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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention A (Claims 1-17) and Species I (Fig.1) in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mounted for suspension” (Claim 1/9/12/15 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) and “such that electrical contacts of the battery cells are oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells are oriented upwards” (Claim 1/12 – not shown) and “a supporting structure of the motor vehicle” (Claim 3) and “forming a supporting structure of the motor vehicle” (Claim 7), must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/9/12/15, the claims recite the limitations: “mounted for suspension” which are unclear and therefore render the claims indefinite (see above drawing objection). Appropriate correction is required
Claim 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim recites the limitations: "and/or” (line 2), which renders the claims indefinite. This renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if the combination of limitations is required or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 and 7-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation "a supporting structure of the motor vehicle" and similarly claim 7: “forming a supporting structure of the motor vehicle” which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The disclosure and Figure 2 point to element 12 as a “supporting structure” but it is still not clear what this limitation provides. 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann et al. (US 6,569,556 B2) in view of Power et al. (US 9,461,284 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Wiemann discloses: A motor vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 100), comprising: a high-voltage battery (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 6) having: a battery housing (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 2) with a trough defined at least by sidewalls (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 2.1) and a cover to cover the trough at an upper region of the sidewalls (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 3), and a plurality of battery cells (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 6.7) mounted for suspension in the trough (See, e.g. Fig.1-2).
Wiemann fails to explicitly teach: electrical contacts of the battery cells are oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells are oriented upwards
However, Power teaches a similar vehicle battery (See, e.g., Power: Fig.1-8, 100) wherein electrical contacts of the battery cells (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 302+212+214) are oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells are oriented upwards (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 302).
Power teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide electrical contacts of the battery cells oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells oriented upwards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery taught by Wiemann modified to provide the electrical contacts of the battery cells oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells oriented upwards in order to provide for proper spatial orientation of the batteries for servicing and/or replacing such as taught by Power, and also for the purpose of conveniently preventing costly battery damage to the connectors being mounted near the lid during service/replacement. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: wherein the cover is fastened to a supporting structure of the motor vehicle (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2, 101).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: wherein the cover comprises fastening points to facilitate connection to seat cross-members.
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: further comprising a plurality of cross-members (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2, 9+10+11), forming a supporting structure of the motor vehicle, arranged in the trough (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: wherein each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells are mounted for suspension from the cross-members in gaps between adjacent cross-members so that a plurality of parallel rows of battery cells extend between the cross-members (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: further comprising at least one cooling element arranged between an upper region of the battery cells and the cover (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2, 7).
[Claim 12] Regarding Claim 12, Wiemann discloses: A high-voltage battery for a motor vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 6), the high-voltage battery comprising: a battery housing (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 2) with a trough defined at least by sidewalls (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 2.1) and a cover to cover the trough at an upper region of the sidewalls (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 3.1); and a plurality of battery cells (See, e.g. Fig.1-2, 6.7) mounted for suspension in the trough (See, e.g. Fig.1-2).
Wiemann fails to explicitly teach: electrical contacts of the battery cells are oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells are oriented upwards
However, Power teaches a similar vehicle battery (See, e.g., Power: Fig.1-8, 100) wherein electrical contacts of the battery cells (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 302+212+214) are oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells are oriented upwards (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 302).
Power teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide electrical contacts of the battery cells oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells oriented upwards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery taught by Wiemann modified to provide the electrical contacts of the battery cells oriented downwards and bases of the battery cells oriented upwards in order to provide for proper spatial orientation of the batteries for servicing and/or replacing such as taught by Power, and also for the purpose of conveniently preventing costly battery damage to the connectors being mounted near the lid during service/replacement. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 15] Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: wherein each battery cell in the plurality of battery cells are mounted for suspension from cross-members of the motor vehicle (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2, 9+10+11) in gaps between adjacent cross-members so that a plurality of parallel rows of battery cells extend between the cross-members (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2).
[Claim 16] Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power teaches: further comprising at least one cooling element arranged between an upper region of the battery cells and the cover (See, e.g. Wiemann: Fig.1-2, 7)..
Claim 2/13, 4, and 6/14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann in view of Power and further in view of Mikazuki et al. (US 12,162,341 B2).
[Claim 2/13] Regarding Claim 2/13, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the cover forms a floor panel of the motor vehicle.
However, Mikazuki teaches a similar battery (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 50) further wherein the cover forms a floor panel of the motor vehicle (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 12).
Mikazuki teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide wherein the cover forms a floor panel of the motor vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by the combination of Wiemann in view of Power modified to provide wherein the cover forms a floor panel of the motor vehicle such as taught by Mikazuki, for the purpose of conveniently reducing the number of overall components in the vehicle to reduce costs and to further provide greater access to the battery modules for service/replacement. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the trough is fastened to lateral sills of the motor vehicle.
However, Mikazuki teaches a similar battery (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 50) wherein the battery housing/trough is fastened to lateral sills of the motor vehicle (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 22).
Mikazuki teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide wherein the trough is fastened to lateral sills of the motor vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by the combination of Wiemann in view of Power modified to provide wherein the trough is fastened to lateral sills of the motor vehicle such as taught by Mikazuki, for the purpose of conveniently attach the battery trough to the rest of the vehicle body/frame in order to provide a secure connection point for the battery during travel/use and in order to prevent inadvertent disconnection during travel/use. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 6/14] Regarding Claim 6/14, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the high-voltage battery further has an underride guard plate forming a base to cover the trough at a lower region thereof.
However, Mikazuki teaches a similar battery (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 50) wherein the high-voltage battery further has an underride guard plate forming a base to cover the battery at a lower region thereof (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 18).
Mikazuki teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide wherein the battery with an underride guard plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by the combination of Wiemann in view of Power modified to provide wherein provide the battery with an underride guard plate such as taught by Mikazuki, for the purpose of conveniently providing extra protection to the battery housing from the roadway in order to prevent costly damage (See, e.g., Mikazuki: Fig.1-15, 18). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann in view of Power and further in view of Ogushi et al. (US 9,038,757 B2).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the cover comprises fastening points to facilitate connection to seat cross-members.
However, Ogushi teaches a similar battery housing (See, e.g., Ogushi: Fig.1-5, 40) further wherein the cover comprises fastening points (See, e.g., Ogushi: Fig.1-5, 14+40+28) to facilitate connection to seat cross-members (See, e.g., Ogushi: Fig.1-5, 14+28).
Ogushi teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle battery pack design to provide wherein the cover comprises fastening points to facilitate connection to seat cross-members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by the combination of Wiemann in view of Power modified to provide wherein the cover comprises fastening points to facilitate connection to seat cross-members such as taught by Ogushi, for the purpose of conveniently providing greater structural connection to the vehicle components to provide added strength and security for the battery and cover. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Claim 8/11/17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann in view of Power.
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the cross-members are integrally formed with the sidewalls and/or the cover.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the cross-members and sidewalls and/or cover of Wiemann to be of a unitary construction, as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Applicant should note that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). MPEP2144.04(V). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 11/17] Regarding Claim 11/17, the combination of Wiemann in view of Power fails to explicitly teach: wherein the sidewalls and the cover are formed in one piece.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the sidewalls and cover of Wiemann to be of a unitary construction, as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Applicant should note that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). MPEP2144.04(V). Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
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 JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 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 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 M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights