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 Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “… an tray extending portion …” in line 3. Claim 10 recites “at at” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honjo et al. (US20120156539).
Regarding claim 1, Honjo teaches a battery pack case which is used for forming a battery pack that is mounted at an electric vehicle 1, the battery pack case comprising:
a tray 11e that is attached to a body of an electric vehicle (P32; Fig. 3);
a battery-holding member, or sheet metal tray member 40 and walls 11a-d for holding a battery, the battery-holding member being attached onto at least a part of the tray 11e (P32-35; Fig. 3); and a cover 21 that covers the tray 11e and the battery-holding member 40 from above (P30-35.39; Fig. 3),
wherein at least the tray 11e and the cover 21 contain a fiber-reinforced plastic (P31.38-39).
Regarding claim 11, Honjo teaches a battery pack mounted at an electric vehicle comprising the battery pack of claim 1 and a battery 8 held by the battery-holding member in the battery pack case (P27; Fig. 3.5)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Miloaga et al. (US 20210305544).
Regarding claim 2, Honjo is silent in teaching a cover-reinforcing member for reinforcing at least a part of the cover, the cover-reinforcing member being a metal plate or a fiber-reinforced tape; however, Miloaga, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery pack case with a cover and tray comprising fiber-reinforced plastic, or strips (P7-9.45-46.53; Fig. 5).
Miloaga teaches including a cover-reinforcing member for reinforcing at least a part of the cover, where the cover-reinforcing member can be a fiber-reinforced tape to receive static or dynamic load and weight during operation, protecting the module (P44-45.53; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a cover-reinforcing member for reinforcing at least a part of the cover of Honjo, the cover-reinforcing member being i.e., a fiber-reinforced tape, as taught by Miloaga to provide additional structural support. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Honjo in view of Miloaga as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Berger et al. (US 20120251863).
Regarding claim 3, modified Honjo teaches the tray includes a tray rear portion 15R that is arranged under a rear seat of the electric vehicle (27-P35; Fig. 5) and a tray extending portion 15C/15E that extends in a vehicle body front direction from the tray rear portion 15R, the battery-holding member 40 includes a battery-holding member R that is attached onto at least a part of the tray rear portion 15R (P28-35.44.49; Fig. 3), the cover 21 includes a cover rear portion 21b that covers the tray rear portion 15R and the battery-holding member 40 from above and a cover extending portion 21c that covers at least the tray extending portion from above 15C (P39; Fig. 3).
Miloaga of modified Honjo teaches when the pack has a non-rectangular shape, to fit into a particular location of a vehicle around other functional/structural elements of the vehicle, the cover-reinforcing members, such as tape or strips, should be applied to reinforce particular areas of weakness or those requiring additional strength (P45.53.58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find weak spots, including spots receiving a lot of weight, to include cover-reinforcing members to provide additional strength and arrive at a cover rear portion-reinforcing member that reinforces a connecting portion of the cover rear portion that connects with the cover extending portion in Honjo, as taught by Miloaga.
Modified Honjo teaches the tray and parts of the battery pack case may have varying and different sizes (P73-77), but is silent in teaching the tray extending portion that extends in a vehicle body front direction from the tray rear portion and has a length in a vehicle body width direction that is shorter than that of the tray rear portion; however, Berger, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery pack case with a cover and tray comprising fiber-reinforced plastic (P8-12).
Berger also teaches the tray and cover may be any shape, accounting for design needs of a vehicle, and teaches an example wherein the tray extending portion that extends in a vehicle body front direction from the tray rear portion and has a length in a vehicle body width direction that is shorter than that of the tray rear portion to fit in irregularly-shaped cavities and/or accommodating multiple batteries (P13.15.30.44; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to change the shape of the tray and tray extending portion that extends in a vehicle body front direction from the tray rear portion of modified Honjo based on design needs and proper space utilization, and, as taught by Berger, the tray extending portion that extends in a vehicle body front direction from the tray rear portion and has a length in a vehicle body width direction that is shorter than that of the tray rear portion to fit in irregularly-shaped cavities and/or accommodating multiple batteries. A change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. MPEP 2144
Regarding claim 4, modified Honjo teaches the tray further includes a tray front portion 15F that is connected to a vehicle-body-front-side end of the tray extending portion 15C/15E and is arranged under a front seat 4F of the electric vehicle 2 (P35.45-50; Fig. 3.5), and
further comprises a tray front portion-reinforcing member that is a metal member, or metal members 50/60, for reinforcing a rim portion of the tray front portion (P32-33.37.60-70)
Regarding claim 5, modified Honjo teaches the battery-holding member includes a battery-holding member M, or flanges 42 and walls shown in Fig. 3, attached onto at least a part of the tray extending portion (portion between 21a and 21b in Fig. 3) (P35-47; Fig. 1.3.5)
the cover extending portion (portion between 21a and 21b) covers the tray extending portion (portion between 15F and 15R) and the battery-holding member 42/13 from above (Fig. 1.3.5), and, in light of Miloaga of modified Honjo, teaching when the pack has a non-rectangular shape, to fit into a particular location of a vehicle around other functional/structural elements of the vehicle, the cover-reinforcing members, such as tape or strips, should be applied to reinforce particular areas of weakness or those requiring additional strength (P45.53.58), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the cover-reinforcing member include a cover extending portion-reinforcing member that reinforces at least a part of an area of the cover extending portion which covers the battery-holding member M from above. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 6, modified Honjo teaches a tray extending portion-reinforcing member, or support member 31 that reinforce a part, in a vehicle body longitudinal direction, of the tray extending portion, the part being an area from one end to another end in the vehicle body width direction, and that is a metal plate (P41-56; Fig. 1.3), wherein at least a part of the tray extending portion-reinforcing member 31, or the fastening member 50, is embedded in the tray extending portion, via through-holes attaching and creating support mechanism (P54-56; Fig. 1.2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger et al. (US 20120251863).
Regarding claim 7, Honjo teaches at least one of the tray or the cover includes a fiber-reinforced plastic such as glass fiber (P31).
Honjo is silent in teaching the fiber-reinforced plastic containing two or more fibers selected from the group consisting of glass fiber, aramid fiber, carbon fiber, ZYLON (registered trademark) fiber, polyethylene fiber, and boron fiber; however, Berger, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery pack case with a cover and tray comprising fiber-reinforced plastic (P8-12).
Berger teaches the fiber-reinforced plastic comprising glass fibers may also contain fibers such as aramid fiber or carbon fiver to have higher strength (P10.39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the fiber-reinforced plastic of Honjo contain two or more fibers, such as glass fiber, aramid fiber, carbon fiber, as taught by Berger to reinforce strength. Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Takasaki et al. (US 20090145676).
Regarding claim 8, Honjo teaches the battery-holding member 40/11a-d is a battery-module-holding member that holds a battery module 8 in which a plurality of lithium secondary batteries are disposed (P31), the battery-module-holding member 40/11a-d includes: a pair of end plates 41a/41b/11a/11b/13F/13R for sandwiching the battery module 8 from outer sides of both ends in the thickness direction in the battery module (P65-68; Fig. 3); and a pair of side plates, including ribs 41d and ribs 11f, for sandwiching the battery module 8 from outer sides of both ends in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction in the battery module and to a vertical direction (P68-70; Fig. 3-4), and the pair of end plates and the pair of side plates 41d/11f contain the fiber-reinforced plastic, wherein the metal plates are combined/sandwiched by plates/ribs of fiber-reinforced plastic (P38-51.69; Fig. 3-4).
Honjo is silent in teaching the plurality of lithium secondary batteries are disposed one on another in layers in a thickness direction of the plurality of lithium secondary batteries; however, Takasaki, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a battery module with a cover and case and a plurality of modules (P31-33.52; Fig. 3).
Takasaki teaches disposing a plurality of lithium secondary batteries one on another in layers in a thickness direction of the plurality of batteries to make it easier to form a structure of a specific height accounting for creating a specific tray base leveling (P37-42; Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the plurality of lithium secondary batteries of Honjo disposed one on another in layers in a thickness direction of the plurality of lithium secondary batteries as a way of positioning the cells in the pack to accommodate a large amount while minimizing space used, as taught by Takasaki. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, modified Honjo teaches each pair of end plates 11a/11b/13R/13F is a plate-like member having a structure in which a metal member, or fastening member 50/60 is embedded in the fiber-reinforced plastic, or the through hole of the end plate walls, or standing walls such as 11a/11b/13F/13F (P32.36-38.65.70.78-79; Fig. 2-3)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo as applied to at least claim 8 above, and further in view of Berger et al. (US 20120251863).
Regarding claim 10, modified Honjo is silent in teaching a shock-absorbing layer that is arranged at least one of a position between the pair of end plates and the battery module or a position between the battery module and the tray; however, Berger, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery pack case with a cover and tray comprising a plastic with fibers.
Berger teaches including a material layer 36 on the tray base as a shock-absorbing layer, or of a foam or honeycomb material, positioned i.e. between a tray of plastic/resin layer and battery modules to better reinforce the structure (P33-38.44-45; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a shock-absorbing layer arranged at least one of a position between the pair of end plates and the battery module or a position between the battery module and the tray of Honjo, to further reinforce the structure, as taught by Berger. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752