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 § 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.
(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) 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 203536484 U).
Re: claim 7, Shi et al. teaches an arrangement (Fig. 1) for fixing an energy storage device (3) on a vehicle frame (Abstract), the arrangement comprising: a part (Fig. 1 – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) defining a guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 – groove), the guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 - groove) being configured to selectively, interlockingly engage (See Fig. 1) with one or more sliding blocks (Fig. 3 – 11) (Fig. 4 – 15); and one or more holders (2 & 5) fixed on the part (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) at least partially within the guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 - grove), each of the one or more holders (2 & 5) being elastically deformable and configured to elastically deform when contacting a sliding block (Fig. 3 – 11) (Fig. 4 – 15) (See Note below).
It is noted that any material has some degree of elastic deformability and that the hemispherical bumps (7 & 9) located on the cited holders (2 & 5) cooperate with the slots (13 & 17) to fix the battery on the tabs (1 & 4), thus the holders are elastically deformable and are configured to do so when contacting a sliding block.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 9, Shi et al. teaches further comprising a bar (Fig. 3 - 10) (Fig. 4 – 16) on which one or more sliding blocks (Fig. 3 – 11) (Fig. 4 – 15) are fixed.
Re: claim 10, Shi et al. teaches wherein the one or more holders (Fig. 1 – 2 & 5) are configured to elastically deform in a direction orthogonal to a course of the guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 - groove) when contacting a sliding block (Fig. 3 - 11) (Fig. 4 – 15) (See Note below).
It is noted that any material has some degree of elastic deformability and that the hemispherical bumps (7 & 9) located on the cited holders (2 & 5) cooperate with the slots (13 & 17) to fix the battery on the tabs (1 & 4), thus the holders are elastically deformable and are configured to do so when contacting a sliding block in a direction orthogonal to a course of the guide groove.
Re: claim 11, Shi et al. teaches further comprising at least one cam (Fig. 2 – 6 & 8) fixed on the part (Fig. 1 – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) within the guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 – groove), the cam (Fig. 2 – 6 & 8) defining a stop portion (Annotated Fig. 2 – stop) and a slanted surface (Annotated Fig. 2 – slant), the stop portion (Annotated Fig. 2 – stop) being configured to limit displaceability of a first sliding block (Fig. 3 – 15) (See also Fig. 4 – 17) within the guide groove (Annotated Fig. 1 - groove) in a first direction (See Fig. 1), the slanted surface (Annotated Fig. 2 – slant) being configured to cause a second sliding block (Fig. 3 - 11) to slide at least partially orthogonally during displacement within the guide groove (203) in an opposite direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
521
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 12, Shi et al. teaches wherein the cam (Fig. 2 – 6 & 8) is integrated as one piece with a holder of the one or more holders (Fig. 1 – 2 & 5).
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, 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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. in view of Kameda et al. (US 20200247501 A1).
Re: claim 8, Shi et al. is silent on wherein the one or more holders each consists of an elastomer.
However, Kameda et al. teaches wherein the one or more holders (Fig. 18 – 62) each consists of an elastomer (Paragraph 0077 – “For example, an elastic member formed from an elastic resin such as a synthetic rubber or an elastomer can be provided on one of a portion of the second restriction 62 that contacts the battery unit 40 and a portion of the battery unit 40 that contacts the second restriction 62.”).
Shi et al. and Kameda et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Shi et al.’s holders with those of Kameda et al.’s elastomer in order to provide the advantage of increased flexibility and durability of the holders.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612