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 § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochgesang et al. (US 2023/0242764) in view of Morehead (US 2019/0067653).
Regarding claim 1, Hochgesang et al. discloses a bulkhead seal 51 Fig. 5 for sealing a first energy storage module from a second energy storage module in a common housing (53a of Annotated Fig. 5, below), the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module being separated from each other by a bulkhead 54, the bulkhead seal comprising: a mounting portion (52a of Annotated Fig. 5, below) adapted to be mounted on the bulkhead; a first sealing lip (52b of Annotated Fig. 5) ; a second sealing lip (52c of Annotated Fig. 5); and a central sealing lip (52d of Annotated Fig. 5) which is disposed between the first sealing lip and the second sealing lip so that a first interstitial space is formed between the central sealing lip and the first sealing lip, and a second interstitial space is formed between the second sealing lip and the central sealing lip, the first sealing lip, the second sealing lip, and the central sealing lip being configured to contact the housing, wherein the first sealing lip 52b and the second sealing lip 52c are configured mirror-symmetrically to a bulkhead plane and wherein the bulkhead seal is capable of sealing the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module from hot particle streams in an event of a thermal runaway of either the first energy storage module or the second energy storage module, wherein the first sealing lip is capable of sealing the first energy storage module from the first interstitial space, the second sealing lip is capable of sealing the second energy storage module from the second interstitial space, and wherein the central sealing lip is capable of sealing the first interstitial space from the second interstitial space. However, Hocgesang et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the first sealing lip and the second sealing lip are 2.3 to 3.7 times higher than the central sealing lip.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify size of the sealing lips to any number of ranges (i.e. 2.3 to 3.7 times) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Hocgesang et al. also fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central sealing lip has a hollow cavity that is disposed centrally on the bulkhead plane. Morehead, a bulkhead seal discloses the use of a hollow cavity 113 Fig. 7 in a sealing projection lip 111. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bulkhead seal of Hochgesang et al. with a hollow cavity as taught by Morehead in order to improve improved tolerance compensation, while at the same time reducing the compression force on a sealing lip, thereby contributing to an improved sealing performance. (Para. 0065 of Morehead)
PNG
media_image1.png
786
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the first sealing lip 52b and/or the second sealing lip 52c are/is oriented at an angle of from 40° to 50° to the bulkhead 54 plane when in the undeformed state.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a duplicate second central sealing lip. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein the bulkhead seal 51 is made from a silicone elastomer.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses wherein the bulkhead seal 51 includes flame-resistant and/or abrasion-resistant fillers (Para. 0055).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the bulkhead seal 51 has an intumescent coating (Para. 0055), in the first interstitial space and/or in the second interstitial space.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses wherein the mounting portion 52a is configured to be slip-fitted onto the bulkhead 54, or wherein the mounting portion is configured to be inserted into a groove of the bulkhead, and/or wherein the mounting portion is configured to be connected to the bulkhead by a material-to-material bond.
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses a bulkhead 54 comprising the bulkhead seal 51.
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses a housing 53a for an electrical energy storage device, comprising a side wall, a cover, a bottom plate, and the bulkhead 54. Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses wherein the bulkhead seal 51 is disposed between the bulkhead 54 and the cover 53aand/or between the bulkhead and the side wall and/or between the bulkhead and the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses a first energy storage module 53, and a second energy storage module Fig. 5, the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module being disposed in the housing 53a and separated from each other by the bulkhead 54 and the bulkhead seal 51.
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses wherein the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module are disposed in the common housing and on a bottom plate, wherein the hollow cavity (113 of Morehead) enables the central sealing lip 52d to adapt to the bottom plate.
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses wherein the hollow cavity (113 of Morehead) is capable of providing thermal separation between the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module and prevents the hot particle streams in the event of the thermal runaway of either the first energy storage module or the second energy storage module from spreading between the modules.
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the intumescent coating (Para. 0055) is not present on a contact area of the first sealing lip, the second sealing lip, and the central sealing lip, and wherein the contact area is configured to contact the common housing 53a.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the Morehead reference does not disclose or suggest these amended features and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealing lips as alleged by the Office. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Hochgesang reference discloses a bulkhead seal 51 Fig. 5 for sealing a first energy storage module from a second energy storage module in a common housing 53a, the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module being separated from each other by a bulkhead 54, the bulkhead seal comprising: a mounting portion 52a adapted to be mounted on the bulkhead; a first sealing lip 52b ; a second sealing lip 52c; and a central sealing lip 52d which is disposed between the first sealing lip and the second sealing lip so that a first interstitial space is formed between the central sealing lip and the first sealing lip, and a second interstitial space is formed between the second sealing lip and the central sealing lip, the first sealing lip, the second sealing lip, and the central sealing lip being configured to contact the housing, wherein the first sealing lip 52b and the second sealing lip 52c are configured mirror-symmetrically to a bulkhead plane and wherein the bulkhead seal is capable of sealing the first energy storage module and the second energy storage module from hot particle streams in an event of a thermal runaway of either the first energy storage module or the second energy storage module, wherein the first sealing lip is capable of sealing the first energy storage module from the first interstitial space, the second sealing lip is capable of sealing the second energy storage module from the second interstitial space, and wherein the central sealing lip is capable of sealing the first interstitial space from the second interstitial space. Morehead teaches the benefit of applying a hollow cavity to a sealing lip which can improve the resilience of a sealing lip, making it possible to provide improved tolerance compensation to the sealing lip resulting in a reliable sealing property. It is this teaching that is being applied to Hochgesang. Hochgesang already disclose all the other features required by the claims.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Furthermore, applicant is advised that recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose the intended use or the function of the apparatus as written in the claims of the instant invention, the prior art may not be patentably distinguishable from the instant invention. Please see MPEP 2106 and 2114.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights