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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 24 have been examined. Claims 25 – 71 have been canceled by Applicant.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites components which “can be mounted adjacent” each other. This renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if this mounting arrangement is required or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 –17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (2024/0286480), cited by Applicant, in view of Winger et al. (10,998,595). In regard to claim 1, Kumagai discloses a battery assembly for an electric vehicle, the battery assembly comprising a housing that defines an interior space (Fig. 15, item 5), the housing comprising a perimeter frame, a top cover connected to a top portion of the perimeter frame, and a bottom cover connected to a bottom portion of the perimeter frame (Figs. 2, 7, and 15, items 7, 8 and unnumbered top and bottom of item 4), wherein the perimeter frame comprises a plurality of elongate frame members connected together at their ends to form a perimeter of the housing, the plurality of elongate frame members comprising at least a forward frame member, a rearward frame member, a first lateral side frame member, and a second lateral side frame member (Fig. 2), wherein at least the first lateral side frame member and the second lateral side frame member comprise a cross-sectional profile configured to at least partially absorb impact loads resulting from a crash, the cross-sectional profile comprising a plurality of braces separated by voids (Fig. 15, item 57), a plurality of battery modules positioned within the interior space of the housing (Figs. 2 and 15, item 4).
In regard to claim 2, Kumagai discloses wherein the top cover of the housing is flat (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Kumagai discloses wherein the top portion of the perimeter frame comprises a recessed area that receives the top cover such that the top cover does not extend above the perimeter frame (Figs. 2 and 15).
In regard to claim 5, Kumagai discloses wherein the bottom cover of the housing is flat (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 6, Kumagai discloses wherein the bottom portion of the perimeter frame comprises a recessed area that receives the bottom cover such that the bottom cover does not extend below the perimeter frame (Figs. 2 and 15).
In regard to claim 10, Kumagai discloses wherein the housing comprises a substantially flat top shape such that the battery assembly can be mounted adjacent a second battery assembly having a housing with a substantially flat bottom shape (Figs. 2 and 15, wherein two instances of item 5 can be mounted adjacent).
In regard to claim 11, Kumagai discloses wherein at least the first lateral side frame member and the second lateral side frame member comprise extruded structures (paragraph 120).
In regard to claim 12, Kumagai discloses wherein each of the plurality of elongate frame members comprise extruded structures (paragraph 120).
In regard to claim 13, Kumagai discloses wherein the plurality of elongate frame members are welded together to form a continuous perimeter (paragraph 71).
In regard to claim 14, Kumagai discloses wherein each of the plurality of elongate frame members comprise extruded aluminum (paragraph 120).
In regard to claim 15, Kumagai discloses wherein at least two of the plurality of elongate frame members comprise an external surface extending along a vertical direction, the external surface comprising one or more mounting bracket fastening features for coupling thereto of a mounting bracket assembly (Fig 1, item 6 & paragraph 72).
In regard to claim 16, Kumagai discloses wherein the one or more mounting bracket fastening features comprise one or more of a hole, a slot, a thread, or a stud (Kumagai does not explicitly state the fixing method, however, Official Notice is taken that the use of holes and threaded fasteners are old and well known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be well within their level of knowledge to make use of such a fastening arrangement).
In regard to claim 17, Kumagai discloses wherein the at least two of the plurality of elongate frame members comprises the forward frame member and the rearward frame member (paragraph 72).
Kumagai does not disclose a plurality of battery modules on a rack structure. In regard to claim 1, Winger discloses a battery assembly for an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of battery modules positioned within the interior space of the housing, each of the plurality of battery modules comprising one or more battery cells (Fig. 3A, item 208), a positive electric terminal, a negative electric terminal (Fig. 3A, items 210, 212, 214, and 220), a coolant inlet, and a coolant outlet (Fig. 4, item 248), and a rack structure positioned within the interior space of the housing and coupled to the perimeter frame, the rack structure comprising a plurality of support elements that cooperate to retain the plurality of battery modules with respect to the housing (Fig. 5 & column 10, lines 43 – 60).
The addition of these features would result in a predictable variation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which has been held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BAPI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Kumagai in view of Winger does not disclose the top cover thickness. In regard to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a top cover comprising a thickness that is no greater than 60% of a thickness of at least the first lateral side frame member and the second lateral side frame member, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Kumagai in view of Winger does not disclose the height and width dimensions of the housing. In regard to claims 7 – 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a housing dimensioned as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (2024/0286480) in view of Winger et al. (10,998,595) as applied to claims 1 – 17 above, and further in view of Hörder et al. (2021/0380001). Kumagai in view of Winger does not disclose the use of vibration damping brackets. In regard to claim 18, Hörder discloses a mounting bracket assembly for attaching the battery assembly to a vehicle frame, the mounting bracket assembly comprising a housing bracket configured to be coupled to an external vertically extending surface of one of the plurality of elongate frame members, a vehicle bracket configured to be coupled to a vehicle frame member, and one or more vibration dampening assemblies coupling the housing bracket to the vehicle bracket (Fig. 5b, items 45 and 80).
In regard to claim 19, Hörder discloses wherein the housing bracket comprises a vertically extending portion that comprises one or more openings for receiving one or more fasteners to couple the vertically extending portion of the housing bracket to the external vertically extending surface of the one of the plurality of elongate frame members (Fig. 5b, unnumbered fasteners in items 45 and 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bracket of Hörder with the battery assembly of Kumagai in view of Winger, in order to minimize vibration transmitted to the vehicle frame from the weight/mass of the battery assembly. This would increase vehicle ride comfort and handling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 – 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kumagai (2024/0286480) discloses a battery assembly similar to the instant invention; however Kumagai, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a battery assembly wherein (in regard to claim 20) the battery assembly is a first battery assembly,wherein the vertically extending portion of the housing bracket comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the upper portion comprises the one or more openings for receiving the one or more fasteners, and wherein the lower portion comprises a second one or more openings for receiving a second one or more fasteners to couple the vertically extending portion of the housing bracket to an external vertically extending surface of an elongate frame member of a second battery assembly positioned underneath and adjacent to the first battery assembly, (in regard to claim 21) wherein the plurality of battery modules are grouped into a first bank and a second bank, with a central space positioned between the first bank and the second bank, and with the coolant inlet and the coolant outlet of each of the plurality of battery modules positioned facing the central space, and (in regard to claim 22) a power electronics module attached to an external front surface of the forward frame member or to an external rear surface of the rearward frame member, the power electronics module comprising at least battery management system (BMS) components electrically coupleable to the plurality of battery modules to control charging of and power distribution from the plurality of battery modules. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sloan et al. (11,043,714) disclose a battery system for heavy duty vehicles;
Kumagai (12,403,757) discloses a battery pack support device for a vehicle;
Murphy et al. (12,502,942) disclose a vehicle with reconfigurable energy storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613