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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enokida (JP 2015-106540, see applicant provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Enokida discloses a frame member that is manufactured (see Figs. 1 and 9-11) having an aluminum-alloy extruded material (see ¶0027) in which a plurality of nine nodes (the square shape of the tubular extrusion 21 in the annotated Fig. 11 below has a cross-sectional shape that is divisible into a grid/array of node for identification purposes as the claimed nodes are not structural elements, but instead are used as potential rib placement points the below extrusion 21 therefore reads upon having nodes “set in the cross-sectional space”) are set in a cross-sectional space of an outer peripheral wall (outer wall of 21) and a plurality of ribs (e.g., two ribs forming web 21a, running between nodes 4-5 and 5-6) connecting the nodes are provided inside the outer peripheral wall, wherein the frame member (21) has a square cross-sectional shape in which a maximum number of the ribs (e.g., the portions of web 21a running between the nodes) connected to one of the nodes (e.g., node 5) is three or less (i.e., two in this frame extrusion) and there are four or more nodes (six in this frame extrusion: 1-3 and 7-9) that are not connected to the ribs (21a).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Enokida further discloses that the frame (11, see Fig. 1) is used as a battery case (100) for an electric vehicle (see ¶0022).
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 of this title, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokida in view of Munjurulimana et al. (12,573,698).
Regarding claim 4, while Enokida discloses an internal web-reinforced tubular frame for a vehicle, which almost certainly has been evaluated for its strength-to-weight features, does not specifically provide that such an evaluation is conducted.
Munjurulimana teaches that the size, shape, and configuration of aluminum extrusions for a battery pack (see Col. 7, line 54-67) are all considered in the design and manufacture of these extrusions by testing and comparing impact testing for a given extrusion (see e.g., Figs. 11-14) and choosing a suitable configuration based on these comparison while taking into factors, such as weight to protection (see e.g., Col. 10, lines 17-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have optimize the cross-sectional shape of the Enokida battery frame for optimal weight to crash protection as taught by Munjurulimana to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the battery frame of Enokida to use the extrusion’s weight to strength features in its design selection as taught by Munjurulimana to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., -------use crash test data to balance a design to both adequately protects a vehicle component while saving material to reduce weight and/or cost) to known devices (e.g., vehicle battery frame extrusions) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 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 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights