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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishitobi (JP 2020148477). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 22, Ishitobi teaches a method of manufacturing a vehicle battery tray [Ishitobi Paragraph 0001: “The present invention relates to a battery case for an electric vehicle and a manufacturing method.”], comprising the steps of: extruding and cutting a plurality of frame components [Ishitobi Paragraph 0106: “FIG. 22 is a perspective view illustrating a method for manufacturing the frame 110 in FIG. 21. FIG. 22 illustrates the front wall 111a that makes up the frame 110. The front wall 111a in FIG. 22 is formed by cutting a hollow extruded material made of an aluminum alloy”]; forming a plurality of tray components [Ishitobi Paragraph 0008: “the tray is molded into the bathtub shape...the tray is pressure-welded to the frame”]; and attaching the plurality of formed tray components to the plurality of assembled frame components to form the vehicle battery tray, wherein the vehicle battery tray is modular [Ishitobi Paragraph 0008: “the bathtub-shaped tray is pressure-welded to and thereby integrated with the frame, so that it is possible to realize highly accurate joining without causing thermal deformation accompanying fusion welding, that is, it is possible to improve the joining strength of the tray and the frame.”].
Regarding Claim 23, Ishitobi teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the extruding step further comprises extruding at least some of the plurality of frame components from an aluminum-based material [Ishitobi Paragraph 0106: “FIG. 22 is a perspective view illustrating a method for manufacturing the frame 110 in FIG. 21. FIG. 22 illustrates the front wall 111a that makes up the frame 110. The front wall 111a in FIG. 22 is formed by cutting a hollow extruded material made of an aluminum alloy”].
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Jung teaches a vehicle battery tray for an electrified vehicle (EV) [Jung Fig. 1; Jung Paragraph 0001: ‘The present disclosure relates to a side frame for a battery case”], comprising: a plurality of frame components [Jung Fig. 1, Reference Character 10 (typ)], but does not teach tray components.
Yanagi teaches a plurality of tray components attached to the frame components [Yanagi Fig. 1, Reference Character 12; Yanagi “Description” Paragraph 13: “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 4, the lower holder 12 includes a partition plate 25 and a bracket 26, and supports the battery module 13 between the battery module 13 and the tray 11.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of Jung to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plurality of tray components in view of Yanagi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Jung and Yanagi because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing rigidity and modularity. As such, “the side surface of the lower holder 12 on which the partition plate 25 is disposed has high bending rigidity…If it is arranged at a position corresponding to this arrangement, deformation can be further suppressed.” [Yanagi “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 25], as recognized by Yanagi.
Jung teaches that the vehicle battery tray is modular [Jung Fig. 1, Module: Frame members, Reference Character 10 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 2, Jung teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of frame components are made from an extruded aluminum-based material [Jung Figs. 1-4; Jung Paragraph 0066: “the second frame unit 40 may be formed of a material that may be molded by extrusion, for example, a light metal such as aluminum or the like, an alloy thereof, a plastic, a composite material, or the like.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Jung teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein the plurality of frame components include longitudinal frame components that extend along a length of the vehicle battery tray and lateral frame components that extend along a width of the vehicle battery tray, the longitudinal frame components and the lateral frame components are comprised of the same material and have the same cross sectional configuration and size so that they can be manufactured using the same set of dies and/or tools [Jung Fig. 1, Reference Character 10 (typ); Jung Paragraph 0005: “the side frame and the battery case may be mostly manufactured using aluminum or an aluminum alloy.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Jung teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 3, wherein at least one of the longitudinal frame components or the lateral frame components includes a squared off end that is at a right angle to a length of the at least one frame component, at least one of the other of the longitudinal frame components or the lateral frame components includes an interior side surface that is flat, and the squared off end is joined to the interior side surface so that a flush, liquid-tight attachment is established therebetween [Jung Fig. 1; Jung Abstract: “a first frame unit formed to have an open end surface; and a second frame unit which is arranged in the first frame unit to close the open end surface of the first frame unit and is coupled to the first frame unit; Paragraph 0022: at least four side frames 10 may be provided to surround the base plate 20. Both end portions of each of the side frames may be in contact with a corresponding end portion of the other side frame corresponding thereto, and may then be coupled thereto by welding or the like.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Jung teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach tray components. Yanagi teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of tray components include a floor portion and a plurality of wall portions extending upwardly from the floor portion [Yanagi Fig. 1, Reference Character 12]. It should be noted that while Yanagi does not provide an explicit motivation for including a floor and walls for the battery trays, battery tray floors and walls are common in the art. Floors and walls allow battery modules to be more securely held in place, provide space for cooling air circulation, and facilitate battery module installation and removal, as would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the vehicle battery tray of Jung to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, floor and wall portions in view of Yanagi, as this would have achieved the desirable results presented above. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 14, Jung teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach tray components. Yanagi teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of tray components are formed as a full battery compartment that includes four wall portions extending upwardly from a floor portion [Yanagi Fig. 1, Reference Character 12]. It should be noted that while Yanagi does not provide an explicit motivation for including four wall portions for the battery trays, battery trays with four walls are common in the art. Four walls allow battery modules to be more securely held in place, provide space for cooling air circulation, and facilitate battery module installation and removal, as would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified the vehicle battery tray of Jung to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, floor and wall portions, in view of Yanagi as this would have achieved the desirable results presented above. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Jung teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach tray components. Yanagi teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein the plurality of frame components are welded to one another and the plurality of tray components are adhered to one another and/or are adhered to the frame components [Yanagi Abstract: “The lower holder 12 is fixed to the side inner frame 23.”; Yanagi Fig. 4; Yanagi “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 7: “the side inner frame 23 is attached to the inside of the bottom surface (both ends in the vehicle width direction) of the tray 11 by spot welding (part indicated by a-1 in FIG. 4)”; Yanagi “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 8: “As shown in FIG. 4, the flange portion 23 a extends toward the outside in the vehicle width direction at a position spaced above the bottom surface of the tray 11 at the end portion in the vehicle width direction of the side inner frame 23. It is in contact with the inside of the side surface and fixed by spot welding (portion indicated by a-2 in FIG. 4).”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of Jung to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, welding/adhering in view of Yanagi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Jung and Yanagi because this would have achieved the desirable results of increased durability and dimensional stability. This would also provide “particularly high bending rigidity.” [Yanagi “Description of Embodiments” Paragraph 8], as recognized by Yanagi.
Regarding Claim 18, Jung teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, further comprising one or more cross member(s), the plurality of frame components act as an outer perimeter for the vehicle battery tray and include a plurality of longitudinal frame components, the cross member(s) extend along a width of the vehicle battery tray in between the longitudinal frame components [Jung Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 19, Jung teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, further comprising a vehicle battery panel made from an aluminum-based material or steel, the vehicle battery panel is secured to the bottom of the vehicle battery tray [Jung Figs. 1 and 4, Reference Character 20].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Iqbal et al. (CN 108448019 A) (hereinafter “Iqbal”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach cast aluminum. Iqbal teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of tray components are made from a casted aluminum-based material [Iqbal Abstract: “the plate can be made of aluminum, and the battery tray can be a cast aluminum piece.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, cast aluminum trays in view of Iqbal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Iqbal because this could reduce weight and increase design freedom. Further, this would help in “distributing the coolant heat condition to the hot plate to manage the battery cell and reducing the number of the components {which} can provide the advantages of performance and packaging.” [Iqbal “Description” Paragraph 15], as recognized by Iqbal.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Honjo et al. (US 8980458 B2) (hereinafter “Honjo”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach molded plastic. Honjo teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of tray components are made from a molded plastic material [Honjo Paragraph 25: “The tray member 10 having the structure as described above is integrally molded by means of injection molding. The injection molding is a most common resin molding technique, wherein a resin material is molten in a molding machine and the molten resin material is then injected, under a higher pressure, into a die having a shape of the product to be formed and having a cavity and a core. This tray member 10 is formed from a resin material including reinforcing fibers added thereto.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, molded plastic in view of Honjo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Honjo because this would have achieved the desirable results of increased electrical insulation, decreased weight, and decreased cost. The use of molded plastic would further enable multiple components to be formed “integrally” [Honjo Paragraph 25], as recognized by Honjo.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach tray component material. Honjo teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of tray components are separate or discrete parts that are comprised of the same material and have the same configuration and size so that they can be manufactured using the same set of dies, molds and/or tools [Honjo Paragraph 18: “The sheet metal tray members 40 are formed by bending and/or welding sheet metals.”; Paragraph 31: “the sheet metal tray member 40 received in the front battery receiving section 15F and the sheet metal tray member 40 received in the rear battery receiving section 15R are identical.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the same material, configuration, and size, in view of Honjo. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Honjo because this would have achieved the desirable results of greater modularity and lower cost. As such, “The tray member 10 and the cover member 20 {can be} formed from a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP), for example, to which fibers, such as glass fibers, are added as a reinforcing material for improving the strength and the stiffness, as well as for providing the electrical insulation property” [Honjo Paragraph 18], as recognized by Honjo.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 208753384 U) (hereinafter “Shen”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach raised and/or recessed features. Shen teaches The vehicle battery tray of claim 8, wherein the floor portion or at least some of the plurality of wall portions includes a series of raised and/or recessed features that are arranged in a pattern to act as strengthening or stiffening features for the tray component [Shen Fig. 1 and 10, Reference Characters 5 and 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a series of raised and/or recessed features in view of Shen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the plain floor and walls of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Shen because this would have achieved the desirable results of strengthening and stiffening the tray(s). As such, the bottom wall inner surface is provided with “reinforcing” [Shen “Specific Implementation Methods” Paragraph 8], as recognized by Shen.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Chi et al. (US 11264670 B2) (hereinafter “Chi”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach flanges. Chi teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 8, wherein at least some of the plurality of wall portions include one or more connecting feature(s) in the form of a flange, the flange is a small edge that is turned at a right angle to a corresponding wall portion and overlaps a flange of an adjacent tray component such that the flanges can be adhered or welded together. [Chi Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Reference Character 121b]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a flange in view of Chi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the flangeless walls of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Chi because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling easy and flush attachment of the battery tray. As such, the battery trays can be “matched with each other in an upper and lower direction.” [Chi Paragraph 40], as recognized by Chi.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Hara et al. (US 9985258 B2) (hereinafter “Hara”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach openings or apertures. Hara teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 8, wherein at least some of the plurality of frame components or the plurality of wall portions include a series of openings or apertures, the series of openings or apertures are sized and shaped to allow an item to pass therethrough [Hara Fig. 2, Reference Characters 7b and 7c]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, openings or apertures in view of Hara. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the solid walls of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Hara because this would have achieved the desirable result of allowing items to pass through the wall. As such, “ducts and cables can be inserted” [Hara Paragraph 24], as recognized by Hara.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) (hereinafter “Stephens”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach adhesion. Stephens teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 15, wherein the plurality of tray components are adhered to one another and/or are adhered to the frame components [Stephens Paragraph 0082: “an adhesive or epoxy or the like may be provided along the cross members 580 for bonding to the upper reinforcements 588 of the tub component”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, epoxy in view of Stephens. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the unadhered tray components of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Stephens because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a liquid-tight connection and further “improving the stiffness of the cross members for reducing side deformation to the battery tray from side vehicle impact.” [ Stephens Paragraph 0082], as recognized by Stephens.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Nebeling et al. (DE 102018132219 A1) (hereinafter “Nebeling”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of frame components but does not teach a majority of channels elongated in a horizontal direction. Nebeling teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of frame components have a stiffness enhanced configuration that includes a plurality of interior channels, a majority of the interior channels are, in cross-section, elongated in a horizontal direction such that a longest horizontal dimension A is greater than a longest vertical dimension B [Nebeling Figs 1 and 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, frame components with horizontal dimensions greater than vertical dimensions in view of Nebeling. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the interior channel dimensions of Jung and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Nebeling because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing stiffness and improving side impact performance. As recognized by Nebeling, “The other leg of such a profile, which is typically longer than this hollow profile leg, extends in the plane of the battery housing…Both configurations have the advantage that the parts of the interconnected profiles located below the base plate do not have to be connected with a sealing weld seam. In such an embodiment, the trough structure for receiving the battery module or batteries is provided by the vertically extending hollow profile leg of the profile and the floor resting on the heel. In this embodiment, the frame structure with its walls pointing into the battery module receptacle thus simultaneously forms the side wall of the tub structure. Additional side walls of a deep-drawn tub are not required in this embodiment, which in turn leads to a reduction in the weight of the battery housing.” [Nebeling “Description” Paragraph 11].
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR-20200131082) (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of Yanagi et al. (JP 2016081857 A) (hereinafter “Yanagi”) and further in view of Grewe (DE 102018113728 A1). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach support beams. Grewe teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, further comprising one or more support beam(s) inserted between at least some of the plurality of tray components, the support beam(s) have either a webbed cross-sectional configuration or a solid I-beam cross-sectional configuration [Grewe Figs. 7A and 8, Reference Character 137]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, support beams in view of Grewe. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the beamless arrangement of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Grewe because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing stiffness and strength of the battery tray. As such, “The stabilizing elements 137 prevent, in case of load, the components of the cover 103 which protects the battery modules.” [Grewe “Description” Paragraph 125], as recognized by Grewe.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray comprising a plurality of tray components but does not teach a slotted channel. Grewe teaches the vehicle battery tray of claim 20, wherein the one or more support beam(s) include a slotted channel at an upper and/or a lower end, the slotted channel receives a flange of one of the tray components [Grewe Fig. 7A, Reference Character 101]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a slotted channel in view of Grewe. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the beamless arrangement of Yanagi and would have been motivated to combine Jung, Yanagi, and Grewe because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing stiffness and strength of the battery tray. As such, the bottom plate “can form niches, or depressions for the respective electric battery modules.” and “provide an underrun protection for the vehicle” [Grewe Paragraph 0100 and 0102], as recognized by Grewe.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishitobi (JP 2020148477) in view of Stephens et al. (US 20180337377 A1) (hereinafter “Stephens”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 24, Ishitobi teaches a method for manufacturing a vehicle battery tray but does not teach casting. Stephens teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the forming step further comprises casting at least some of the plurality of tray components from an aluminum-based material, and the attaching step further comprises attaching the aluminum-based tray components to the plurality of assembled frame components by welding [Stephens Paragraph 0055: “the battery module 14 may retain a series of battery cells or plates or pouches 54 by securing the cells or pouches 54 between end castings 56, where a rod 58 may extend generally horizontally between the end castings 56 of each battery module 14”; Paragraph 0083: “the components of the support structure may be alternatively configured from the illustrated embodiment and may be attached, such as via welding, fasteners and/or adhesive or the like”]. It should be noted that while Stephens does not provide an explicit motivation for casting and welding, these processes are common in the art. Casting enables unitary construction which can reduce weight, cost, and component quantity; welding provides secure air- and water-tight connections. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of manufacturing a vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, casting and welding in view of Stephens. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the processes of Ishitobi and would have been motivated to combine Ishitobi and Stephens because this would have achieved the desirable results presented above. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 25, Ishitobi teaches a method for manufacturing a vehicle battery tray but does not teach an adhesive. Stephens teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the forming step further comprises molding at least some of the plurality of tray components from a plastic material, and the attaching step further comprises attaching the plastic tray components to the plurality of assembled frame components with adhesive [Stephens Paragraph 0054: “additional embodiments of the tub component may include a polymeric material, such as an injection molded plastic, or stamped or formed metal.”; Paragraph 0075: “The sealing provided by the tub component includes an adhesive 472 that is disposed between the tub component 420 and the support structure 424.”]. It should be noted that while Stephens does not provide an explicit motivation for using molding and adhesives, these processes are common in the art. Molding enables unitary construction which can reduce weight, cost, and component quantity; adhesives provide secure air- and water-tight connections. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of manufacturing a vehicle battery tray of the combination of Jung and Yanagi to specify, with a reasonable expectation of success, molding and adhesives in view of Stephens. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such modification could be used as an alternative to the processes of Ishitobi and would have been motivated to combine Ishitobi and Stephens because this would have achieved the desirable results presented above. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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. [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray including a first tray and second tray but does not teach three-wall construction or joining open sides. The prior art does not teach or suggest the vehicle battery tray of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tray components include a first tray component and a second tray component, each of the first and second tray components is formed as half of a battery compartment and includes three wall portions extending upwardly from a floor portion and one open side, the first and second tray components are joined together at the open sides to form a combined battery compartment. The closest reference, Noh et al. (US 20150064541 A1) teaches a first tray component and a second tray component, each of the first and second tray components includes three wall portions extending upwardly from a floor portion and one open side [Noh et al. Fig. 1], but does not teach that each tray is formed as half of a battery compartment or that the first and second tray components are joined together at the open sides to form a combined battery compartment.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jung and Yanagi teaches a vehicle battery tray but does not teach that the first and second tray components are joined together. The prior art does not teach or suggest the vehicle battery tray of claim 12, wherein the first tray component includes an open side with a connecting feature in the form of an elongated channel and the second tray component includes an open side with a connecting feature in the form of an elongated edge, and the first and second tray components are joined together at the open sides such that the elongated edge is inserted within the elongated channel. The closest reference, Noh et al. (US 20150064541 A1) teaches a first tray component and a second tray component, each of the first and second tray components includes three wall portions extending upwardly from a floor portion and one open side [Noh et al. Fig. 1], but does not teach an elongated edge or channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 am - 6:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613