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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5 and 6 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 5, lines 1 and 2 recite, “the housing lower section edge”. There is no antecedent basis for this language in the preceding claims. It would appear from the structure that it should read, “the housing lower part edge”.
Claim 6 recites, “a first joint end” in line 5. As this limitation was set out in the preceding claim 5, it appears that it should read, “the first joint end”.
Claim 9 recites that the metallic connecting piece “has a lower tenacity” than the housing. This term does not appear to be the correct term as it has not been defined in specification differently than the known definition for the term (quality of being persistent, or tenacious). It appears though the use was meant to confer hat the metallic connecting piece has a lower strength than the housing, but it is unclear if this may be a translation error in the application. For the sake of examination, it has been treated as meaning “a lower strength”.
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) 1-5, 7, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2022/0225516) in view of Eppel (US 11,026,339).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Saito discloses a housing for a vehicle device (ECU), the housing being configured to receive at least one electronic component, the housing comprising: at least one metallic housing lower part 4 having a housing lower part edge (Fig. 3), the housing lower part edge having a first joining surface 42; at least one metallic housing upper part 3 having a housing upper part edge 32, the housing upper part edge having a second joining surface, at least the housing upper part edge having the second joining surface being arranged on the housing lower part edge having the first joining surface to form a joint with each other (Fig. 2); and at least one seal 5 of the housing being arranged in the joint, at least in sections, to seal an interior of the housing from an exterior of the housing, wherein the housing upper part edge is integrally bonded to the housing lower part edge in the joint at at least one welding section (cover and base may be welded together for integrity; paragraph 0122) of the housing via welding process, at least for a mechanical stabilization of the housing. Saito discloses the use of welding, but does not specify the type. Eppel discloses an electronics housing wherein the parts that form the housing are welded together via a laser beam welding process (column 2, lines 55-60). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the beam weld process of Eppel for the housing of Saito in order to have a thin, precise, low distortion weld of the components, precisely as taught by Eppel (column 2, lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 2, the seal 5 is arranged in the housing for sealing the interior of the housing, and is arranged at some distance from the weld area. One having ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that having the weld a specific distance from the seal would protect the seal from the heat and intrusion of the weld, thereby ensuring an adequate sealing of the housing.
Regarding Claim 3, once the housing of Saito is assembled, the welding must necessarily occur on the outer lateral surfaces of the housing as they are the only accessible surfaces once assembled.
Regarding Claim 4, the housing halves of Saito are integrally bonded through the welding process of Eppel at a first joint end.
Regarding Claim 5, Saito includes that the housing lower part edge has a projection (at 421; Fig. 1) extending, at least in sections, along the housing lower part edge, starting from the housing lower part in a direction of the housing upper part, the housing lower part edge being integrally bonded to the housing upper part edge in the joint (via the welding of Eppel) formed by the projection of the housing lower part edge and the housing upper part edge or on a first joint end of the joint formed by the projection of the housing lower part edge and the housing upper part edge via the beam welding process.
Regarding Claim 7, Saito discloses a groove-shaped recess is formed in the housing lower part edge (at 421), at least in sections, by a first leg of the housing lower part edge facing the interior of the housing and by a second leg of the housing lower part edge facing the surroundings of the housing at a distance from the first leg (see Fig. 8 at 42), the housing upper part edge being arranged in the groove-shaped recess of the housing lower part edge (see Figs. 13 and 17 for representation), and the seal 5 of the housing being arranged in the groove-shaped recess between the housing lower part edge and the housing upper part edge.
Regarding Claim 10, the laser welding of Eppel is a single point weld which would weld the upper and lower housing parts of Saito at the single interface of the parts.
Regarding Claim 12, the housing parts of Saito are integrally bonded via an adhesive property of the seal 5 (paragraph 0069-0070).
Regarding Claim 14, the use of specific dimension, thickness and other sizes is merely an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the size and loading of the part. Changing the thickness of the housing is not patentably distinct. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Saito and Eppel discloses providing the housing lower part as well as providing the housing upper part (3, 4; Saito); arranging a seal (5; Saito), at least in sections, on the first joining surface of the housing lower part edge of the provided housing lower part or arranging a seal, at least in sections, on the second joining surface of the housing upper part edge of the provided housing upper part; arranging the housing upper part edge having the second joining surface next to the housing lower part edge having first joining surface to form the joint (Saito; Figs. 1 and 2), the seal being arranged on the first joining surface or the seal being arranged on the second joining surface being arranged in the joint, at least in sections, to seal an interior formed by the housing lower part and the housing upper part against surroundings of the housing lower part and the housing upper part (Saito; Fig. 2); and integrally bonding the housing upper part edge to the housing lower part edge in the joint at the at least one welding section of the housing via the beam welding process or a laser beam welding process (Eppel), at least for the purpose of the mechanical stabilization of the housing.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Eppel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stilianos (US 10,785,881).
Regarding Claim 11, Saito discloses the use of metal for the housing, but does not specifically disclose the type of production. Stilianos discloses an ECU housing for a vehicle, including die-cast aluminum housing parts (column 3, lines 40-42). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the die-cast aluminum of Stilianos for the housing of Saito in order to have a well-known, light-weight and easily manufactured material for the ECU housing, which was also strong and able to stand up to years of service.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 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.
Claim 9 would 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, applicant’s use of a continuation extending outwardly away from the housing at an inclination, wherein the projection of the housing lower part edge and the continuation of the housing upper part edge contact each other on an end face of the projection of the housing lower part edge to form a first joint end, is novel.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, applicant’s use of a metallic connecting piece, wherein the metallic connecting piece is arranged with a third joining surface on an outer lateral surface of the housing lower part edge and on an outer lateral surface of the housing upper part edge, is novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to electrical vehicle enclosures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights