DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 9,616,736) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0312610).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches an electric work vehicle comprising:
battery casing 60;
a plurality of battery modules 6a including a first battery string and a second battery string; and
the first battery string and the second battery string are layered with respect to each other in an up-down direction of the electric work vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2).
Figure 2 to Ito is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach the battery strings are connected in series.
Kim, directed to an electric vehicle, teaches a plurality of battery packs BP1, BP2, and BP3 (Fig. 2) electrically connected in series or in parallel (para 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the string in series such that power for driving motors of electric vehicle is supplied accordingly (para 0033).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches a plurality of battery modules and Ito teaches battery modules spaced apart (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the batteries spaced apart in order to allow air flow between the battery modules (para 0040; Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 3-13 and 16-20, Kim teaches a plurality of battery modules. The number of modules is viewed as duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). With respect to the location of the modules, this limitation is viewed as a rearrangement of part (design choice). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Both Ito and Kim teach battery modules placed through vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different number of modules depending on the power requires of the vehicle and to place the modules accordingly throughout the vehicle where the modules may conform to the vehicle interior.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 9,616,736) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0312610) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0224309).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Ito does not further teach a service plug.
Ikeda, directed to a power source circuit shut off apparatus, teaches battery assembly 11 in which a service plug (a power source circuit shut off apparatus) 10 is installed is mounted as a power source apparatus of a vehicle such as an electric vehicle (para 0041; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprise a service plug as means for shutting down the apparatus (para 0044). The location of the service plus are viewed as a design choice so long the service plugs are accessible for performing their intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Takaki et al. (US 2017/0246942) teaches a work vehicle including a plurality of a plurality of battery modules accommodated in a single battery pack. Each of the battery modules is formed as a rectangular box whose longitudinal length is different from its lateral length in a planar view, and the battery modules are arranged adjacent to each other with a short side of one of the battery modules opposing a long side of the other of the battery modules. The battery pack is also formed to conform to the contour of the aggregate of the battery modules (abstract). Kirchmair et al. (US 2023/0202288), directed to a crawler vehicle, teaches a plurality of battery assemblies located in various locations inside the frame (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights