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
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurihara (WO 2023/188989 A1, as cited in the IDS 05/08/2025).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kurihara teaches an electric work vehicle comprising: a battery string (50U) (figs. 3-5; [0045]); the battery string including four battery modules (50) connected in series (figs. 3-5; [0045]); the plurality of battery modules including a first portion of battery modules (i.e right battery module 50U in fig. 4 or upper right battery module 50U in fig 5) and a second portion of battery modules (i.e left battery module 50U in fig. 4 or upper left battery module 50U in fig 5); the first portion of battery modules are connected in series in a first direction which is rearward direction of the vehicle and the second portion of battery modules are connected in series in a second direction which is in a forward direction of the vehicle (see annotated fig. 4 below); the second portion of battery modules are spaced away from the second portion of battery modules in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1 as noted above. Kurihara further teaches a first electrical connection (101) between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules crossing a centerline of the vehicle that extends in a front-rear direction of the vehicle (figs. 2 & 4; [0039]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 3 as noted above. Kurihara further teaches the plurality of battery modules including a third portion of battery modules (i.e lower right battery module 50 in fig. 5) and a fourth portion of battery modules (i.e lower left battery module 50 in fig. 5). While Kurihara does not illustrate the electrical connections of the third and fourth battery modules, it is noted that Kurihara teaches the four battery modules 50 being connected in series. Accordingly, if an electrical output of the first battery module 50 is connected to an input of the second battery module 50U, an output of the second battery module 50 is necessarily connected to an input of the third battery module (i.e via one through hole 67 similarly to the first and second battery modules) with an output of the third battery module being necessarily connected to an input of the fourth battery module (i.e via one through hole 67 similarly to the first and second battery modules) since the four battery modules are connected in series. Therefore, a second electrical connection between the second portion of battery modules and the third portion of battery modules would inherently extend in an up-down direction of the vehicle since the second and third portions of the battery modules are stacked in an up-down direction. Similarly, a third electrical connection between the third portion of battery modules and the fourth portion of battery modules would inherently cross the centerline of the vehicle that extends in the front-rear direction of the vehicle since the third portion of battery modules and the fourth portion of battery modules are arranged side by side similarly to the first portion and the second portion of the battery modules.
Regarding claim 6, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein a first electrical connection between a first portion of battery modules (interpreted as an upper battery module 50 in figs. 5 or 8 in this instance) and a second portion of battery modules (interpreted as a lower battery module 50 in figs. 5 or 8 in this instance) extends in an up-down direction of the vehicle. While Kurihara does not illustrate the electrical connections between the upper battery modules 50 and the lower battery modules 50 in fig. 5, it is noted that Kurihara teaches the four battery modules 50 being connected in series. Accordingly, similar to the rationale for the rejection of claims 4-5, the electrical connection between an upper battery module and a lower battery module connected in series would necessarily be in a up-down direction. In this case, it should be noted that the third direction of claim 1 would correspond to a up-down direction.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first portion of battery modules (i.e upper left and lower left battery modules 50 in fig. 5) includes at least one battery module (i.e upper left battery module) that is higher than another battery module (ie lower left battery module) included in the first portion of battery modules in an up-down direction of the vehicle, wherein the at least one battery module is directly connected in series to the another battery module ([0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1 as noted above. Kurihara further teaches wherein within the first portion of battery modules, each of the battery modules (53) is adjacent to at least one other battery module within the first portion of battery modules; and wherein within the second portion of battery modules, each of the battery modules (53) is adjacent to at least one other battery module within the second portion of battery modules (figs. 3 & 5; [0018]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1 as noted above. Kurihara further teaches a battery housing including a first battery housing portion (60) and a second battery housing portion (60), wherein the first portion of battery modules is housed in the first battery housing portion; and the second portion of battery modules is housed in the second battery housing portion, and wherein the first battery housing potion is located adjacent to the second battery housing portion in the third direction (figs. 3 & 5; [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1 as noted above. Kurihara further teaches a battery housing including a first battery housing portion (60), a second battery housing portion (60), a third battery housing portion (60), a fourth battery housing portion (60); wherein the first portion of battery modules is housed in the first battery housing portion, the second portion of battery modules is housed in the second battery housing portion, a third portion of battery modules (i.e lower left battery module 50 in fig. 5) is housed in the third battery housing portion and a fourth portion of battery modules (i.e lower right battery module 50 in fig. 5) is housed in the fourth battery housing portion (figs. 3 & 5).
Regarding claims 13-14, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the first battery housing portion is located adjacent to the second battery housing portion in the third direction; and the third battery housing portion is located adjacent to the fourth battery housing portion in the third direction (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 14 as noted above, wherein the third battery housing portion and the fourth battery housing portion are located below the first battery housing portion and the second battery housing portion in an up-down direction of the vehicle. However, Kurihara reads on the present claim if the first and second portions of battery modules (along with their respective housings) are interpreted as the lower left and lower right battery modules (50) respectively in fig. 5 and the third and fourth portions of battery modules (along with their respective housings) are interpreted as the upper left and upper right battery modules (50) respectively in fig. 5.
Regarding claim 17, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery modules includes a third portion of battery modules (i.e lower left battery module 50 + lower right battery module in fig. 5) and wherein a first electrical connection between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules crosses a centerline of the vehicle that extends in a front-rear direction of the vehicle (figs. 2 & 4-5; [0039]); and wherein the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules have a same number of battery modules (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the third portion of battery modules has twice as many battery modules as each of the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules since the third portion of battery modules is herein interpreted as the lower left and lower right battery modules 50 in fig. 5 (see figs. 3 & 5).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2023/188989 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kurihara teaches the vehicle of claim 15 but is silent as to at least a portion of the third battery housing portion and at least a portion of the fourth battery housing portion are located forward of the first battery housing portion and the second battery housing portion in a front-near direction of the vehicle. However, the presently claimed limitation constitutes a mere rearrangement of parts which is found to be an obvious matter of design choice since the rearrangement forward of at least a portion of the third battery housing portion and at least a portion of the fourth battery housing portion relative to the first and second battery housing portions in a front-rear direction of the vehicle would not have modified the operation of the batteries. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice)”. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights