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 § 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 1-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the claim recites that the battery pack comprises “a clamped portion sandwiched by a jig.” This causes the claim to be indefinite as it is unclear whether the jig is being positively claimed as an element of the battery pack or providing an intended use of the clamped portion. Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 of this title, 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, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (11,094,991) in view of Miyoshi et al. (JP 2020035717, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Hirose discloses a battery pack disposed below a floor panel of a vehicle (see Fig. 1) and attached to a vehicle body, the battery pack comprising:
a battery (34); and
a case (31) including a side wall (A, see below annotated Fig. 6) at a peripheral edge and housing the battery, wherein the case (31) includes a protruding portion (B, e.g., the peripheral flange) that is provided at an outer side surface of the side wall and protrudes outward of the case, and the protruding portion includes:
a case fixing portion (C, e.g., the enlarged cylindrical bosses for the mounting bolts 48) fixed to the vehicle body; and
a clamped portion (D, e.g., the flat region of the protruding mounting flange adjacent to the fixing portion C is capable of being sandwiched/clamped).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hirose does not disclose a jig that sandwiches a clamped portion of the protruding portion.
Miyoshi teaches another vehicle battery pack (1) having a case having battery-enclosing side walls (23) that have protruding portions (see Figs. 4 and 6 showing the outwardly projecting step 25) with a clamped portion (25/25). A jig (4) sandwiches the clamped portions (25) in an upper-lower direction when the battery pack is attached to the vehicle body .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the battery pack of Hirose to have a jig that sandwiches a portion of the battery case’s protruding portion when attached to a vehicle as taught by Miyoshi to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using brackets to aid in fixing a vehicle component to its body/frame) to known devices (e.g., battery packs that are mounted under the vehicle) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a battery pack having additional supports for its battery to more securely retain the battery during both assembly and while in use).
Regarding claims 6, the protruding clamping portion (25) of Miyoshi from the above combination has an upper surface that includes an inclined surface inclined downward toward the outside of the case (see the downwardly beveled upper surface between elements 26 and 252 in Fig. 6 which read upon an inclined surface downward toward the outside of the case).
Regarding claims 7-8, Hirose further discloses that the protruding portions (B, see annotated Fig.) are provided on both sides in a vehicle width direction (see Fig. 3), and the protruding portion includes:
a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion provided at the side wall of the case on one side in the vehicle width direction, and provided on a front side and a rear side with respect to a center of the case in a front-rear direction; and a third protruding portion and a fourth protruding portion provided at the side wall of the case on other side in the vehicle width direction, and provided on the front side and the rear side with respect to the center of the case in the front-rear direction;
wherein positions of outer edges of the first protruding portion and the second protruding portion are aligned to be identical each other in the vehicle width direction, and positions of outer edges of the third protruding portion and the fourth protruding portion are aligned to be identical each other in the vehicle width direction (see Fig. 2 of Hirose showing the protruding portion/flange running around the entire periphery of the case, four equally spaced fixing points (48) extend laterally beyond the rest of the flange (B) read upon the first through fourth protruding portions when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the “protruding portions”).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed immediately above, Hirose discloses that the region immediately adjacent to the fixing portion (“48” in Fig. 2) are larger than the region occupied by the cylindrical case fixing portions (E/C in the above annotated Fig. and “48” in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to enlarge the region of the protruding portions that receive the combination’s clamp since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art -See In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The motivation for doing so would be to provide sufficient mating/coupling surface area to ensure adequate interconnection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Miyoshi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (8,210,301).
Regarding claim 2, Hirose further discloses a cover (32) configured to cover the case (31) from above, wherein the side wall of the case and the cover each including mating surfaces (see e.g., Fig. 6) that mutually face, and
the cover (32) includes a cover fixing portion (E, see annotated Fig. above) provided at the mating surface, and fixed to the vehicle body in conjunction with the case fixing portion (see e.g., Col. 6, lines 1-3).
Hirose does not disclose that a seal is located between the case and cover mating surface.
Hashimoto teaches another vehicle battery pack that has a seal member (S) between its cover (120) and case (110; see seal S between the mating surfaces 124, 115 in Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the battery pack of the Hirose combination to include a peripheral seal between the cover and case as taught by Hashimoto to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a seal between mated elements to prevent water intrusion) to known devices (e.g., vehicle batteries with multi-piece outer shells) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Miyoshi as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Nusier et al. (9,656,571).
Regarding claim 9, Hirose does not disclose that at least the front or rear sides have a plurality of protrusions on both sides in the vehicle width direction.
Nusier teaches another vehicle battery pack that has its outer surfaces, including the front and rear surfaces (see Fig. 2) that include a plurality of spaced protrusions (48, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the battery pack of the Hirose combination to include a crash mitigating protrusions on the outer front/rear faces of the case as taught by Nusier to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing a crash protection to a vehicle battery pack) to known devices (e.g., vehicle batteries) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not appear to disclose or otherwise fairly suggest the recited structurally lower positioning of the clamping portion relative to the mating surfaces; or that a gap remains in portions other than the case fixing portion, cover fixing portion, and the fastening portion.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618