DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The claim and drawing amendments filed on 6/19/2026 have been entered no new matter has been added. Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/19/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Claim 7 has potentially allowable subject matter. Most of the drawing objections have been overcome by amendment. Most of the 112 rejections have been overcome by amendment. Claims 16 and 17 are still the subject of a drawing objection, and a 112 rejection. Claims 1-2, 9-13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 102. Claims 3-8, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Amendments
The claim and drawing amendments filed on 6/19/2026 have been entered no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/19/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Kohchi fails to teach removing or installing a battery from the bottom of the electric vehicle. In support of this, applicant correctly points out that the jack of Kohchi is pulled away from the vehicle thus pulling the battery laterally. Applicant argues that because this motion is lateral and not vertical, the battery is not being removed or installed from the bottom of the electric vehicle. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 requires the battery to be “removed or installed from the bottom of the electric vehicle.” This limitation does not require the motion of the battery to be vertical, it only requires the battery to be located at the bottom of the electric vehicle during installation or removal. Kohchi does teach such a battery. If applicant were to amend to require the motion of the battery from the electric vehicle to be vertical motion, then examiner would agree that Kohchi does not teach the claim. For example, the applicant could change the language of claim 1 to, “the battery pack box is vertically removed or installed from the bottom of the electric vehicle.” While the battery swapping equipment of Kohchi does move in the vertical direction, it only does so to the extent necessary to bear the weight of the battery during removal and installation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret such minimal vertical motion as vertically removing the battery from the bottom of the electric vehicle, or vertically installing the battery from the bottom of the electric vehicle. But as currently claimed, Kohchi does teach “the battery pack box is removed or installed from the bottom of the electric vehicle.”
Applicant further argues that Kohchi does not teach “a bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment and a bearing plane for carrying the electric vehicle are in the same plane.” To support this argument, applicant acknowledges that Kohchi teaches the battery swapping equipment and the electric vehicle are both on the same bearing plane, namely the ground, but argues that this is insufficient because these bearing planes being in the same plane is not a design parameter of Kohchi but instead “is merely the inherent physical state of the jack as a ground-based tool.” This is not persuasive because prior art teachings are not limited to their intentional design parameters. If a prior art teaches the structural elements of a claim, then it teaches that claim, whether the prior art’s inventor realized what they were teaching or not. Furthermore, examiner is not persuaded that Kohchi fails to consider the fact that the battery swapping equipment and the electric vehicle are both on the same bearing plane. Kohchi contemplates the electric vehicle changing elevation and teaches precaution against that, then teaches that the battery swapping equipment is wheeled under the vehicle (“the vehicular rear-end is first chained or otherwise held down to the ground in compensation of changes in the vehicular weight. The jack is then wheeled in under the unit encasement” emphasis added). Thus, Kohchi does teach “a bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment and a bearing plane for carrying the electric vehicle are in the same plane.”
Applicant further argues that Kohchi does not teach the battery swapping equipment being able to “pass through from one side of the vehicle to the other.” This is not a limitation found in claim 1, and is thus not relevant to the 102 rejection of claim 1.
Applicant further argues for a synergistic effect of the bearing planes being coplanar and the removal/installation being from the bottom. This argument is not persuasive because Kohchi teaches both of these features.
Applicant also argues that the previous office action “indicated that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kohchi.” Examiner is not sure what this refers to. Regardless, claim 1 is currently rejected under 35 USC 102 in view of Kohchi.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following is mostly the same as the potentially allowable subject matter from the previous office action.
Claim 7 currently has three clauses contained in “or” statements. By the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of these three statements needs to be taught for the claim to be rejectable under 35 USC 103, and one of them is taught as explained in the rejection below.
However, one of the other clauses is not taught by the prior art, and claim 7 could be easily rewritten to be allowable. Specifically “the locking mechanism comprises a locking base, and a depth of the locking base entering into the battery pack box is between 39 mm to 100 mm,” is not taught by the prior art. Indeed, any depth of the locking base entering the battery pack box is not taught by the prior art. Thus, this claim would be allowable if this clause were not in an “or” clause, and if this claim were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Drawings
Most of the drawing objections have been overcome by amendment or by persuasive argument explaining how the drawings already depict claim elements. However, the track of claim 16 and 17, and the height of the track of claim 16 are not shown in the drawings, and applicant’s argument that these features do not need to be shown in the drawings is not persuasive. The applicant may be correct that a person having ordinary skill in the art could obviously combine a prior art reference teaching a track with this invention in order to arrive at the applicant’s invention, but that does not change the necessity of including the feature in the drawings of this application. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
the track of claims 16 and 17; and
the height of the track of claim 16; are objected to.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In particular, the limitations “the battery swapping platform is provided with a track for the battery swapping equipment to move along,” are unclear enough that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what the track is, and thus how to build it. Paragraphs 72-76 of the specification describe the track in such vague terms that it is not clear what it is. The track does not appear in the figures.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 16 and 17 are so indefinite that a definite reconstruction of them for the sake of compact prosecution was not possible, so they are not considered in the 102 and 103 rejections below.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-13, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Kohchi (US 5585205 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kohchi teaches an electric vehicle battery swapping assembly, wherein the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly comprises a battery swapping equipment (19 “a jack” taught by figure 7) and a battery pack box (1 “encasement” taught by figures 4 and 7), both the battery swapping equipment and the battery pack box are arranged at a bottom of a electric vehicle (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”), and the battery pack box is removed or installed from the bottom of the electric vehicle by means of the battery swapping equipment (taught by figures 6 and 7 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 15), during the removal or installation process, a height of the electric vehicle is unchanged, and a bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment and a bearing plane for carrying the electric vehicle are in the same plane (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 2, Kohchi teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein heights of the bottom of the electric vehicle and the battery pack box are set as follows: when the battery swapping equipment removes the battery pack box, a height of the bottom of the battery pack box from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment is greater than a height of the battery swapping equipment when it is unloaded; when the battery swapping equipment installs the battery pack box, a height of the bottom of the electric vehicle from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment is greater than an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 9, Kohchi teaches battery swapping station, wherein the battery swapping station comprises:
a battery swapping platform (15 “ground” taught by figure 4) is used to park an electric vehicle (taught by the abstract and figure 4) for removing and installing a battery pack (1 “encasement” taught by figures 1, 2, and 4-7);
a battery swapping equipment (19 “jack” taught by figure 6-7) is used for removing and installing the battery pack of an electric vehicle on the battery swapping platform (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”);
wherein a height of a bottom of a battery pack loaded on the electric vehicle from the battery swapping platform is greater than a height of the battery swapping equipment when it is unloaded (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”);
an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box is smaller than a height of a bottom of the electric vehicle from the battery swapping platform (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 10, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 9, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the electric vehicle comprises a vehicle beam (12 “rails” taught by figure 4), and the battery pack is installed below the vehicle beam by means of a locking mechanism (10 “extended rims” taught by figure 4), and a height of a bottom of the vehicle beam from the battery swapping platform is greater than an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 11, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 10, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the locking mechanism comprises a locking base (10 “extended rims” taught by figure 4), and the locking base is internally provided with a locking groove (taught by annotated figure 4 attached below) for accommodating a locking member of the battery pack (11 “multiple roller-bearings” taught by figure 4), and when the locking member is located in a locking position in the locking groove, the battery pack is locked on the electric vehicle (taught by figures 4 and 5);
preferably, the locking base is installed on the vehicle beam, and the locking groove is located below the vehicle beam (taught by figure 4), and an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box is lower than a height of the locking groove from the battery swapping platform (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”);
preferably, a height of a lowest position of the locking base from a surface of the battery swapping platform is greater than an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the battery pack comprises a lower box and an upper cover, and the locking member is a locking shaft (taught by annotated figure 4 attached above).
Regarding claim 13, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 12, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the locking shaft is arranged below a surface of the upper cover (taught by figure 4).
However, Kohchi does not explicitly teach a distance of the locking shaft from a highest position of the upper cover is h1;
when the locking shaft is located in the locking groove, a distance between the locking shaft and a bottom of the vehicle beam is h2, h1 is smaller than h2
But, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the distances h1 and h2 of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 15, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 12, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the locking base is installed on a side wall of the vehicle beam by means of a installing bracket (12 “rails” taught by figure 4), and a height of a bottom of the installing bracket from the battery swapping platform is greater than an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
preferably, the locking shaft is set higher than a surface of the upper cover, and a distance of the locking shaft from a surface of the upper cover is h3, when the battery swapping equipment carries the battery pack, a sum of a height of a surface of the upper cover and the battery swapping platform and h3 is smaller than a height of a bottom of the installing bracket from the battery swapping platform (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 18, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 9, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the battery swapping equipment is installed on a battery swapping working position of the battery swapping platform, when an electric vehicle drives into the battery swapping platform in a first direction, a width of the battery swapping equipment in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is smaller than a distance between left and right wheels of the electric vehicle (taught by figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 20, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 9, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein a floor of the battery swapping station is formed as the battery swapping platform (15 “ground” taught by figure 4); or,
a distance of the vehicle beam of the electric vehicle to the battery swapping platform is between 460 mm to 580 mm;
a difference between a height of the battery pack loaded on the electric vehicle from the battery swapping platform and a height of the battery swapping equipment is between 30mm to 80mm; or,
a difference between an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box and a height of a bottom of the electric vehicle from the battery swapping platform is between 10 mm to 150 mm.
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohchi (US 5585205 A) in view of Niebuhr (US 7712563 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Kohchi teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 2, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the electric vehicle comprises a vehicle beam (12 “rails” taught by figure 4), and the battery pack box is detachable installed on the vehicle beam by means of a locking mechanism (10 “extended rims” taught by figure 4), and a height of a bottom of the vehicle beam from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment is greater than the overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”);
a locking point of the locking mechanism is arranged below the vehicle beam or at a side of the vehicle beam (taught by figure 4); or,
the electric vehicle comprises a vehicle beam, and the battery pack box is detachable installed on the vehicle beam by means of a locking mechanism, the electric vehicle is an electric truck, and a battery pack box accommodating space is arranged between two sets of wheels of the electric truck along the driving direction (taught by figure 4 and column 2 lines 45-48 “Although the pair of rails 12 is shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 as located in-between rear wheels 14, it will be appreciated that said rails may be placed in-between front and rear wheels”), and a height of the vehicle beam at the battery pack box accommodating space is greater than the overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack box (taught by figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”); or
the electric vehicle comprises a vehicle beam, and the battery pack box is detachable installed on the vehicle beam by means of a locking mechanism, the battery pack box is arranged below the vehicle beam or at least partially overlapped with the vehicle beam in vertical direction (taught by figure 4).
However, Kohchi does not teach that the electric vehicle is an electric truck.
Niebuhr teaches an electric truck (taught by figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric vehicle of Kohchi to be an electric truck as taught by Niebuhr, with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification because an electric truck can move pallets of goods with more ease and precision than other electric vehicles, such as an electric sedan.
Claim(s) 4-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohchi (US 5585205 A) in view of Maguire (US 9722223 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Kohchi teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 3, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the battery pack box comprises a lower box and an upper cover (taught by annotated figure 4 attached above).
However, Kohchi does not teach that the battery pack box is provided with a locking shaft which is detachable connected with the locking mechanism.
Maguire teaches the battery pack box is provided with a locking shaft (58 “protrusion” taught by figures 3-5) which is detachable connected with a locking mechanism (50 “battery pack retention assembly” taught by figures 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the locking shaft and locking mechanism of Maguire onto the encasement and rails of Kohchi, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because this locking shaft and mechanism can limit how far the battery pack box can slide.
Regarding claim 5, Kohchi in view of Maguire teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohchi in view of Maguire also teaches wherein the locking shaft is arranged below a surface of the upper cover (for the locking shaft to be on the encasement and the locking mechanism to be on the rails, they would need to be below the upper cover taught in annotated figure 4 above.)
However, Kohchi in view of Maguire does not explicitly teach a distance of the locking shaft from a highest position of the upper cover is h1, and a distance of a locking point from a bottom of the vehicle beam is h2, and h1 is less than h2.
But, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the distances h1 and h2 of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 6, Kohchi in view of Maguire teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the locking shaft is set higher than a surface of the upper cover, and a distance of the locking shaft from the surface of the upper cover is h3, when the battery swapping equipment carries the battery pack, a sum of a height h4 of the upper cover from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment and h3 is smaller than a height of the locking point from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment (taught by Kohchi figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”); or,
the locking shaft is arranged higher than a surface of the upper cover, and a distance of the locking shaft from a surface of the upper cover is h3, when the battery swapping equipment carries the battery pack, a sum of a height h4 of a surface of the upper cover from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment and h3 is smaller than a height of a bottom of an installing bracket from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment (taught by Kohchi figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 7, Kohchi in view of Maguire teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohchi also teaches wherein the locking shaft is disposed inside the battery pack box, or
the locking mechanism comprises a locking base, and a depth of the locking base entering into the battery pack box is between 39 mm to 100 mm; or,
the locking mechanism comprises a locking base, the locking base is installed on a side wall of the vehicle beam by means of an installing bracket, and a height of a bottom of the installing bracket from the bearing plane for carrying the battery swapping equipment is greater than an overall height of the battery swapping equipment when carrying the battery pack (taught by Kohchi figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Regarding claim 8, Kohchi teaches the electric vehicle battery swapping assembly as claimed in claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi does not teach wherein the battery pack box further comprises an unlocking linkage mechanism, and the unlocking linkage mechanism penetrates through the battery pack box in a vertical direction.
Maguire teaches an unlocking linkage mechanism (58 “protrusion” taught by figures 3-5), and the unlocking linkage mechanism penetrates through the battery pack box in a vertical direction (taught by figure 4), and a corresponding locking mechanism (50 “battery pack retention assembly” taught by figures 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the unlocking linkage mechanism and locking mechanism of Maguire onto the encasement and rails of Kohchi, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because this unlocking linkage mechanism and locking mechanism can limit how far the battery pack box can slide.
Regarding claim 14, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 12, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi does not teach wherein the locking shaft is set higher than a surface of the upper cover.
Maguire teaches a locking shaft is set higher than a surface of the upper cover (58 “protrusion” taught by figures 3-5), and a corresponding locking base with a locking groove (50 “battery pack retention assembly” taught by figures 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the locking shaft and corresponding locking base with a locking groove of Maguire onto the encasement and rear-end undercarriage (element 9 taught in figure 4) of Kohchi, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because this locking shaft and corresponding locking base with a locking groove can limit how far the battery pack box can slide.
Kohchi in view of Maguire also teaches a distance of the locking shaft from a surface of the upper cover is h3,
when the battery swapping equipment carries a battery pack, a sum of a height of the upper cover from the battery swapping platform and h3 is smaller than a height of a bottom of the locking base from the battery swapping platform (taught by Kohchi figures 4 and 7 and column 2 lines 50-53 “Shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 is a jack 19 constructed in accordance with the invention for handling the size and weight of said unit through a ground clearance as limited as may be surmised from FIGS. 4 and 5”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohchi (US 5585205 A).
Regarding claim 19, Kohchi teaches the battery swapping station as claimed in claim 9, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kohchi does not explicitly teach wherein a lifting height of the battery swapping equipment ranges from 120 mm to 200 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the lifting height of the battery swapping equipment within the range of 120 mm to 200 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613 /JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights