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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 4. Replacing “a continuous line” with “a smoothly continuous line” is suggested, in order to provide basis for the “another smoothly continuous line” in Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 4. Replacing “a frame of the battery pack” with “the frame of the battery pack” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising: a structural attachment member configured to: attach a battery pack for a vehicle to a subframe of the vehicle [Lee Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Reference Characters 150, P1, 120, P, and 400], and provide a load path from the subframe to the battery pack [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431; Lee Paragraph 0026: “FIG. 3 is side view which illustrates a state before attaching a battery case and a subframe. FIG. 4 is a bottom view illustrating an electric vehicle body according to an embodiment of the present disclosure”; Lee Paragraph 0137: “the coupling position P in which the first branch portion 112 of the front side member 110 and the first front cross member 120 meet and the first coupling position P1 in which the first branch portion and the first connection bracket 153 of the front subframe 150 meet may be disposed on the end the first branch portion, so that a load path transferring the collision load of the vehicle body may be unified.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the subframe comprises a front subframe of the vehicle, and wherein the structural attachment member is configured to attach to a first end of the front subframe, opposite a second end of the front subframe, the second end of the front subframe configured to couple to a front bumper of the vehicle [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431; Lee Abstract: a front side member having one side coupled to a front bumper beam”].
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the load path is formed, at least in part, by an alignment of a longitudinal portion of the subframe, the structural attachment member, and a longitudinal member of the battery pack [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431].
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structural attachment member comprises: a first set of attachment features for attaching the structural attachment member to a frame of the battery pack; and a second set of attachment features for attaching the structural attachment member to the subframe of the vehicle [Lee Fig. 5, Reference Characters P1, 120, and P].
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the second set of attachment features are configured for attaching the structural attachment member to the subframe and to a body of the vehicle [Lee Fig. 5, Reference Characters P1, 120, and P].
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches an apparatus, comprising: a subframe for a vehicle; and a battery pack having a longitudinal member [Lee Figs. 2, 4, and 5, Reference Characters 150, P1, 120, P, and 400], wherein a load path extends along a continuous line from the subframe to the longitudinal member of the battery pack [Lee Fig. 3, 4, and 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431; Lee Paragraph 0026: “FIG. 3 is side view which illustrates a state before attaching a battery case and a subframe. FIG. 4 is a bottom view illustrating an electric vehicle body according to an embodiment of the present disclosure”; Lee Paragraph 0137: “the coupling position P in which the first branch portion 112 of the front side member 110 and the first front cross member 120 meet and the first coupling position P1 in which the first branch portion and the first connection bracket 153 of the front subframe 150 meet may be disposed on the end the first branch portion, so that a load path transferring the collision load of the vehicle body may be unified.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a structural attachment member coupled between the subframe and the battery pack, wherein the continuous line comprises a smoothly continuous line, and wherein the structural attachment member forms a portion of the load path and aligns a longitudinal member of the subframe and the longitudinal member of the battery pack along the smoothly continuous line [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431].
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the subframe is attachable, at a first end, to the structural attachment member, and, at a second end, to a bumper of the vehicle, wherein the structural attachment member is attached to a first end of a frame the battery pack, and wherein the battery pack includes, attached to the frame at or near a second end of the frame, a modular enclosure for one or more electrical components [Lee Figs. 1 and 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431; Lee Paragraph 0130: “the battery case may be fixed to, for example, the first front cross member 120, the side seal 300, and the first rear cross member 200 of the vehicle body using the mounting frame 440, by bolting, and coupled to the vehicle body.”; Lee Paragraph 0137: “the coupling position P in which the first branch portion 112 of the front side member 110 and the first front cross member 120 meet and the first coupling position P1 in which the first branch portion and the first connection bracket 153 of the front subframe 150 meet may be disposed on the end the first branch portion, so that a load path transferring the collision load of the vehicle body may be unified.”].
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the subframe comprises a frame structure that defines a first portion of the load path, the first portion coupled, via the structural attachment member, to a second portion of the load path, the second portion defined by the longitudinal member of the battery pack [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431].
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the load path comprises a first load path, and wherein a second load path extends, in parallel with the first load path, along another smoothly continuous line from the subframe to another longitudinal member of the battery pack [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431].
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches a vehicle, comprising: a structural attachment member configured to attach a battery pack for the vehicle to a subframe of the vehicle, and provide a load path from the subframe to the battery pack [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120, and 431; Lee Paragraph 0006: “an electric vehicle body includes: a front side member having one side coupled to a front bumper beam, and the other side branching off to include a first branch portion and a second branch portion; a first front cross member extended in a width direction of a vehicle body, and coupled to the first branch portion and the second branch portion”; Lee Paragraph 0026: “FIG. 3 is side view which illustrates a state before attaching a battery case and a subframe. FIG. 4 is a bottom view illustrating an electric vehicle body according to an embodiment of the present disclosure”; Lee Paragraph 0137: “the coupling position P in which the first branch portion 112 of the front side member 110 and the first front cross member 120 meet and the first coupling position P1 in which the first branch portion and the first connection bracket 153 of the front subframe 150 meet may be disposed on the end the first branch portion, so that a load path transferring the collision load of the vehicle body may be unified.”].
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the subframe is detachable from the structural attachment member and the battery pack without removing the battery pack from the vehicle [Lee Fig. 4, Reference Characters 150, 153, P1, 120, and P].
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the battery pack is removable from the vehicle without removing the subframe from the vehicle [Lee Fig. 4, Reference Characters 150, 153, P1, 120, and P].
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Murata et al. (US 7213873 B2) (hereinafter “Murata”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising a structural member comprising a second set of attachment features but does not teach bushings. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the second set of attachment features comprise one or more sliding bushings configured to facilitate assembly of the structural attachment member to the subframe and torquing of one or more bolts for securing the structural attachment member to the subframe [Murata Figs. 3 and 4; Reference Characters 35, 25a, and 25b; Murata Paragraph 59: “An in-and-out cylindrical rubber bush 35 is provided as the front support portion 18, so as to penetrate the hollow portion 34 by this lower panel 25b and the upper panel 25a, which is located above this hollow portion 34.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, bushings in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing vibration to be inputted to the frame, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 67: “a vibration, a load, or the like, cannot be largely inputted in the front side frame 2, through the rubber bush 35, from the front support portion 18 of the side frame 14.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising a structural member comprising a second set of attachment features but does not teach bushings. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more sliding bushings comprise a plurality of sliding bushings configured to provide a bending strength for an assembly including the subframe, the structural attachment member, and the battery pack [Murata Figs. 3 and 4; Reference Characters 19 and 35; Lee Paragraph 19: “The above described support portions 18, 19, 21 are each supported via a rubber bush on the lower surfaces of the front side frames 2, 2 which are located right above them.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, bushings in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of strengthening the assembly, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 96: “This strengthens the connection rigidity of the rear-end part of the side frame 14 and the stopper portion 42a.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising a structural member comprising a second set of attachment features but does not teach bushings. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more sliding bushings comprise a single sliding bushing, and wherein the second set of attachment features comprise an end plate having an opening that is aligned with the single sliding bushing [Murata Figs. 3 and 4; Reference Characters 19 and 35; Murata Paragraph 19: “The above described support portions 18, 19, 21 are each supported via a rubber bush on the lower surfaces of the front side frames 2, 2 which are located right above them.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, bushings in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing vibration to be inputted to the frame, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 67: “a vibration, a load, or the like, cannot be largely inputted in the front side frame 2, through the rubber bush 35, from the front support portion 18 of the side frame 14.”].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Murata et al. (US 7213873 B2) (hereinafter “Murata”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising a structural member comprising attachment features but does not explicitly teach bolts. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first set of attachment features comprises one or more openings configured to receive one or more bolts that pass through a plate attached to the frame of the battery pack [Murata Figs. 3 and 4; Reference Characters Reference Characters 39 and 25a]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, openings in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the battery pack to be attached and detached, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 21: “These crush pipes 22, 22 and the steel-made reinforcement 23 are united, and are attached, by means of a fastening such as a bolt, to the above described front sub-frame main-body so that they can be attached and detached.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising a structural member comprising attachment features but does not explicitly teach a bracket welded to the frame of the battery pack. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first set of attachment features comprises one or more openings configured to receive one or more bolts that extend from a bracket that is welded to the frame of the battery pack [Murata Fig. 4, connection between Reference Characters 25a and 25b; Murata Paragraph 48: “In this way, in the part on the vehicle outside of the front-end part of the side frame 14, the upper panel 25a and the lower panel 25b which are superimposed each other are joined.”; Murata Paragraph 51: “the upper panel 25a and the lower panel 25b are joined together by means of welding (i.e., a flange joint).”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, openings in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the battery pack to be attached and detached, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 21: “These crush pipes 22, 22 and the steel-made reinforcement 23 are united, and are attached, by means of a fastening such as a bolt, to the above described front sub-frame main-body so that they can be attached and detached.”].
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240001992 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Murata et al. (US 7213873 B2) (hereinafter “Murata”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches a vehicle comprising a battery pack but does not explicitly teach a bracket welded to the battery pack frame. Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first set of attachment features comprises one or more openings configured to receive one or more bolts that extend from a bracket that is welded to the frame of the battery pack [Murata Fig. 4, connection between Reference Characters 25a and 25b; Murata Paragraph 48: “In this way, in the part on the vehicle outside of the front-end part of the side frame 14, the upper panel 25a and the lower panel 25b which are superimposed each other are joined.”; Murata Paragraph 51: “the upper panel 25a and the lower panel 25b are joined together by means of welding (i.e., a flange joint).”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a welded bracket in view of Murata. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Murata because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the battery pack to be attached and detached, as recognized by Murata [Murata Paragraph 21: “These crush pipes 22, 22 and the steel-made reinforcement 23 are united, and are attached, by means of a fastening such as a bolt, to the above described front sub-frame main-body so that they can be attached and detached.”].
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the vehicle of claim 17, further comprising a vehicle body, wherein the subframe is configured to be mounted to the vehicle body via the structural attachment member [Lee Fig. 7, Reference Characters 150, 120 and 430].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613