DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/290,250 filed on November 10th, 2023. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application DE 10 2021 112 253.8 filed on May 11th, 2021. A certified copy was received on November 10th, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 10th, 2023 and December 5th, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 4 (line 4), please change the recitation of “the stabilizing portion between opposite wall portions” to - - the stabilizing portion between the opposite wall portions - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 3 (line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 10-11), in the recitation of “so that a U-shaped battery holder internal space is produced with limbs and a connecting portion” it is unclear which limbs and connecting portion Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “so that a U-shaped battery holder internal space is produced with the limbs and [[a]] the connecting portions of the base plate and cover” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 2 (lines 4-5), in the recitation of “present between the limbs of the U-shaped battery holder internal space” it is unclear which limbs Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “present between the limbs of the base plate and cover” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 1-3), in the recitation of “An electric vehicle with a frame, with a motor arranged on one end of the electric vehicle, with a driven shaft arranged on an end of the electric vehicle opposite the motor” it is unclear how many ends Applicant intends to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “An electric vehicle with a frame, with a motor arranged on one end of the electric vehicle, with a driven shaft arranged on [[an]] the other end of the electric vehicle opposite the motor” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 5-6), in the recitation of “wherein the electric vehicle further has an electric drive that can be provided with power via batteries arranged in the battery holder” the difference between the “motor” recited in claim 9 and the “electric drive” recited in claim 9 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Examiner will interpret the recitation as a hybrid drive motor or an electric drive motor without an internal combustion engine during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 9-10), in the recitation of “at least some sections of an area between the limbs of the U-shaped battery holder internal space” it is unclear which limbs Applicant is referring to. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “at least some sections of an area between the limbs of the base plate and cover” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 2012/0312612). Harrison was cited on the IDS filed November 10th, 2023.
Regarding Claim 1, Harrison teaches a battery holder (Figs. 6-7 and 13, “battery assembly” 25) for retrofitting a vehicle ([0030] – “battery modules 14, 16 each include multiple battery units 17 (shown in FIG. 7) operatively connected to one another to provide a predetermined amount of stored electrical energy for a given application, such as for use in powering a hybrid or electric vehicle”) to form an electric vehicle (see [0030]), wherein the battery holder (25) comprises:
a U-shaped base plate (“battery unit support portion” 23, “battery unit support portion” 19 and “bottom panel” 32) that has two opposite, spaced-apart limbs (23, 19) and a connecting portion (32) that connects the two opposite, spaced-apart limbs (23, 19) to each other at one end (see Figs. 6-7 and 13),
a U-shaped cover (“removable lid” 24, “removable lid” 20 and “lid” 38) that has two opposite, spaced-apart limbs (24, 20) and a connecting portion (38) that connects the two opposite, spaced-apart limbs (24, 20) to each other at one end (see Fig. 6), and
wall portions (wall portions of 24, 20, 38, 32) that connect the U-shaped base plate (23, 19, 32) and the U-shaped cover (24, 20, 38) to each other, so that a U-shaped battery holder internal space (see Fig. 7) is produced with limbs (23, 19, 24, 20) and a connecting portion (32, 38; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Harrison teaches the battery holder according to claim 1,
wherein the battery holder (Figs. 4-7; 25) has mounting points (“transverse support rails” 48) for mounting on sides of a frame (“frame rails” 41, 43) of a vehicle (“vehicle” 46),
the mounting points (48) positioned on at least one of a front axle of the frame, a leaf spring mount, and in a middle on the frame (41, 43; see Figs. 4-5).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2012/0312612), in view of Newman (US 10,749,156).
Regarding Claim 6, Harrison teaches the battery holder according to claim 1.
Harrison does not teach “wherein the battery holder is produced at least partially from aluminum foam”.
Newman teaches a battery holder (Fig. 3, “battery pack” 102) is produced at least partially from aluminum foam (col. 3, line 12 – “A supporting material 302 is present in the space between the modules 202. The supporting material 302 can be any material that has light weight and that absorbs mechanical energy. One class of materials that meets these criteria is foam. Foams are materials that comprise solid or liquid material having pockets of gas trapped therein. Some examples of types of foams that could be used as the supporting material 302 include a polymer-based foam (such as a polyurethane foam) and aluminum foam” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery holder taught by Harrison with the aluminum foam taught by Newman, such that “wherein the battery holder is produced at least partially from aluminum foam”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of supporting the batteries inside the battery holder taught by Harrison.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2012/0312612), in view of Oshima (US 9,673,493).
Regarding Claim 7, Harrison teaches the battery holder according to claim 1.
Harrison does not teach “wherein the U-shaped battery holder internal space is watertight”. However, Harrison does suggest “FIG. 13 shows a gasket 72 that serves as a sealing mechanism at an interface between the panels 30, 32, 34, 36 and the lid 38 to provide a leak-free and dust-free environment for the internal power electronics 50, 52, 54, 56 when the lid 38 is in the closed position” [0034].
Oshima teaches a battery holder internal space (Fig. 3, space between “battery pack upper cover” 12 and “battery pack lower frame” 11) is watertight (col. 5, line 11 – “battery pack case 1 is configured from two parts, a battery pack lower frame 11 and a battery pack upper cover 12, as illustrated in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4. Then, by affixing the two parts by bolting, interposed with an annular sealing member which runs continuously along the outer perimeter edges of the battery pack lower frame 11 and the battery pack upper cover 12, a watertight structure capable of preventing the entry of water from the outside is configured” emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery holder taught by Harrison with the watertight seal taught by Oshima, such that “wherein the U-shaped battery holder internal space is watertight”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of preventing the entry of water into the battery holder internal space taught by Harrison.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2012/0312612), in view of Ward (US 1,309,164).
Regarding Claim 9, Harrison teaches an electric vehicle (Figs. 3-5; 46) with a frame (41, 43), with a motor (the transmission seen in Figs. 3-5 and 12; [0037] – “This permits easy access for connector cables between the electrical connector 102 and a motor/generator or other component of a vehicle transmission to provide power between the internal electrical components 50, 52” emphasis added) arranged on one end (left end in Figs. 3-5) of the electric vehicle (46), with a rear axle (rear axle seen in Figs. 3-5) arranged on an end (right end in Figs. 3-5) of the electric vehicle (46) opposite the motor (see Figs. 3-5), and with a driveshaft (“transmission driveshaft” 47) that can transfer driving force to the rear axle (rear axle seen in Figs. 3-5),
wherein the driveshaft (47) has an inclined profile (see Fig. 3) from a top (left end of 47) to a bottom (right end of 47) from the motor (see [0037]) to the rear axle (rear axle seen in Figs. 3-5),
wherein the electric vehicle (46) further has an electric drive (see 112(b) rejection above) that can be provided with power via batteries (Fig. 7, “multiple battery units” 17) arranged in the battery holder (25; [0002] – “arrangement also presents difficulties associated with gaining access to and connecting the high voltage and control cables needed to link the battery modules to the vehicle transmission”),
wherein the battery holder (25) is configured according to claim 1, and
that the driveshaft (47) passes through at least some sections of an area between the limbs (23, 19, 24, 20) of the U-shaped battery holder internal space (23, 19, 32, 24, 20, 38; see Figs. 3-5).
Harrison does not teach “with a driven shaft arranged on an end of the electric vehicle opposite the motor, and with a driveshaft that can transfer driving force to the driven shaft…wherein the driveshaft has an inclined profile from a top to a bottom from the motor to the driven shaft”. In other words, Harrison does not explicitly disclose a driven shaft in the rear axle seen in Figs. 3-5 or explicitly disclose the operation of the powertrain seen in Figs. 3-5.
Ward teaches with a driven shaft (Figs. 2-3, “short driving shaft” 18) arranged on an end of an electric vehicle (right end in Figs. 2-3) opposite a motor (“electric motor” 22), and with a driveshaft (“propellor shaft” 26) that can transfer driving force to the driven shaft (18; col. 2, line 14 – “By this arrangement a propeller shaft is provided which will transmit the rotations of the motor shaft carried with the frame uniformly to the worm drive shaft carried with the rear axle and said shaft may be given high rotative speeds”).
wherein the driveshaft (26) has an inclined profile from a top to a bottom from the motor (22) to the driven shaft (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the powertrain taught by Harrison with the driven shaft taught by Ward, such that “with a driven shaft arranged on an end of the electric vehicle opposite the motor, and with a driveshaft that can transfer driving force to the driven shaft…wherein the driveshaft has an inclined profile from a top to a bottom from the motor to the driven shaft”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably delivering torque to the rear axle taught by Harrison.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Brumbaugh (US 1,678,033), McKibben (US 11,926,207) and Egger (DE 10 2016 203 740) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar battery holders comprising base plates and covers related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655