This is a Final office action for serial number 17/912,504.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 141 and 4b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 8 reference number 4b appears to be pointing to the lower surface of bracket 4 which in the specification, the lower surface of bracket 4 is designated with reference number 4a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “claimed claim 13” should be –claimed in claim 13--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites, “the lock mechanism further comprises an elastomer, the elastomer is connected to the movable connecting rod and is used to apply an elastic force to the movable part to keep the movable part in the second state position”, which has been previously recited within claim 12 therefore failing to further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 4, 8-12 and 14 are rejected (claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on their dependence unless otherwise specified) 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 4 recites the limitation "the center of the axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the center of the battery pack" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the center of the extension end" in lien 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "an action of an external force" in line 6. There is incorrect antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The correct limitation should state “the action of the external force” if this limitation is referring back to the external force recited in claim 7, line 5 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an elastomer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the same" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a horizontal direction" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “a” should be deleted and –the-- has been inserted.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18019249 in view of Guan et al. CN208746859.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the copending application 18019249 and this application disclose (Claim 1) A lock mechanism for a battery pack (battery box), wherein the lock mechanism is arranged on a side wall of a bracket, the lock mechanism is used to unlock or lock the battery pack from or to the bracket, the lock mechanism comprises a lock seat, the lock seat is provided with a locking space (locking slot), the lock mechanism is used to bear an extension end (locking shaft), when the extension end on the battery pack, the battery pack is placed relative to the bracket, and lock the extension end in the locking space; the lock mechanism is provided, with an opening (locking slot) which faces the battery pack (battery box) and approaches the battery pack in a horizontal direction (X direction is the same as horizontal direction), such that the extension end enters the opening in a horizontal direction facing the side wall of the bracket and falls into the locking space; (locking slot); the lock seat is further provided with an abutting portion, and when the battery pack is locked by the lock mechanism, the abutting portion abuts against a side wall of the battery pack; (Claim 2) The lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lock mechanism further comprises a movable part (locking tongue), and the movable part (locking tongue) is used to lock the extension end (locking shaft0 after the extension end of the battery pack falls into the locking space (locking slot) to prevent the extension end from exiting the locking space; (Claim 3) The lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 2, wherein the movable part (locking tongue) is rotatably arranged on the bracket to open or close the opening, and the movable part can be switched between a first state position and a second state position; when the movable part is in the first state position, the movable part opens the opening, and the extension end can enter or leave the locking space; when the movable part is in the second state position, the movable part closes the opening, and the extension end cannot enter or leave the locking space; (Claim 4) The lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 3, wherein the movable part (locking tongue) is arranged on the bracket by means of a rotating shaft, and the rotating shaft is arranged on the bracket above the locking space, and the rotating shaft is arranged such that when the extension end is located in the locking space, a horizontal distance between the center of the axis of the rotating shaft and the center of the battery pack is greater than a horizontal distance between the center of the extension end and the center of the battery pack; (Claim 5) The lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 3, wherein the movable part is provided with a stopper portion, and when the movable part is in the first state position, the stopper portion opens the opening; when the movable part is in the second state position, the stopper portion closes the opening; and/or, a side of the lock seat facing the battery pack is provided with a channel leading to the opening, and the channel is used for the extension end to enter the opening; (Claim 6) The lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 1,wherein the lock seat is further provided with an abutting portion, and when the battery pack is locked by the lock mechanism, the abutting portion abuts against a side wall of the battery pack; and/or, when the battery pack is locked relative to the bracket, the lock mechanism applies a vertical support force and a horizontal abutting force to the battery pack; (Claim 19) An electric vehicle, wherein the electric vehicle comprises: a bracket assembly; a battery pack; the lock mechanism for the battery pack as claimed in claim 1.
Copending application 18019249 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the locking mechanism (the actual term) and the battery pack (the actual term). Guan teaches that it is known to have lock mechanism (11, 10) for a battery pack (9), wherein the lock mechanism is arranged on a side wall of a bracket (4), the lock mechanism is used to unlock or lock the battery pack from or to the bracket, the lock mechanism comprises a lock seat (4) an opening and locking space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Copending application 18019249 to have included for the locking mechanism with locking seat and the battery pack as taught by Guan for the purpose of providing that it is well known to have locking mechanism and battery pack moving horizontally towards each other using a lock seat having an opening and locking space are mechanical equivalents for a locking seat and a battery box.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15, 16, 19, and 20 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.
Claims 13, 17, and 18 are allowed.
Claims 8-12, and 14 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/or 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: The prior art does not disclose when the battery pack is placed relative to the bracket, the locking space bears and locks the extension end, and the lock mechanism is provided with an opening, which faces the battery pack and approaches the battery pack in a horizontal direction, and the opening is above the locking space, such that the extension end enters the opening in a horizontal direction facing the side wall of the bracket and falls into the locking space; the lock seat is further provided with an abutting portion, and when the battery pack is locked by the lock mechanism, the abutting portion abuts against a side wall of the battery pack and including all of the other limitations within the claim, including positively claiming the battery pack and bracket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses convention locking mechanism.
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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631