DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The amendments filed on 10/30/2025 have been entered. No new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but are found non-persuasive. Claims 1-14, and 16-18 are rejected. Claim 15 is objected to for depending upon a rejected base claim but is otherwise allowable. Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 10/30/2025 have been entered. No new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but are found non-persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that its amended in order to overcome the previous 102 argument against it by further restricting the first member to be “formed from a single first panel,” and the second member to be “formed form a single second panel.” Applicant is correct that this overcomes the prior 102 rejection based on Lim, however, it is subject to a 103 rejection similar to the previous rejections to claims 3 and 5. To be more specific, case law has held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Thus combining the bottom portion, upright portion, and top portion of the first member into a single first panel is obvious.
Applicant argues against the rejections of claims 3 and 5 non-persuasively. Applicant argues that Lim “fails to even disclose that its battery case 50 is formed of two separate members” (emphasis in original). Examiner disagrees. Lim does not clearly teach how its battery case 50 is formed. It could be a single panel bent to form its various members, or a plurality of members fastened together through welds or another routine method. A person having ordinary skill in the art is left to routine practices in order to form the structure taught. Thus, forming the first member out of a single first panel and the second member out of a single second panel is obvious in light of Lim. Applicant could overcome this rejection if they persuasively argue that the formation of the first member and/or the second member out of a single panel is not merely routine practice, but provides some critical advantage that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not obviously foresee at the time of invention. For now, claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6-14, and 16-18, applicant argues that these claims should be allowable because claim 1 is allowable. Because claim 1 is still rejected, these arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections to claims 7 and 16 have been overcome by amendment. No new matter has been added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance. New claim 19 includes the limitations of dependent claim 15 that were previously indicated as allowable, with the limitations of the intervening claims. In particular, the third member as claimed is not taught by the prior art.
Claims 15 is still 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 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 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) 1-6-8, 10, and 16-17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 9012056 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a battery case assembly, comprising
a vehicle floor structure (taught by figure 2 and the abstract, “a high voltage battery pack apparatus for a vehicle . . . installed in a center console of the vehicle”);
a first member having a bottom portion, an upright portion and a top portion, the bottom portion being fixedly attached to the vehicle floor structure (taught by annotated figure 2 included below);
a second member attached to the first member such that the first member and the second member define a hollow rectangular structure with the bottom portion, the upright portion and the top portion defining three sides of the hollow rectangular structure and an upright section of the second member defining a fourth side of the hollow rectangular structure, the hollow rectangular structure having an open forward end and an open rearward end (taught by annotated figure 2 included below); and
a battery fitted within the hollow rectangular structure such that forward end of the battery is exposed via the open forward end of the hollow rectangular structure and a rearward end of the battery is exposed via the open rearward end of the hollow rectangular structure (20 “a first battery pack” taught in figure 2).
However, Lim does not explicitly teach that the first member is formed from a single first panel, nor that the second member is formed from a single second panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first member from a single first panel, and to form the second member from a single second panel, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the bottom portion, the upright portion and the top portion of the first member define an overall C-shape as viewed from a front end thereof (taught by annotated figure 2 included above).
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim does not explicitly teach wherein the first panel is formed of a metal.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the panel out of metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the second member includes the upright section, a top section and a bottom section that together define a Z-shape as viewed from front end thereof (taught in annotated figure 2 included above).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim does not explicitly teach wherein the second panel is formed of a metal.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the panel out of metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the second member includes the upright section, a top section and a bottom section that together define a Z-shape as viewed from front end thereof (taught in annotated figure 2 included above).
Regarding claim 7, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the vehicle floor structure includes an upper surface with the first member being attached to a portion of the upper surface (40 “a floor panel” taught by figure 2 and column 4 lines 11-12 “A battery case 50 is fixed to a floor panel 40”).
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 7, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the vehicle floor structure includes a tunnel that extends beneath an upper surface of the vehicle floor structure at a location adjacent to the first member (taught by annotated figure 6 included below).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the first member is removably attached to the vehicle floor structure at a front end thereof and a rear end thereof (taught by figure 2 and column 4 lines 11-12 “A battery case 50 is fixed to a floor panel 40”).
Regarding claim 16, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the vehicle floor structure includes an upper surface with the first member being attached to a portion of the upper surface (40 “a floor panel” taught by figure 2 and column 4 lines 11-12 “A battery case 50 is fixed to a floor panel 40”).
Regarding claim 17, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 16, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lim also teaches wherein the vehicle floor structure includes a tunnel that extends beneath an upper surface of the vehicle floor structure at a location adjacent to the first member (taught by annotated figure 6 included above).
Claim(s) 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 9012056 B2) in view of Bandoh (US 7048321 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, Lim does not teach wherein the battery includes a cable attached to a rearward end of the battery, with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel.
Bandoh teaches wherein the battery includes a cable attached to a rearward end of the battery, with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel (51 “high tension cable” taught in figure 2), with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel (52 “a propeller shaft” taught in figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the cable of Bandoh onto the battery, extending through the floor, and into the tunnel of Lim, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lim does not teach how the batteries are electrically connected to powered devices in the electric vehicle like the motor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that power can be carried through a cable connected to the batteries, and that running such a cable through the tunnel taught in Lim would enable that power to be carried throughout the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Lim does not teach wherein the battery includes a cable attached to a rearward end of the battery, with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel.
Bandoh teaches wherein the battery includes a cable attached to a rearward end of the battery, with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel (51 “high tension cable” taught in figure 2), with the cable extending through an opening in the upper surface of the vehicle floor structure and into the tunnel (52 “a propeller shaft” taught in figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the cable of Bandoh onto the battery, extending through the floor, and into the tunnel of Lim, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lim does not teach how the batteries are electrically connected to powered devices in the electric vehicle like the motor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that power can be carried through a cable connected to the batteries, and that running such a cable through the tunnel taught in Lim would enable that power to be carried throughout the vehicle.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 9012056 B2) in view of Iguchi (US 20170288284 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 10, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Lim does not teach wherein the front end of the first member is attached via mechanical fasteners to a mounting plate having an overall U-shape, and the mounting plate is attached to the vehicle floor structure via mechanical fasteners proximate the front end of the first member.
Iguchi teaches wherein the front end of the first member is attached via mechanical fasteners to a mounting plate having an overall U-shape, and the mounting plate is attached to the vehicle floor structure via mechanical fasteners proximate the front end of the first member (taught by figure 1a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the mounting plate of Iguchi onto the floor and first member of Lim, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because while Lim indicates that the first member is fastened to the floor, it does not teach the means by which it is fixed. Thus, some means of fixing the first member to the floor must be adopted, and Iguchi teaches a specific means.
Regarding claim 12, Lim in view of Iguchi teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Iguchi also teaches wherein the mounting plate includes at least one center console attachment flange (taught by figure 1A).
Regarding claim 13, Lim in view of Iguchi teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Iguchi also teaches wherein the mounting plate includes a first flat portion, a rib portion, a contoured portion and a second flat portion, all formed with the at least one center console attachment flange as a single monolithic, unitary single element (taught by annotated figure 1A included below).
PNG
media_image3.png
365
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lim in view of Iguchi teaches the battery case assembly according to claim 13, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
wherein the first flat portion of the mounting plate includes an opening for a first fastener that attaches the mounting plate to the vehicle floor structure, the rib portion includes a second fastener provided for attachment to the first member, the contoured portion includes an opening for a third fastener that attaches the mounting plate to the vehicle floor structure and the second flat portion includes a fourth fastener provided for attachment to the first member (taught by annotated figure 1A included above).
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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613