ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/26/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0297289 A1), Kim et al. (US 2012/0312610 A1), and further in view of Gao et al. (EP 4 254 628 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ito et al. teach an electric work vehicle (Fig. 1, element 10) comprising:
a battery string (Fig. 6, element 6A);
the battery string includes a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 6, element 6a);
the plurality of battery modules includes a first portion of battery modules (See annotated fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Ito
However, they do not teach a plurality of battery modules connected in series; a second portion of battery modules;
the first portion of battery modules are connected in series in a first direction;
the second portion of battery modules are connected in series in a second direction;
the first 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; and
a first electrical connection between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules crosses a centerline of the electric work vehicle that extends in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle.
Kim et al. teach a plurality of battery modules connected in series with the first portion of battery modules are connected in series in a first direction; the second portion of battery modules are connected in series in a second direction (Paragraph 0033; Fig. 2 disclose two battery packs, BP2, connected in series.);
the first 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. 2 below.);
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Kim
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito with Kim such power for driving motors of the electric vehicle is supplied accordingly in series.
However, neither Ito nor Kim teaches a first electrical connection between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules crosses a centerline of the electric work vehicle that extends in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle.
Gao et al. teach a battery string (Fig. 5, element 30) comprising a plurality of battery modules connected in series (Fig. 5, element 301; paragraph 0059). Further, the battery modules can comprise a first portion and a second portion (Paragraphs 0058-0059). Finally, a first electrical connection between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules crosses a centerline of the electric work vehicle that extends in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle (Paragraph 0040 discloses the battery housing can be mounted on the vehicle in all possible directions, including width of the electric vehicle. This would inevitably place the electrical connection, Fig. 2, element 50, to cross a center of the vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito and Kim with Gao in order to reduce production costs.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ito, Kim, and Gao et al. teach the electric work vehicle according to claim 2. Further, Gao et al. teach wherein the first electrical connection between the first portion of battery modules and the second portion of battery modules is between a rearmost battery module included in the first portion of battery modules and a rearmost battery module included in the second portion of battery modules (Fig. 2, element 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito and Kim with Gao in order to reduce production costs.
Regarding claims 4-7, 15-18, the combination of Ito, Kim, and Gao et al. teach the electric work vehicle according to claim 3. Kim et al. teach 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 parts (design choice). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, Gao et al. teach the use of electrical connections and therefore the number of connections is viewed as duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Both Ito and Kim teach battery modules placed through the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different modules and electrical connections depending on the power requirements of the vehicle and to place the modules accordingly throughout the vehicle where the modules may conform to the vehicle interior.
Regarding claims 8-14, the combination of Ito, Kim, and Gao et al. teach the electric work vehicle according to claim 7. Further, Ito et al. teach a battery housing (Fig. 6, element 60) which comprises multiple battery modules (Fig. 6, element 6a). The parts of the housing that house multiple portions of battery modules in addition to their locations is viewed as a rearrangement of parts (design choice). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have different modules and electrical connections depending on the power requirements of the vehicle and to place the modules accordingly throughout the vehicle where the modules may conform to the vehicle interior.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 12-17 of copending Application No. 18/531,936 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitation of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9-12 on the present application are feature throughout claims 1-5 and 12-17 of ‘936.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 28th, 2026
Prosecution Insights