the encapsulation device is at least partially, preferably completely, made of at least one foam material (Claim 8). However, LU et al. teaches: Claim 8 – a battery system (10) for an electric vehicle, including at least one encapsulation device (120) configured to at least partially encapsulate battery cell(s) (100), preferably wherein the encapsulation device (120) is at least partially, preferably completely, made of at least one foam material, (Figures 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery assembly of Villanueva et al. as modified by WALTERS et al. to have at least one encapsulation device configured to at least partially encapsulate the battery cell(s), preferably wherein the encapsulation device is at least partially, preferably completely, made of at least one foam material (Claim 8) as taught by LU et al. for the purposes of providing a means to efficiently holding the battery cells in a uniform manner with regards to one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 could possibly 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights