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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No’s. KR10-2019-0123264 and KR10-2020-0162439 filed on 10/04/19 and 11/27//20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on (2/9/24 5/22/24 8/15/24 10/2424 5/15/25) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims include the limitation “the battery compartment”, but each depends from claim 1 which introduces “two battery compartments”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US PG PUB NO 2016/0087256) in view of Naruke (US 9,321,338).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses a battery unit for a vehicle, comprising: a lower case (11) having two battery compartments (Wagner annotated FIG 1) arranged in a direction toward opposite sides of the vehicle (Wagner annotated FIG 1), respectively, and a connecting portion (Wagner annotated FIG 1) bent to be convex upwardly between the two battery compartments (Wagner is exemplary with a hollow portion below the connection forming an inverted U-shape between the modules 11); a reinforcing structure (Wagner annotated FIG 1) disposed on the connecting portion; and two battery modules installed in the two battery compartments (Wagner, see paragraph [0005] disclosing battery housing).
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the reinforcing structure is arranged to be aligned with a seat cross member in a left-right direction.
-Nevertheless, Naruke, annotated FIG 8 illustrates an exemplary battery mount with seat and cross frame.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Wagner to align the battery assembly with a seat sub-structure as taught by Naruke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent damage in a side collision.
PNG
media_image1.png
665
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
615
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Wagner discloses a battery unit for a vehicle, comprising: a lower case (11) having two battery compartments (Wagner annotated FIG 1) arranged in a direction toward opposite sides of the vehicle (Wagner annotated FIG 1), respectively; a connecting portion (Wagner annotated FIG 1) bent to be convex upwardly between the two battery compartments (Wagner is exemplary with a hollow portion below the connection forming an inverted U-shape between the modules 11); a reinforcing structure (Wagner annotated FIG 1) disposed on the connecting portion; and two battery modules installed in the two battery compartments (Wagner, see paragraph [0005] disclosing battery housing).
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the reinforcing structure is arranged to be aligned with a seat cross member in a left-right direction.
-Nevertheless, Naruke, annotated FIG 8 illustrates an exemplary battery mount with seat and cross frame.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Wagner to align the battery assembly with a seat sub-structure as taught by Naruke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent damage in a side collision.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US PG PUB NO 2016/0087256) in view of Naruke (US 9,321,338) and in view of Mizoguchi (US PG PUB NO 2012/0055725).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Wagner/Naruke disclose the battery unit of claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein a transverse member is extending in the left-right direction and coupled to the lower surface of the battery compartment.
-Nevertheless, Mizoguchi discloses in at least FIG 5, transverse and longitudinal members (112 and 114).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have battery sub-structure as taught by Mizoguchi by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize collision damage in a side impact.
PNG
media_image3.png
659
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
670
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Wagner/Naruke/Mizoguchi disclose the battery unit of claim 2, wherein the transverse member is disposed to vertically overlap the seat cross member (Mizoguchi can be modified to place 112 and 114 in a position as desired based on each vehicle application).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Wagner/Naruke discloses the battery unit of claim 1.
-However, they fail to disclose wherein a longitudinal member extending in the front-rear direction is coupled to the lower surface of the battery compartment.
-Nevertheless, Mizoguchi discloses in at least FIG 5, transverse and longitudinal members (112 and 114).
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have battery sub-structure using a longitudinal member as taught by Mizoguchi by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize collision damage in a side impact.
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Wagner/Naruke/Mizoguchi disclose the battery unit of claim 4, wherein a front end of the longitudinal member is coupled to a rear end of a front side member (Mizoguchi, FIG 5).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Wagner/Naruke/Mizoguchi disclose the battery unit of claim 4, wherein the battery unit and a front cross member (Mizoguchi, annotated FIG 5) are installed under a center floor (Mizoguchi, FIG 1), a front end of the longitudinal member is coupled to the front cross member and a rear end of a front side member (Mizoguchi, annotated FIG 5, all of the battery components in each cited reference are ultimately connected when assembled).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Wagner/Naruke/Mizoguchi disclose the battery unit of claim 4, wherein the battery unit and a rear cross member (Mizoguchi, annotated FIG 5) are installed under a center floor (Mizoguchi, FIG 1), a rear end of the longitudinal member is coupled to the rear cross member (Mizoguchi, annotated FIG 5, all of the battery components in each cited reference are ultimately connected when assembled).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614