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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on (6/7/23 6/15/23 11/12/24) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Battery Structure for an Electric Vehicle.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 10,886,513).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Stephens discloses a vehicle structure comprising a battery tray (Stephens, FIG 22 illustrates an exemplary vehicle battery housing and has different embodiments in the drawings which can be adapted for any particular vehicle application) disposed at a lower portion of a center of a vehicle body (Stephens, FIG 16, vehicle 512), and a cross member (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) extending in a vehicle width direction, which is inserted into the battery tray (Stephens, annotated FIG 22), wherein the battery tray includes a first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22), a peripheral wall erected on an outer periphery of the first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22), a first and a second inner wall connected to the first bottom portion (Stephens illustrations are exemplary and any desired wall construction can be employed based a particular vehicle application), and a second bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) connected to both the first and second inner wall ()Ultimately at assembly, all of the battery structure is connected and in fluid communication) and raised from the first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22), and a recessed portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) extending in the vehicle width direction is formed by the first inner wall, the second inner wall, and the second bottom portion, and the cross member is inserted into at least one location of the recessed portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22 illustrates exemplary recesses in the battery structure).
-However, Stephens fails to disclose the first bottom portion, the peripheral wall, the first inner wall, the second inner wall, and the second bottom portion are configured with an integrally molded fiber-reinforced plastic,
-Nevertheless, molding and structural materials are conventional in the art and selected from known forming processes and known materials which can be selected to suit a particular vehicle application which are a matter of design choice. Regarding material choice, see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have fiber reinforced plastics with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce weight and cost associated with metallic enclosures.
PNG
media_image1.png
707
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
717
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
699
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the cross member is bent in a protruding shape along the recessed portion (Stephens discloses plural embodiments including FIG 22 with bent portions of the cross members and can be modified as desired without altering function of the battery).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 2, wherein the cross member is formed by pressing and bending a flat metal plate to have a protruding shape along the recessed portion (Stephens is exemplary and any method of known forming can be selected if desired for a particular vehicle application).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the cross member has a thickness of 0.5 mm or more and 6.0 mm or less (Any desired thickness can be employed based on vehicle weight requirements and crash worthiness consideration for the battery).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein a space is provided between the cross member and the second bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22 is exemplary and can have any desired spacing based on a particular vehicle application).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the cross member is fitted into the recessed portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22 illustrates an exemplary arrangement of the battery structure and when assembled the cross members create the associated recesses).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle structure includes a plurality of cross members (Stephens, annotated FIG 22).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the cross member is made of metal (Battery structure is conventionally formed of metal for safety and integrity of the contents therein).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the battery tray is configured with a fiber-reinforced plastic integrally molded using a sheet molding compound.
-Nevertheless, molding and structural materials are conventional in the art and selected from known forming processes and known materials which can be selected to suit a particular vehicle application which are a matter of design choice. Regarding material choice, see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have fiber reinforced plastics using sheet material with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce weight and cost associated with metallic enclosures.
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 9.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein a weight average fiber length of the reinforcing fibers contained in the fiber-reinforced plastic is 1 mm or more.
-Nevertheless, change in shape is a matter of design choice and doesn’t alter battery operation if using fiber-reinforced plastic. Regarding a change in shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have a particular shape/length for any desired vehicle application with a reasonable expectation of success in order to package a desired battery module with crash worthiness and safety considerations.
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein a closed cross section structure is formed by the first inner wall, the second inner wall portion, the second bottom portion, and the cross member when a cross section of the vehicle structure is observed from the vehicle width direction.
-Nevertheless, change in shape is a matter of design choice and doesn’t alter battery operation. Regarding a change in shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have a particular shape for any desired vehicle application with a reasonable expectation of success in order to package a desired battery module with crash worthiness and safety considerations.
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein a natural frequency of the battery tray in a primary mode is 25 Hz or more (Any desired NVH characteristic can be employed based on the particular vehicle application).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein a rib integrally molded with the battery tray is provided in at least one location of the recessed portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 24, additionally, any conventional process can be selected for forming battery components including molding/forming).
PNG
media_image4.png
602
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein an angle formed by the first bottom portion and the first inner wall and an angle formed by the first bottom portion and the second inner wall are 90 degrees or more and 135 degrees or less.
-Nevertheless, change in shape/angles is a matter of design choice and doesn’t alter battery operation. Regarding a change in shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have a particular shape for any desired vehicle application with a reasonable expectation of success in order to package a desired battery module with crash worthiness and safety considerations.
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein a rib or a boss for fixing a battery is provided on an upper surface of the first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 24).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first inner wall and the second inner wall has a shape following a battery shape (The inner and outer walls of Stephens inherently follow a shape dictated by the battery internals).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Stephens discloses the vehicle structure according to claim 1, wherein the first inner wall and the second inner wall extend at least along the vehicle width direction (Stephens, annotated FIG 22 illustrates one exemplary inner wall but can include any desired number for crash worthiness within the battery primary frame).
[CLAIM 22] Regarding claim 22, Stephens discloses a battery tray disposed in a lower portion of a center of a vehicle body (Stephens, FIG 16, vehicle body 512), wherein the battery tray comprises a first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22), a peripheral wall (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) erected on an outer periphery of the first bottom portion, a first inner wall (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) connected to the first bottom portion, a second inner wall (Any number of inner walls can be installed for a particular vehicle application) connected to the first bottom portion, and a second bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) connected to both the first inner wall and the second inner wall and raised from the first bottom portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22, all of the walls are raised to accommodate the battery modules), a recessed portion (Stephens, annotated FIG 22) extending in the vehicle width direction is formed by the first inner wall, the second inner wall, and the second bottom portion, and a rib integrally molded with the battery tray is provided in at least one location of the recessed portion (Stephens, FIG 24 is exemplary and shows a rib structure in the battery base).
-However, Stephens fails to disclose the first bottom portion, the peripheral wall, the first inner wall, the second inner wall, and the second bottom portion are configured with an integrally molded fiber-reinforced plastic,
-Nevertheless, molding and structural materials are conventional in the art and selected from known forming processes and known materials which can be selected to suit a particular vehicle requirement and each are a matter of design choice. Regarding material choice, see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Stephens to have fiber reinforced plastics with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce weight and cost associated with metallic enclosures.
PNG
media_image4.png
602
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 23] Regarding claim 23, Stephens discloses the battery tray according to claim 22, wherein a natural frequency of the battery tray in a primary mode is 25 Hz or more (Any desired NVH characteristic can be employed based on the particular vehicle application).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-21 and 24-26 are 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.
Stephens (US 10,886,513) represents the most similar prior art as claimed by Applicants but fails to disclose the additional limitations in claims 18-21 and 24-26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614