DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The examiner has withdrawn all outstanding 112 rejections in view of the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma (US 2020/0070671) in view of Lee (US 2021/0387550). Both Ohkuma and Lee were previously cited. Lee is being utilized for claim 1 for the first time with this office action. Its use here was necessitated by applicant’s amendment that the vertical member be “within a central portion of the battery case”.
Regarding claim 1, Ohkuma teaches a vehicle battery mounting structure (abstract, Fig. 1-5), comprising a battery case (case main body #31 in Fig. 5) which has a reinforcing member disposed between battery modules therein (cross member #31e coupled with linking walls #31h and cylindrical fixing portions #31g and #31f is disposed between battery modules #34); Battery side members (case walls #31d), which have a plurality of closed cross-sections (plurality of holes on case walls #31d for bolts #33 form closed cross-sections), are provided on opposite sides of the battery case (case walls #31d refers to two separate walls on opposite sides), respectively, and are coupled to lower sides of frame side members (case walls #31d are directly connected to lower side of floor frame #15 via bolt #39 – see Fig. 2); and a plurality (at least 2) middle through-fastener (bolts #37), which extends through the reinforcing member of the battery case and is coupled to a vehicle body cross member (Fig. 3; bolts #37 screw through cross member #31e into second floor cross member #17).
With respect to the amended reinforcing member, Ohkuma teaches a reinforcement member 31 that is in a horizontal direction with respect to the vehicle (i.e. a horizontal member) and the fasteners 37 extend through this horizontal member (fig. 5). Ohkuma does not explicitly disclose a vertical reinforcement member in a longitudinal direction of a vehicle in a central portion of the battery case. Lee discloses in an alternate battery case that using reinforcement members 26 in a longitudinal direction (in addition to the horizontal direction) of the battery case gives the battery case more stiffness and strength (fig. 5 and par. 0042 and 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing for Ohkuma to ultilize reinforcement members in both the horizontal and longitudinal directions, as suggested by Lee, in order to provide additional crash worthiness.
Regarding claim 2, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The battery side members (case walls #31d) and the frame side members (floor frames #15) are coupled by a plurality of side through-fasteners (bolts #39) inserted from lower sides of the battery side members (Fig. 3 shows head of bolt #39 inserted from below into case wall #31d).
Regarding claim 3, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 2. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 2, wherein:
The side through-fasteners (bolts #39) extend through the frame side members (floor frames #15) to be coupled to the vehicle body cross member. More specifically, bolts #39 extend through floor frames #15 to engage nuts #40 on an upper side of the floor frames #15 (Fig. 3). The floor frames #15 are connected with first and second floor cross members #16 and #17, thereby coupling the bolts #39 to the floor cross members #16 and #17 via the floor frames #15. Also, the phrase “to be coupled” does not actually require the coupling.
Regarding claim 6, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member is disposed on a lower side of a floor panel along a horizontal direction of the vehicle body so that opposite ends thereof are coupled to side sills (second floor cross member #17 is located below floor panel #36 – see Fig. 3 – and runs horizontally across the vehicle body to connect left and right side sills #14 – see Fig. 2), and wherein
The battery case has a mounting bushing into which the middle through-fastener is inserted (bolt #37 is inserted into cylindrical fixing portion #31f – see Fig. 3), and which provides support between an upper cover and a lower cover of the battery case ([0030] discloses that forming cross member #31e and cylindrical fixing portions #31f with the case main body #31 increase the side collision resistance of the battery case #20, which consists of the case main body #31 and cover #32).
Regarding claim 8, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member has a U-shaped cross-section, which has one concave portion (second floor cross member #17 has a “U”-shaped cross section with one concave portion when viewing it as pictured in Fig. 3), and wherein
The middle through-fastener extends through and is fastened to the concave portion (bolt #37 extends through second floor cross member #17 and is fastened to the concave portion with nut #38 – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 8. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 8, wherein:
Wherein a reinforcing plate overlaps the concave portion of the vehicle body cross member (floor cross member #17), and wherein
The middle through-fastener extends through and is fastened to the reinforcing plate (bolt #37 extends through bolt hole #32b in battery case #20, pictured clearly in Fig. 5), and the concave portion of the vehicle body cross member. More specifically, in Fig. 2-3, bolt hole #32b is directly below second floor cross member #17, overlapping second floor cross member #17 (see Modified Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3 from Ohkuma (US 20200070671 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member is disposed on an upper side of a floor panel along a horizontal direction of the vehicle body so that opposite ends thereof are coupled to side sills (floor cross member #17 is connected to both a lower side and upper side of floor panel #36 – see Fig. 3 – and connects left and right side sills #14 – see Fig. 2), and wherein
The battery case has a mounting bushing into which the middle through-fastener is inserted (bolt #37 is inserted into cylindrical fixing portion #31f – see Fig. 3), and which provides support between an upper cover and a lower cover of the battery case ([0030] discloses that forming cross member #31e and cylindrical fixing portions #31f with the case main body #31 increase the side collision resistance of the battery case #20, which consists of the case main body #31 and cover #32).
Regarding claim 11, Ohkuma teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 10. Ohkuma does not appear to teach a vehicle battery mounting structure wherein:
The vehicle body cross member has an “M”-shaped cross-section in which one concave portion is provided between two convex portions, and wherein
The middle through-fastener extends through the floor panel and the concave portion of the vehicle body cross member so as to be fastened thereto.
In the analogous art, Lee teaches a vehicle battery mounting structure, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member (seat cross member #15 with reinforcing member #16) has an “M”-shaped cross section in which one concave portion is formed between two convex portions (reinforcing member #16 has one concave portion between two convex portions – see modified Fig. 4 below), and wherein
The middle through-fastener (through bolt #24a) extends through the floor panel and the concave portion of the vehicle body cross member so as to be fastened thereto (through bolt #24a extends through center floor #11 and concave portion of reinforcing member #16 so as to be fastened thereto).
PNG
media_image2.png
388
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 4 from Lee (US 20210387550 A1).)
Lee further teaches that a nut #24b placed below the reinforcing bracket #16 and above the support bracket #52 allows the through bolt #24a to increase its clamping force on the reinforcing member #16, which improves mount stiffness of the battery case #21 (Fig.4, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teaching of Ohkuma by configuring the second floor cross member #17 to have an “M”-shaped cross section with one concave portion in between two convex portions, above the floor panel, as taught by Lee, for the benefit of improving mount stiffness of the battery.
Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
In addition, the courts have found that changes in shape are obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, the shape of the claimed vehicle body cross member is an obvious variant of the floor cross frame of Ohkuma. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 12, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 10. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 10, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member has an inverted U-shaped cross-section, which has one convex portion (second floor cross member #17 has an inverted “U”-shape with one convex portion when viewed in a 180-degree orientation from Fig. 3), and wherein
The middle through-fastener extends through and is fastened to a reinforcing bracket (bolt #37 extends through bolt hole #32b in battery case #20, pictured clearly in Fig. 5), which overlaps an upper side of the floor panel and protects a lower side surface of the vehicle body cross member. More specifically, in Fig. 2-3, bolt hole #32b is directly below second floor cross member #17, overlapping floor panel #36 on a vertical axis (see Modified Fig. 3 above) and also protecting second floor cross member #17.
Regarding claim 14, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member is disposed along a horizontal direction of a vehicle body to overlap a floor panel of a life module (second floor cross member is disposed along the fore-aft direction of a vehicle [0022] and overlaps on a vertical axis floor panel #36 of a passenger area - i.e., life module - that holds passengers in seats #19),
The frame side members constitute a frame of a drive module ([0023] discloses that components of a drive module, including battery pack #21, electric motor #11, and fuel tank #23, are disposed within and supported by floor frames #15), and wherein
The frame has a plurality of frame cross members which connect the frame side members (Fig. 2 shows first floor cross member #16 and a rear floor cross member, not numbered, that connect the floor frames #15).
Regarding claim 15, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 1. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 1, wherein:
The frame has a plurality of frame cross members which connect the frame side members (Fig. 2 shows first floor cross member #16 and a rear floor cross member, not numbered, that connect the floor frames #15), and wherein
The frame cross members are installed to avoid a portion in which the battery case is mounted (battery case #20 is mounted to second floor cross member #17 and floor frames #15, avoiding first floor cross member #16 and rear floor cross member, not numbered, see Fig. 2), and wherein
Opposite ends of the battery case are coupled to the frame side members (battery case #20 is mounted to floor frames #15 with bolts #39 – see Fig. 2), and wherein
A central portion of the battery case is coupled to the vehicle body cross member provided at a vehicle body (central portion of battery case #20 is mounted to second floor cross member #17 with bolts #37 – see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Ohkuma remains as applied to claim 15. Ohkuma further teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 15, wherein:
The battery case is installed to have a height so as to overlap the frame side members in a vertical direction of the vehicle. More specifically, battery case #20 has a “bulge portion” #32d that overlaps floor frames #15 in a vertical direction of the vehicle --see Fig. 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma in view of Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 20200324827 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ohkuma and Lee teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 3, wherein:
The battery side members (case walls #31d) have battery side spacers through which the side through-fasteners (bolts #39) extend and which are provided at portions where the side through-fasteners are fastened (cylindrical portions #31g within case walls #31d and #32c on the battery case cover #32 serve as spacers that house bolts #39 when fully assembled).
Ohkuma and Lee do not appear to teach a vehicle battery mounting structure wherein frame side members have frame side spacers through which side through-fasteners extend and which are provided at portions where the side through-fasteners are fastened. In the analogous art, Ahn teaches a vehicle battery mounting structure (Fig. 4), wherein:
Frame side members (battery mounting beams #14) have frame side spacers (through hole #71 with cylindrical portion #53) through which side through-fasteners extend and which are provided at portions where the side through-fasteners are fastened (Fig. 4 shows bolt #41 extending within through hole #71 and non-threaded cylindrical portion #53 of cylindrical nut #51). Ahn further teaches that this configuration improves battery mounting beam stiffness and durability, which enables an increase in the weight of the battery assembly that may allow for an increase in range of an electric vehicle [0045].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teaching of Ohkuma and Lee by configuring the floor frames #15 to have spacers positioning the bolts #37 through a through-hole, as taught by Ahn, for the benefit of improving durability and stiffness of the floor frame to enable an increase in the weight of the battery assembly that may allow for an increase in range of an electric vehicle.
Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ohkuma and Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Naruke (US 9321338 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Ohkuma teaches the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 6. Ohkuma does not appear to teach a vehicle battery mounting structure wherein:
The vehicle body cross member has a “W”-shaped cross section in which one convex portion is formed between two concave portions, and wherein
The middle through-fastener extends through and is fastened to a lower bracket which connects lower sides of the two concave portions.
In the analogous art, Naruke teaches a vehicle battery mounting structure (Fig. 7), wherein:
The vehicle body cross member (seat cross member #30R) has a “W”-shaped cross section in which one convex portion is formed between two concave portions (upper seat cross member #31R has one convex portion formed between two concave portions – see modified Fig. 7 below), and wherein
The middle through-fastener (screw #43) that extends through and is fastened to a lower bracket which connects lower sides of the two concave portions (See modified Fig. 7 below; screw #43 extends through lower seat cross member #32R, which joins lower sides of two concave portions of upper seat cross member #31R).
PNG
media_image3.png
872
1107
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 7 from Narake (US 9321338 B2)
Narake further teaches that the cross-sectional configuration of upper front seat cross member #31R along with the lower front seat cross member #32R secure and increase the stiffening effect from the right front cross seat member #30R on the floor panel #21 that increases collision safety (Col. 9, lines 24-64).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teaching of Ohkuma in view of Lee by configuring the second floor cross member #17 to have a “W”-shaped cross section with one convex portion in between two concave portions, wherein the bolts #37 attach to a lower mounting bracket, as taught by Narake, for the benefit of improving durability and stiffness of the vehicle frame to increase collision safety.
Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
In addition, the courts have found that changes in shape are obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, the shape of the claimed vehicle body cross member is an obvious variant of the floor cross frame of Ohkuma. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
In addition, the courts have found that changes in shape are obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Thus, the shape of the claimed vehicle body cross member is an obvious variant of the floor cross frame of Ohkuma. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma in view of Lee and further in view of Kawase (US 20180312199 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ohkuma in view of Lee teach the vehicle battery mounting structure of claim 11, wherein:
The vehicle body cross member is disposed along a horizontal direction of the vehicle body so that opposite ends thereof are coupled to side sills (floor cross member #17 connects left and right side sills #14 – see Fig. 2).
Ohkuma does not appear to teach a vehicle battery mounting structure wherein:
Side sill reinforcing materials formed of closed cross-sections are provided in the side sills, respectively.
In the analogous art, Kawase teaches a vehicle battery mounting structure (Fig. 2), wherein:
Side sill reinforcing materials formed of closed cross-sections are provided in the side sills, respectively. More specifically, Fig. 2 discloses side sill #14 that has a plurality of closed cross-sections that make up a shock absorption section #40 [0061].
Kawase further teaches that the shock absorption structure inside of the rocker (i.e., “side sill”) enables the rocker to physically deform and efficiently absorb impact energy in the presence of an impact load [0016-0021].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teaching of Ohkuma and Lee by configuring the side sills to incorporate the shock absorption structure, taught by Kawase, to improve efficiency of impact energy absorption of the side sill.
Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s main recurring argument appears to be that Ohkuma did not teach the vertical reinforcement member within a central portion of the battery case. Even though this examiner would agree, this was already known in the art as set forth by Lee.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights