DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: P2 should correct “mounded” to “mounted.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pressing portion configured to press the battery cells” (claims 3, 9)
“a reinforcement member reinforcing the bottom portion...” (claims 5, 10)
“a restriction member… configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case” (claims 8, 12)
Each of the above is an example of a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) modified by functional language without being modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 2, and thus dependent claims 3-8, and claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A) Claim 2, while being an original claim with the language found in the written description, is considered to fail the written description given there is no taught embodiment or configuration presented which meets the requirements of claim 2. Figure 1 of the instant application is reproduced below with annotations added that are also added to the claim 2 language below:
PNG
media_image1.png
499
1009
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“…wherein the lid member 2 is formed such that, when the battery pack is fixed to the battery support member 30, a surface (labeled A) on which the lid member 2 is fixed to the battery case 8 is included in a same plane as a surface (labeled B) on which the lid member 2 is fixed to the battery support member 30.”
Surface A and surface B are NOT distinct surfaces as presented; the lid member 2 is a planar entity with a flat, singular surface which has different sections thereof (i.e., section A and section B) that are fixed to the battery case 8 and the battery support member 30, respectively. There is not however, a surface on which the lid member is fixed the battery case 8 that is distinctive from a surface on which the lid member 2 is fixed to the battery support member 30 that are in the same plane with one another as presented in the claim. Accordingly, there is not support for a construct in which claim 2 is possible.
B) The claim tree for claim 8 includes at least 7-8. Claim 7 recites that the outer surface 6a of the bottom portion 6 of the battery case 8 is in contact with a shock absorbing material 50 arranged between the battery case 8 and the battery support member 30. This embodiment is shown in Fig. 2 (reproduced below).
Claim 8 then recites:
“wherein a part of the bottom portion 6 of the battery case 8 faces a restriction member 40 arranged between the battery case 8 and the battery support member 30 and configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case.”
This embodiment is shown in Fig. 1. The concurrent claiming of both the shock absorbing material 50 along with the restriction member 40 violates the written description given these entities are never taught as used together, nor is it clear how one could meet claim 8 while also meeting claim 7. In other words, it is entirely unclear how to configure both features into a singular embodiment, the disclosure never teaching the simultaneous use thereof, wherein the shock absorbing member 50 as shown in Fig. 2 would block the restriction member 40 from being present or achieving the functionality claimed of suppressing vertical displacement of the battery case. Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below for convenience, along with a body of case law supporting the Examiner’s position.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
464
824
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“A patent owner cannot show written description support by picking and choosing claim elements from different embodiments that are never linked together in the specification.” Flash-Control, LLC. v. Intel Corporation, Case 20-2141, (Fed. Cir. 07/14/21) (non-precedential) (affirming Summ. J. written description invalidity), accessible at 20-2141.OPINION.7-14-2021_1803906.pdf (uscourts.gov);
Hyatt v. Dudas 492 F. 3d 1365 (2007), No. 2006-1171, (Fed. Cir. 06/28/07) (affirming ex parte rejection of claims on ground that “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination”, accessible at Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F. 3d 1365 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2007;
Taylor v. Iancu, Case 18-1048 (non-precedential) (affirming summary judgment rejection in Sec. 145 action of claims combining features identified in specification but not described in combination with each other), accessible at 18-1048.Opinion.4-3-2020_1563153.pdf (uscourts.gov); and
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Recro Technology LLC, Case 16-2260 (Fed. Cir. 06/13/17) (non-precedential) (affirming PTAB written-description unpatentability determination in interference where claims combining features identified in spec. but not described in combination with each other), accessible at 16-2260.Opinion.6-9-2017.1.PDF (uscourts.gov).
Appropriate correction is required. When making corrections and future amendments, Applicant is reminded that all claim language must have proper antecedent basis in the specification with appropriate corresponding reference numerals in each of the drawings and specification for any new terminology added to the claim set (MPEP 608.01(o)). Accordingly, any corrective amendments filed to the claims that is solely on the basis of the drawings should have corresponding amendments to the specification, along with reference numerals added to each of the specification and drawings designating the part or parts to which the new terminology applies (MPEP 608.01(o)). Disregarding these requirements may result in a Notice of Non-Compliance with no new time period for reply.
9. 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.
10. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-13; claim 2, and thus dependent claims 3-8; claim 8; claim 10, and claim 11, and thus dependent claims 12 and 13, are rejected 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.
A) Claim 1 and all those dependent thereon each recite a preamble of “a battery pack…” The preamble defines the scope of the claim, and is considered indefinite because it does not match the scope presented in the body of the claim. The disclosure teaches the battery pack 10 includes a battery case 8, lid 2, cells 16, heat sinks 14, reinforcing member 18, pressing portion 12 (P23 of the PGPUB), and the battery pack houses battery cells. The claims recite features (i.e., at least a battery support member 30) that are not part of the battery pack, but rather part of a battery support structure 100 (P22, 26). Accordingly, the claims are rendered indefinite because the body of the claim sets forth entities outside of the defined scope of “a battery pack” set forth in the preamble.
The Examiner recommends setting forth a preamble/claim 1 as shown below (with corrections needed to all dependent claim preambles):
“A battery support structure including a battery pack that houses battery cells, wherein:
the battery pack comprises:
a battery case in which the battery cells are arranged; and
a lid member configured to close an opening in upper portion of the battery case, and
wherein the lid member is fixed to a battery support member and is formed from an elastic material that reduces transmission of vibration of the battery support member to the battery case.
B) Claim 2 is reproduced below with emphasis added:
“…wherein the lid member is formed such that, when the battery pack is fixed to the battery support member, a surface on which the lid member is fixed to the battery case is included in a same plane as a surface on which the lid member is fixed to the battery support member.”
The use of “when” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the claim is meant to limit the feature as being present only to the time that fixing occurs, or if this feature is maintained at all times. The Examiner recommend re-writing claim 2 as shown below (correcting only the indefinite issue; correction is still needed for the support/112(a) issue:
“wherein
C) The claim tree for claim 8 includes at least 7-8. Claim 7 recites that the outer surface 6a of the bottom portion 6 of the battery case 8 is in contact with a shock absorbing material 50 arranged between the battery case 8 and the battery support member 30. This embodiment is shown in Fig. 2. Claim 8 then recites:
“wherein a part of the bottom portion 6 of the battery case 8 faces a restriction member 40 arranged between the battery case 8 and the battery support member 30 and configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case.”
This embodiment is shown in Fig. 1. It is entirely unclear how to configure both features into a singular embodiment, the disclosure never teaching the simultaneous use thereof, wherein the shock absorbing member 50 as shown in Fig. 2 would block the restriction member 40 from being present or achieving the feature claimed. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
D) Newly added claim 10 recites “the bottom portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, given no entity is described in conjunction with “the bottom portion,” it is unclear which entity this is in reference to rendering the claim further indefinite.
E) Newly added claim 11 recites “the outer surface of the bottom portion” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, given no entity is described in conjunction with “the bottom portion,” it is unclear which entity this is in reference to rendering the claim further indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required. The claims are examined as best as possible for prior art examination purposes given the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jin (CN 109148778) (machine translation provided).
Regarding (Examiner-proposed/corrected1) claim 1, Jin teaches a battery support structure (Fig. 1) including a battery pack that houses battery cells (page 1), wherein:
the battery pack comprises:
a battery case 3 in which the battery cells are arranged (page 1; see Fig. 1); and
a pressure cover 18 provided with elastic pad 19 (“a lid member2”) configured to close an opening in upper portion of the battery case 3 (Fig. 1), and
wherein the pressure cover 18 provided with elastic pad 19 (“lid member”) is fixed to frame 1 (“a battery support member”) (page 3, paragraph 7 (“P3/P7”) and is formed from an elastic material that reduces transmission of vibration of the frame 1 (“battery support member”) to the battery case 3.
It is noted that the italicized language is functional language reciting a capability or functionality of the elastic material and is evaluated solely for the implicit or explicit structure imparted to the elastic material by said language. It is the position of the Examiner that an elastic material, by way of being elastic, would intrinsically achieve the capability recited. It is further noted that elastic pad 19 of Jin’s lid member (18, 19) is in direct contact with battery case 3 such that it also considered to provide the feature claimed (i.e., the transmission of vibration traveling through frame 1 would be reduced via elastic pad 19 by way of its intervening nature with case 3 as compared with a scenario when elastic pad 19 was not present).
The disclosure of Jin teaches that the technical field is to battery installation of electric vehicles in which batteries are installed in automobiles. The battery case 3 is not explicitly recited as including battery cells (plural) versus a singular battery; however, the technical field describes the inclusion of batteries, and Fig. 1 would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as representing a plurality of battery cells held in battery case 3 as is standard and routine in the prior art. The Examiner finds the inclusion of battery cells (plural) as anticipated on this basis.
Alternatively, it is considered an entirely obvious expedient to include a plurality of battery cells as taught in the technical field section of Jin within battery case 3, versus a singular battery, given this is standard and routine in the state of the prior art to thereby allow for electrical connections (series and/or parallel) among the plurality of battery cells to increase the voltage and/or current, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches wherein a pressing portion (either of: elastic pad 19, or the bolt(s) used to secure and press the components against one another located on the ends of 18, 19 (“lid member”) (P3/P7)) configured to press the battery cells is provided on the lid member (18, 19). In the Second Interpretation of the claimed lid member, the pressure cover 18 reads on the claimed “a pressing portion” configured to press the battery cells that is provided on the elastic pad 19 (“lid member”) (see footnote above regarding this interpretation).
Regarding claim 10, Jin teaches wherein “a reinforcement member” (any of: support plate 2; third spring 17; fixing post(s) 8; ejector pin(s) 9; the combination of 8/9; the combination of 17/8/9; or energy dissipating block 12 – see Fig. 2) reinforcing [a] bottom portion [of the battery case 3] is provided on an outer surface of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 (Figs. 1-5; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 11, Jin teaches wherein the battery case 3 is suspended by3 (i.e., upward movement is prevented) the lid (18, 19) member so that the outer surface of the bottom portion is not in contact with the frame 1 (“battery support member”) (see Fig. 1). Please see the alternative rejection of this claim below.
Regarding claim 12, Jin teaches wherein a part of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 faces “a restriction member” [any of the following: support plate 2; fixing posts 8; ejector pins 9; energy dissipating blocks 12] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”) and configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case 3. Please see the alternative rejection of this claim below (given it depends on claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Jin teaches wherein the outer surface of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 is in (direct or indirect) contact with “a shock absorbing material” [any of the following not relied upon for the “reinforcement member” in claim 5: support plate 2, third spring(s) 17; fixing posts 8; ejector pins 9; energy dissipating blocks 12; alternatively, electromagnets 13] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”). It is noted that any solid constituent intrinsically has “shock absorbing” features. Please see the alternative rejection of this claim below (given it depends on claim 11).
14. Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN 109148778) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 211208538) (machine translation provided) as evidenced by Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online Dictionary entry for “fixed” (copy provided). It is noted the rejections of claims 11-13 are alternative, compact prosecution rejections from those set forth above.
Regarding (Examiner-proposed/corrected4) 2, Jin discloses there is a surface on which the lid member (18, 19) is fixed5 to the battery case 3 (see annotated dashed line below within Fig. 1 of Jin) and a surface (see annotated line below) on which the lid member (18, 19) is fixed to the frame 1 (“battery support member”):
PNG
media_image4.png
404
908
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jin fails to discloses these surfaces are on the same plane as claimed, wherein such a feature is considered dictated by the height of frame 1 (“battery support member”) relative to the components held therein, and whether there is a desire for there to be bending features at the end of lid member (18, 19) versus an entire planar plate construct. Adjusting the height of frame 1 such that the lid member (18, 19) does not requiring bending features to mate therewith (i.e., such that it could just be an entirely planar plate) is considered an obvious design change in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence in the record exists.
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence in the record exists, altering the height of the frame 1 (“battery support member”) and the shape of the lid member (18, 19) are both considered obvious matters of design choice on the basis of the case law of In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) in which the change in form and/or shape is considered an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04). It is noted the Examiner has reviewed the instant application specification and did not find any evidence of criticality with respect to the feature claimed.
Additionally, Hu teaches analogous art of an analogous battery support structure having similar components, wherein box 1 of Hu (analogous to frame 1 of Jin (“battery support member”)) and box cover 15 (analogous to lid member (18, 19) of Jin) are provided, the construct also including analogous components of dampening spring compression features to protect a battery held therein, also used as a power source for an electric vehicle, wherein just like in Jin, the box cover 15 (“lid member”) is secured to box 1 (“battery support member’) via bolts, and the construct is one where the box cover 15 (“lid member”) has an entirely planar plate construct to which box 1 (“battery support member”) has a height extending up thereto (Fig. 1, reproduced below):
PNG
media_image5.png
507
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the known design construct taught by Hu above in which the height of analogous box body 1 (“battery support member”) is such that it extends up to meet an entirely planar box cover 15 (“lid member”) to the construct of Jin on the basis of design choice, the court holding that the change in form and/or shape is considered an obvious engineering design (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.04), the construct being within the realm of known design options for mating a box body 1 (“battery support member”) and a box cover 15 (“lid member”) holding analogous components therein (i.e., dampening spring compression features to protect a battery held therein for use within an electric vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Jin teaches wherein a pressing portion (either of: elastic pad 19, or the bolt(s) used to secure and press the components against one another located on the ends of 18, 19 (“lid member”) (P3/P7)) configured to press the battery cells is provided on the lid member (18, 19). In the Second Interpretation of the claimed lid member, the pressure cover 18 reads on the claimed “a pressing portion” configured to press the battery cells that is provided on the elastic pad 19 (“lid member”) (see footnote above regarding this interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Jin teaches wherein there is a bottom portion (see Fig. 1) of the battery case 3 and an inner surface of the bottom portion has a planer shape (see Fig. 1). Jin teaches that the lid member (18, 19) is provided with an elastic pad (i.e., a material with low rigidity). Jin teaches that it is known in the prior art to increase the strength of the battery case itself to prevent deformation (P1/P4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery case 3 with a material having higher rigidity in order to increase the strength of the battery case itself to prevent deformation (P1/P4), wherein such a material would intrinsically have a higher rigidity than the elastic pad 19 portion of lid member (18, 19).
Regarding claim 5, Jin teaches wherein “a reinforcement member” (any of: support plate 2; third spring 17; fixing post(s) 8; ejector pin(s) 9; the combination of 8/9; the combination of 17/8/9; or energy dissipating block 12 – see Fig. 2) reinforcing the bottom portion is provided on an outer surface of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 (Figs. 1-5; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, Jin teaches wherein the battery case 3 is suspended by6 (i.e., upward movement is prevented) the lid (18, 19) member so that the outer surface of the bottom portion is not in contact with the frame 1 (“battery support member”) (see Fig. 1).
For compact prosecution purposes, it is noted that if the requirements of a fixing portion 2a (see P25 of the instant application PGPUB) is provided between the lid member (18, 19) and the battery case 3 that allows for the suspension feature to be achieved relative to the frame 1 (“battery support member”), such a construct is known and taught in the prior art as taught by Hu in which box cover 15 (“lid member”) is provided with a fixing member 16 that allows suspension of the battery case (see Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon). The construct allows for compression in the vertical direction to be achieved given a spring 17 intervenes between fixing member 16 and the U-shaped block 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the analogous fixing member 16 (with spring 17 fixed connected with U-shaped block 19 or the battery case 3 itself) to the lid member (18, 19) and the battery case 3 of Jin given this configuration allows for the suspension feature to be achieved relative to frame 1 (“battery support member”), the construct and technique being taught by Hu and providing the predictable result of allowing for compression/deformation preventing means in a vertical direction (entire disclosure of Hu).
Regarding claim 7, Jin teaches wherein the outer surface of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 is in (direct or indirect) contact with “a shock absorbing material” [any of the following not relied upon for the “reinforcement member” in claim 5: third spring(s) 17; moveable ejector pins 9; energy dissipating blocks 12; alternatively, electromagnets 13] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”).
Regarding claim 8, Jin teaches wherein a part of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 faces “a restriction member” [any of the following not relied upon for the “reinforcement member” in claim 5 or the “shock absorbing member” in claim 7: support plate 2; fixing posts 8; ejector pins 9; 8/9 combined; energy dissipating blocks 12] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”) and configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case 3.
Regarding claim 11, Jin teaches wherein the battery case 3 is suspended by7 (i.e., upward movement is prevented) the lid (18, 19) member so that the outer surface of the bottom portion is not in contact with the frame 1 (“battery support member”) (see Fig. 1).
For compact prosecution purposes, it is noted that if the requirements of a fixing portion 2a (see P25 of the instant application PGPUB) is provided between the lid member (18, 19) and the battery case 3 that allows for the suspension feature to be achieved relative to the frame 1 (“battery support member”), such a construct is known and taught in the prior art as taught by Hu in which box cover 15 (“lid member”) is provided with a fixing member 16 that allows suspension of the battery (see Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon). The construct allows for compression in the vertical direction to be achieved given a spring 17 intervenes between 16 and the U-shaped block 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the analogous fixing member 16 to the lid member (18, 19) and the battery case 3 of Jin given that allows for the suspension feature to be achieved relative to frame 1 (“battery support member”) given the construct and technique are known in the prior art as taught by Hu, and provides the predictable result of allowing for compression/deformation preventing means in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 12, Jin teaches wherein a part of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 faces “a restriction member” [any of the following not relied upon for the “reinforcement member” in claim 5 or the “shock absorbing member” in claim 7: support plate 2; fixing posts 8; ejector pins 9; 8/9 combined; energy dissipating blocks 12] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”) and configured to suppress vertical displacement of the battery case 3.
Regarding claim 13, Jin teaches wherein the outer surface of the bottom portion of the battery case 3 is in (direct or indirect) contact with “a shock absorbing material” [any of the following not relied upon for the “reinforcement member” in claim 5: third spring(s) 17; moveable ejector pins 9; energy dissipating blocks 12; alternatively, electromagnets 13] arranged between the battery case 3 and the frame 1 (“battery support member”).
Conclusion
15. The prior art is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu (CN 211208538) (machine translation provided) is relied upon as a secondary reference but is applicable as a primary reference. At least one non-limiting interpretation of the subject matter of Hu with respect to claim 1 is below.
Hu teaches a battery support structure (see Fig. 1) including a battery pack that houses battery cells, wherein:
the battery pack comprises:
a battery case 1 in which the battery cells are arranged; and
a lid member (15, 16, 17, 18– all of these components described as being “fixedly connected to one another” – final page) configured to close an opening in upper portion of the battery case 1 (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the lid member (15, 16, 17, 18) is fixed to U-shaped block 19 (“a battery support member”) and is formed from an elastic material (lid member 15, 17, 17, 18 includes compression spring 17) that reduces transmission of vibration of the U-shaped block 19 (“battery support member”) to the battery case [intrinsic to the described compression spring 17 which is an elastic material that deforms to absorb kinetic energy of shock and vibration and is intervening between the U-shaped block 19 and the battery case 1].
PNG
media_image6.png
485
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of the following references anticipates or renders obvious as a single reference the subject matter of at least claim 1:
Wang (CN 207602660) (machine translation provided) anticipates at least the subject matter of claim 1 and teaches upper cover 20 is taught as including a rubber pad 24 to prevent casing from being damaged-
“The upper cover 20 and the outer wall of the left and right sides of the casing 1 are respectively provided with a rubber pad 24 to prevent the casing 1 from being damaged.”
PNG
media_image7.png
226
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Brandley et al. (WO 2021/034420) (published 2/25/2021) –(using US 2022/0294058 as a copy thereof);
Murata (US 2010/0178553); and
Goldin et al. (US 10,950,913) (C6/L39-67 teaches each housing member is flexible)
Each of the following references is an intervening reference (between the claimed foreign priority date and the PCT/371 date) that anticipates or renders obvious as a single reference the subject matter of at least claim 1:
Kim et al. (US 2023/0420779); and
Ueda (JP 2021-064529) (machine translation provided) – component 50 is a damper:
PNG
media_image8.png
220
512
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Filing of a certified English language translation of the foreign priority document would disqualify the above two references from being applied at a future date.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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 J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 See the rejection of the preamble under 35 U.SC. 112(b)/second paragraph above, section A.
2 It is noted that just elastic pad 19 may be the “lid member” (this will be referred to as the “Second Interpretation” in the dependent claims).
3 “suspended by” is interpreted consistent with the disclosure in which the Fig. 2 construct, having components from top to bottom and including shock absorbing material 50, is described as “suspended” or above the bottommost surface of the battery support member such that it is not in contact with the battery support member as claimed.
4 See the rejection of the claim as presented under 35 U.SC. 112(b)/second paragraph above, section B.
5 “Fixed” includes the definition of “securely placed” as evidenced by Merriam Dictionary Online Dictionary entry
6 “suspended by” is interpreted consistent with the disclosure in which the Fig. 2 construct, having components from top to bottom and including shock absorbing material 50, is described as “suspended” or above the bottommost surface of the battery support member such that it is not in contact with the battery support member as claimed.
7 “suspended by” is interpreted consistent with the disclosure in which the Fig. 2 construct, having components from top to bottom and including shock absorbing material 50, is described as “suspended” or above the bottommost surface of the battery support member such that it is not in contact with the battery support member as claimed.
Prosecution Insights