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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 16, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connors et al. (US 2023/0081226) in view of Mita et al. (US 2003/0066694).
With respect to claim 1, Connors et al. discloses an electric work vehicle (10) comprising: a chassis (12, portion of the chassis that is not part of the battery housing as described in paragraph 72); a battery housing (20) to house a plurality of battery modules (24), the battery housing being supported by the chassis (12, portion of the chassis that is not part of the battery housing as described in paragraph 72); an electric motor (60); and at least one inverter (62); wherein the at least one inverter (62) is electrically connected (paragraph 95) to the plurality of battery modules (24) and the electric motor (60). (Figs. 1A-9B, paragraphs 66-103.) Connors et al. discloses the housing (20) encloses the inverter (62) (paragraph 86) but is silent regarding the location of the inverter within the housing. Mita et al. teaches of the at least one inverter (12; paragraph 27) is attached to a side surface of the battery housing (9) that faces a width direction (fig. 3) of the electric work vehicle (V). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 26-41.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Mita et al. into the invention of Connors et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the length of power lines and improve maintenance leading to an enhanced convenience. (Paragraph 41.)
With respect to claim 16, Connors et al. is silent regarding a power distribution unit. Mita et al. teaches of a power distribution unit (12) located at a front but not rear surface of the battery housing (9). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 26-41.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a power distribution unit located at a rear surface of the battery housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 19, Connors et al. is silent regarding a battery not housed in the battery housing. Mita et al. teaches of further comprising a battery (31) that is not housed by the battery housing (9). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 26-41.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the battery structure as described in Mita et al. into the invention of Connors et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to drive the various auxiliaries of the electric vehicle V. (Paragraph 31.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connors et al. and Mita et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugita et al. (US 2021/0053443).
With respect to claim 2, Connors et al., as modified, is silent regarding a second inverter. Sugita et al. teaches of the at least one inverter includes a first inverter (11) and a second inverter (12). (Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 15-35.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Sugita et al. into the invention of Connors et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the length of power lines and improve maintenance leading to an enhanced convenience. (Paragraph 41.)
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connors et al., Mita et al. and Sugita et al., as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Fukaku et al. (US 2017/0237379).
With respect to claim 4, Connors et al., as modified, is silent regarding the first inverter (32; fig. 3) and the second inverter (32; fig. 3) are located symmetrically (fig. 3) about a centerline (fig. 3) of the electric work vehicle (1). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 18-35.) Fukaku et al. teaches of the first inverter and the second inverter are located symmetrically about a centerline of the electric work vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first inverter and the second inverter are located symmetrically about a centerline of the electric work vehicle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claims 7-8, Connors et al., as modified, is silent regarding a second motor. Fukaku et al. teaches of a first motor (6L) and a second motor (6R), wherein the first inverter (32) provides electric power to the first motor (6L) (paragraph 34), and the second inverter (32) provides electric power to the second motor (6R) (paragraph 34); further comprising: a first wheel (3) on a first side of the electric work vehicle; and a second wheel on the first side of the electric work vehicle, wherein the first motor (6L) drives the first wheel, and the second motor (6R) drives the second wheel (3) (paragraphs 34, 57-58). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 18-35.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Fukaku et al. into the invention of Connors et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately supply power to the drive motors. (Paragraph 34.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connors et al. and Mita et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2007/0000231).
With respect to claim 20, Connors et al., as modified, is silent regarding a battery that is mounted behind a seat of the electric work vehicle. Otsuka et al. teaches of a battery (80) that is
mounted behind (figs. 1, 2, 10) a seat of the electric work vehicle (1). (Figs. 1-10, paragraphs 41-67.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Otsuka et al. into the invention of Connors et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable a reduction in fabrication cost and increased compactness by using parts that are easily fabricated, and by realizing a space-saving and concentrated arrangement of the high voltage electrical devices. (Paragraph 9.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 9-15 and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 5 includes the limitations of the side surface of the battery housing includes a first side surface; the battery housing further includes a second side surface that faces a direction opposite to the first side surface; the first inverter is attached to the first side surface; and the second inverter is attached to the second side surface; wherein the at least one inverter further includes a third inverter and a fourth inverter. The closest prior art, Connors et al. (US 2023/0081226), does not disclose inverters on opposing sides of the battery housing nor a third and fourth inverter. Claim 9 includes the limitations of a third motor and a fourth motor, wherein the at least one inverter includes a third inverter and a fourth inverter, and the third inverter provides electric power to the third motor, and the fourth inverter provides electric power to the fourth motor. The closest prior art, Fukaku et al. (US 2017/0237379), does not disclose the fourth motor or the fourth inverter. Claims 17-18 include the limitations of a foremost surface of the power distribution unit (12) is located rearward of a rearmost surface of the at least one inverter (paragraph 27 disclosing the inverter within the power distribution unit ‘PDU’; since the power distribution housing encapsulates the inverter the foremost surface of the ); wherein a rearmost surface of the power distribution unit is located rearward of a foremost surface of the at least one inverter. The closest prior art, Mita et al. (US 2003/0066694), discloses the inverter within the power distribution housing (12) (paragraph 27) which would tach away from having a foremost surface of the power distribution unit located rearward of a rearmost surface of the at least one inverter and a rearmost surface of the power distribution unit is located rearward of a foremost surface of the at least one inverter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614