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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that a bona fide attempt to address Applicant’s case law arguments concerning the rejection of record of Claim 12 35 U.S.C. § has been made. However, Ex Parte Rippolone] is not mentioned in the MPEP or in other applicable USPTO guidance memoranda. Examiners are not expected to do legal research beyond these resources. Unless precedential, each case has an individual fact pattern. While prior decisions may provide guidance, non-precedential cases should not be considered as binding authority or relied upon as determinative precedent in legal analyses concerning other patent applications. The Examiner has reviewed the applicable sections of the MPEP and USPTO guidance memoranda respecting duplication of parts and proceeds with a response, infra.
Applicant presents the following arguments:
First, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegation that Applicant's specification does not disclose that the features previously recited in claim 12 are critical or have any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Paragraphs [0059]-[0061] and [0063] of Applicant's specification explain that the first battery module group can include a greater number of battery modules than the third group, and the second battery module group can include a greater number of battery modules than the third group. In particular, paragraph [0059] of Applicant's specification explains that a first battery housing 60 includes a first battery module bank 62 and a second battery module bank 63 that each include twenty-four battery modules 61, while paragraph [0060] explains that a second battery housing 70 includes a third battery module bank 72 with fourteen battery modules 71. Furthermore, paragraph [0061] of Applicant's specification explains that the third battery module bank can be combined with an additional ten battery modules 31L and 31R provided in side housings 30L and 30R, for a total of twenty-four battery modules included in a third group. Thus, by distributing battery modules with different numbers in the first and second housings (and optionally in side housings), increased space for storing batteries and improved efficiency of use of battery storage space can be achieved without adversely affecting the motive operation of the electric work vehicle, as explained in paragraph [0004] of Applicant's specification. That is, the features previously recited in Applicant's claim 12, and the features currently recited in Applicant's amended claim 1, improve the capacity and efficiency of the battery system in a work vehicle, while optimizing the use of available space without impacting vehicle operation. Accordingly, the features of Applicant's claimed invention are clearly critical and have a particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Furthermore, by providing the battery modules in at least three distinct groups, Applicant's claimed invention enables one or two group(s) of battery modules to be discharged to provide electrical power while other battery group(s) remain idle or are being charged (see, for example, paragraph [0063] of Applicant's specification). Accordingly, as explained in paragraph [0070] of Applicant's specification, a state of charge of each of the battery group(s) can be managed to reduce battery degradation,
Second, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegation that that "mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance," citing In re Harza. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) explains that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Applicant has explained above the advantages provided by the features recited in amended claim 1, which clearly demonstrates a "new an unexpected result."
Further, the PTAB has routinely overturned rejections relying upon In re Harza. For example, in Ex parte Rippolone, Appeal 2009-015057 (BP AI May 26, 2011), the PTAB reversed a similar rejection based on allegation of mere duplication of parts relying on In re Harza, stating: The Examiner does not merely duplicate Bortugno's gutter section to make multiples of that gutter section. The Examiner changes the structure of duplicated gutter sections. Bortugno's original section lacks a non-linear air flow passage, yet the Examiner modifies a second gutter section to include a non-linear air flow passage. (See Ans. 7-8). Then the Examiner must further modify the duplicated second section to connect a first air flow passage in Bortugno's original section with the duplicated section's non linear air flow passage. The Examiner further modifies another duplicated section, a third section, in a different manner. The Examiner modifies the third section via Bernardi's teaching to include a return connector. (See Ans. 8). This modification changes Bortugno's system from a system without a return to hot-air type furnace 12 to a system with a return to the hot-air type furnace 12. The Examiner does not account for the modification the return to the hot-air type furnace 12 has on Bortugno's exhaust ports 39. (See Reply Br. 2-3). These modifications are far beyond the holding in Harza, which is limited to a mere duplication of parts. Similar to the PTAB's decision in Ex parte Rippolone, the Examiner's proposed modification to the structure of Middleton et al., based on the factually and legally erroneous reliance on mere duplication of parts and In re Harza, goes far beyond the holding of In re Harza and duplication of parts, and instead requires redesign and changes to the structure of Middleton et al. In contrast to Applicant's claimed invention, Middleton et al. teaches that the same number of the battery modules 441, 442 are included in each of the battery boxes 214, 215 (see, for example, paragraph [0024] of Middleton et al.), and Middleton et al. does not teach or suggest whatsoever that different numbers of the battery modules 441, 442 could have been included in each of the battery boxes 214, 215. Thus, the Examiner's reliance on mere duplication of parts and In re Harza is legally and factually erroneous, and constitutes yet another fatal defect in the Examiner's failed attempt to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Middleton et al. disclose that varied numbers of battery modules are contemplated to address the unique hazards and accessibility issues associated with operating a battery-powered vehicles and that various modifications and variations can be made to the disclosed battery assembly without departing from the scope of the disclosure (See at least ¶¶0024-0028, 0035-0036; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”; “While only two battery modules 441, 442 are identified by a reference number in FIG. 4, each battery box 214, 215 may include 90 battery modules with 45 battery modules positioned on each side of plate 771”);
It is clear from the cited portions of the Middleton et al. reference that the number of battery modules can be varied and that it is, at a minimum, suggested from the cited portion of the reference.
Again, the mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration (varied numbers of first battery modules and second battery modules included in the first, second, and third groups) does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide / vehicle envelope considerations for electric vehicles). Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Applicant further argues:
Third, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's allegation that the features previously recited in Applicant's claim 12 are an "obvious matter of design choice." Applicant notes that that "matter of choice" and "design choice" were removed from MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144 as of MPEP 8th Ed. Rev. 6 (Sept. 2007). Additionally, design choice rejections were only applicable in rejecting decorative or aesthetic features of a claimed invention which provided no functional benefits. Clearly, Applicant's claimed features directed to comparative numbers of battery modules are neither decorative nor aesthetic, but are directed to a specific structural configuration that improves the capacity and efficiency of the battery system in a work vehicle, while optimizing the use of available space without impacting vehicle operation. Thus, Middleton et al., either alone or as allegedly modified by the Examiner, clearly fails to teach or suggest the features of "the first housing at least partially overlaps the second housing viewed from a vertical direction," "a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group," and "a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group is greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group" as recited in Applicant's claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Middleton et al., and Applicant respectfully submits that any rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton et al. would be improper for at least the reasons explained above. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is allowable. Claims 2-11 and 13-19 depend upon claim 1, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons that claim 1 is allowable. In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that this application is in condition for allowance. Favorable consideration and prompt allowance
The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant appears to have confused Examiner’s citation of MPEP § 2144(I) with MPEP § 2144.04(I) which concerns aesthetic design changes. Examiner has not relied on the section of the MPEP concerning aesthetic design changes. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claim . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpetation - Dictionary Definition
The Examiner has relied on dictionary definitions to interpret claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2111, 2111.01. The dictionary definitions and sources are as follows:
:
”” [ [Def. 1]. (n.d.).
Retrieved , from .]
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A work vehicle comprising:
a main body (110);
at least one front wheel (104) supported by the main body (110);
at least one rear wheel (106) supported by the main body (110);
a first housing (214) to house a plurality of first battery modules (441, 442; Fig 4) (¶¶0024-0028; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”); and
a second housing (215) to house one or more second battery modules (441, 442; Fig 4) (¶¶0024-0028; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”);
wherein the first housing (214) at least partially overlaps the second housing (215) viewed from a vertical direction (¶¶; Examiner notes that the boxes at least overlap in when viewed from a vertical direction);
the plurality of first battery modules (441, 442; Fig 4) housed in the first housing (214) define a first group of battery modules and a second group of battery modules (See at least ¶¶0024-0028; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”; “While only two battery modules 441, 442 are identified by a reference number in FIG. 4, each battery box 214, 215 may include 90 battery modules with 45 battery modules positioned on each side of plate 771”); and
the one or more second battery modules (441, 442; Fig 4) housed in the second housing (215) define a third group of battery modules (See at least ¶¶0024-0028; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”).
fail to explicitly disclose:
a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group; and a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group is greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group.
However, disclose:
that varied numbers of battery modules are contemplated to address the unique hazards and accessibility issues associated with operating a battery-powered vehicles and that various modifications and variations can be made to the disclosed battery assembly without departing from the scope of the disclosure (See at least ¶¶0024-0028, 0035-0036; “Each of battery boxes 214, 215 of battery system 300 may have the internal components shown in FIG. 4.”; “While only two battery modules 441, 442 are identified by a reference number in FIG. 4, each battery box 214, 215 may include 90 battery modules with 45 battery modules positioned on each side of plate 771”); and
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group being greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group; and a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group being greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group can be greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group.
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration (varied numbers of first battery modules and second battery modules included in the first, second, and third groups) does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide / vehicle envelope considerations for electric vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the plurality of first battery modules and the one or more second battery modules are a same type of battery module (See at least ¶¶0024-0028).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first housing is located forward of the at least one rear wheel; and the second housing is located forward of the at least one rear wheel.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the main body includes a cover that is openable and/or removable to provide access to the first housing and the second housing. (¶¶0023); “Battery boxes 214, 215 may include removable panels to allow access to components within battery boxes 214, 215.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first housing includes one or more first openings that are configured to receive the plurality of first battery modules; and the second housing includes one or more second openings that are configured to receive the one or more second battery modules. (¶¶0024-0028)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more first openings and the one or more second openings face a width direction of the work vehicle. (See at least: ¶¶0023-0028) ()
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the one or more first openings provide access to first sub-housings that each receive a separate one of the plurality of first battery modules, and the one or more second openings provide access to second sub-housings that each receive a separate one of the one or more second battery modules. (See at least: ¶¶0023-0028) ()
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is equal to a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group. (See at least ¶¶0024-0027)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the first battery modules included in the first group and the first battery modules included in the second group are installed in a width direction of the work vehicle. (See at least: ¶¶0023-0028) ()
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
the first housing includes at least one first opening that is configured to receive the first group of battery modules, the at least one first opening faces a terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group, the first housing includes at least one second opening that is configured to receive the second group of battery modules, and the at least one second opening faces the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed housing opening configuration and the relation of these openings to the terminal orientation of battery modules is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The first housing can include at least one first opening that is configured to receive the first group of battery modules, and the at least one first opening can face a terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group. The first housing can include at least one second opening that is configured to receive the second group of battery modules, and the at least one second opening can face the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group. The terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group and the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group can be located at opposing sides of the first housing in a width direction of the work vehicle.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that rearranging components involves only routine skill in the art where the rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group and the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group are located at opposing sides of the first housing in a width direction of the work vehicle.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed location of the battery module groupings and terminal sides being located at opposing sides of the first housing in a width direction of the work vehicle is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The first housing can include at least one first opening that is configured to receive the first group of battery modules, and the at least one first opening can face a terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group. The first housing can include at least one second opening that is configured to receive the second group of battery modules, and the at least one second opening can face the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group. The terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group and the terminal side of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group can be located at opposing sides of the first housing in a width direction of the work vehicle.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that rearranging components involves only routine skill in the art where the rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the device. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein: a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group; and a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group is greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group being greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group; and a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group being greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group can be greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group.
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
further comprising: at least one side housing that includes one or more third battery modules, wherein the one or more third battery modules define at least a fourth group of battery modules.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that providing at least one side housing that includes one or more third battery modules, wherein the one or more third battery modules define at least a fourth group of battery modules is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be greater than a number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the second group can be greater than the number of the one or more second battery modules included in the third group.
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one--- or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group and the fourth group.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The work vehicle can further include at least one side housing that includes one or more third battery modules. The one or more third battery modules can define at least a fourth group of battery modules. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group and the fourth group. The first group can include twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules. The second group can include twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules. The third group can include fourteen of the one or more second battery modules. The fourth group can include ten of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the first group includes twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules; the second group includes twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules; the third group includes fourteen of the one or more second battery modules; and the fourth group includes ten of the one or more third battery modules.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The work vehicle can further include at least one side housing that includes one or more third battery modules. The one or more third battery modules can define at least a fourth group of battery modules. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group and the fourth group. The first group can include twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules. The second group can include twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules. The third group can include fourteen of the one or more second battery modules. The fourth group can include ten of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the at least one side housing includes a first side housing and a second side housing; the first side housing includes the fourth group of the one or more third battery modules; and the second side housing includes a fifth group of the one or more third battery modules.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The at least one side housing can include a first side housing and a second side housing. The first side housing can include the fourth group of the one or more third battery modules, and the second side housing can include a fifth group of the one or more third battery modules. A number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fourth group can be equal to a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fifth group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group, the fourth group, and the fifth group. The fourth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules, and the fifth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fourth group is equal to a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fifth group.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The at least one side housing can include a first side housing and a second side housing. The first side housing can include the fourth group of the one or more third battery modules, and the second side housing can include a fifth group of the one or more third battery modules. A number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fourth group can be equal to a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fifth group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group, the fourth group, and the fifth group. The fourth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules, and the fifth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein a number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group is equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group, the fourth group, and the fifth group.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The at least one side housing can include a first side housing and a second side housing. The first side housing can include the fourth group of the one or more third battery modules, and the second side housing can include a fifth group of the one or more third battery modules. A number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fourth group can be equal to a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fifth group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group, the fourth group, and the fifth group. The fourth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules, and the fifth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein: the first group includes twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules; the second group includes twenty-four of the plurality of first battery modules; the third group includes fourteen of the one or more second battery modules; the fourth group includes five of the one or more third battery modules; and the fifth group includes five of the one or more third battery modules.
It has been held that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. See at least: MPEP § 2144(I).
In Applicant’s specification, Applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
For example, the Instant PgPub states:
“The at least one side housing can include a first side housing and a second side housing. The first side housing can include the fourth group of the one or more third battery modules, and the second side housing can include a fifth group of the one or more third battery modules. A number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fourth group can be equal to a number of the one or more third battery modules included in the fifth group. A number of the plurality of first battery modules included in the first group can be equal to a total number of the one or more second battery modules and the one or more third battery modules included in a combination of the third group, the fourth group, and the fifth group. The fourth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules, and the fifth group can include five of the one or more third battery modules.”
(See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶)
The Examiner further notes that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is achieved from such duplication. See at least: MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) (citing In re Harza, 274 F.3d 699 (CCPA 1960). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g. provide ).
Therefore, it would have been a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as claimed because applicant does not note that the claimed configuration is critical, solves any stated problem or even has any particular advantage or purpose over alternative configurations.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747