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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 31-33, 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 108281582 A, hereinafter Di, cited by applicant) in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (hereinafter AAPA) and Fujimoto et al. (US 10,135,048 B2, hereinafter Fujimoto).
Re Claim 31. Di teaches an electrical power storage device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a container (item 1) including a cell compartment (inside of item 1), the container having a base (bottom of item 1), a first wall (left wall of item 1) extending from the base, and a second wall (right wall of item 1) extending from the base; and
a hold down assembly apron (item 3) coupled to the first and second walls, wherein the hold down assembly apron is positioned on the walls at a height between 15% and 85% of a total height of the first and second walls (Fig. 1).
Di fails to specifically teach that the hold down assembly apron is integrally molded with the container and with the hold down assembly apron having a battery clamp mounting tab positioned on an upper surface of the hold down assembly apron.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Di to integrally mold the hold down assembly with the container, to shorten the manufacturing process of the container.
The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04, V, B.
AAPA discloses that aprons having a plurality of battery clamp mounting tabs is known in the art (para. 33).
The invention of Fujimoto encompasses lead-acid battery. Fujimoto teaches that aprons (Fig. 1, item 22) have a plurality of battery clamp mounting tabs positioned on an upper surface of the apron (Fig. 1).
In view of AAPA and Fujimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Di to employ a plurality of battery clamp mounting tabs positioned on an upper surface of the hold down assembly apron; since using a well-known component of the battery housing is within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 32. The combination teaches wherein the hold down assembly apron includes a first apron portion (Di, Fig. 1, left item 3) and a second apron portion (right item 3) to be used as part of the hold down assembly apron for holding down the container, the first apron portion and the second apron portion being disposed on the first wall and the second wall, respectively (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 33. The combination teaches wherein the first apron portion includes a first apron, and the second apron portion includes a second apron (Di, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 37. Fujimoto teaches that the electrical power storage device is a lead acid battery (title).
In view of Fujimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Di in view of AAPA and Fujimoto to employ a lead acid battery, since using a lead acid battery in place of lithium ion battery would be simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Re Claim 38. The combination teaches wherein the electrical power storage device is a lithium-ion battery (Di, title).
Claim(s) 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di in view of AAPA and Fujimoto as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Ando et al. (EP 3287307 A1, hereinafter Ando).
Re Claim 34. Di further teaches wherein the hold down assembly apron includes a canopy portion (Fig. 1, item 3), but fails to specifically teach a support portion.
The invention of Ando encompasses electric device mounting structure. Ando teaches that the hold down assembly (Fig. 4 & 5, item 16) apron includes a canopy portion (items 25-28) and a support portion (item 23).
In view of Ando, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Di in view of AAPA and Fujimoto to employ a support portion, since Ando teaches the advantage of using it, which is to allow deformation while rigidity for supporting the case (para. 19).
Re Claim 35. The combination teaches wherein the canopy portion includes a plurality of battery clamp mounting tabs (Fujimoto, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 36. The combination teaches wherein the support portion includes fins (Ando, Fig. 4, item 23) to support the canopy portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Newly applied reference, AAPA, and newly cited reference, Fujimoto address the new limitation.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights