DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. Claim 1 recites the following:
“A fixing bracket, configured to fix a wiring harness of a battery module placed in a box1, the fixing bracket comprising:
a fixing piece, wherein the fixing piece is configured to be inserted into a clearance between the battery module and a lateral face of the box along a length direction of the fixing piece, and one end of the fixing piece is connected to a bottom of the box; and…”
The second italicized portion of the claim is considered functional language in terms of defining the capabilities/fuctionality of the fixing piece (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Functional language is evaluated for the implicit or explicit structure imparted to the claim. Given the dimensions of the clearance are not defined, the “…configured to be inserted into a clearance…” does not appear to impart any explicit or implicit structure, dimensions, size, etc. to “the fixing piece.” The recitation of “one end of the fixing piece is connected to a bottom of the box” only imparts a capability of the one end to connect to some other entity (that may be a box or something else as the box is not part of the claimed construct defined by the preamble). The “connection” itself doesn’t require any structure given this could be a separate tape applied to the one end that fixes the one end of the fixing piece to some entity that may or may not be a bottom of a box]. Alternatively, the instant application just uses the “one end” to participate in fixing by inserting it into glue (P61 of the PGPUB).
Accordingly, it would appear any structure in the prior art that participates in/is capable of indirectly fixing or directly fixing reads on the claimed “fixing piece” and lines 3-5 of the claim.
This interpretation and analysis of the claimed limitations is included incorporated in any prior art rejection(s) made below against the claims.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following: P64 of the PGPUB requires whatever corrections are made to claim 3 to set forth a supported, definitive construct. See the rejection below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph below regarding the issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 3, and thus dependent claims 4-7; and claim 4, and thus dependent claims 5 and 6, claim 5; and claim 6 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A) While claim 3 is an original claim and finds a basis in the written description (P64), the limitations set forth in claim 3 and the disclosure at P64 are not consistent with the remainder of the disclosure and do not adequately describe the features as they are presented. Claim 1 first defines that the fixing piece includes “one end” and “another end.” Claim 3, then defines the fixing piece includes two entirely new entities of “a plug-in end” and a “connecting end,” however, the disclosure does not support the fixing piece including all of: one end, another end, a plug-in end, and a connecting end as set forth in claims 1 and 3. Instead, there are only two ends total for the fixing bracket 30: a plug-in end 311 (i.e., the “one end” of claim 1), and a connecting end (i.e., the “another end” of claim 1). Accordingly, setting forth four separate ends violates the written description.
The claim is further not supported because claim 3 defines: “…the one end being an end at which the fixing piece is connected to the buckle…”; however, this is not what the disclosure teaches or other portions of the claims recite (e.g., claim 1: “wherein the buckle is connected to another end of the fixing piece” and claim 3: “the connecting end is connected to the buckle”). The connecting end 312 (i.e., “the another end” of claim 1) is what is connected to the buckle (Fig. 2). Accordingly, the disclosure does not support that the one end (i.e., the plug-in end 311) is an end at which the fixing piece 31 is connected to the buckle 32.
B) While claims 4-6 are original claims, they depend on claim 4 (directly or indirectly) and these claims describe separate embodiments never disclosed in combination.
Claim 3 describes the following feature:
“a thickness of the plug-in end decreases stepwise from one end to another end, the one end being an end at which the fixing piece is connected to the buckle” which is describing the feature illustrated in Fig. 3 below (circled):
PNG
media_image1.png
188
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4, dependent upon claim 3, describes the following feature:
“wherein the plug-in end extends outward along a direction perpendicular to the length direction of the fixing piece to form a bend portion 3111…” which is describing the feature illustrated in Fig. 5 below (circled- bend portion 3111):
PNG
media_image2.png
242
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 6 then go onto define features of the bend portion 3111 relative to the side it is located on (see Figs. 5 and 6).
Accordingly, claims 4-6 violate the written description on the basis of their dependency to claim 3 given one cannot combine embodiments or combine features from different embodiments never linked together in combination with each other (case law below):
“A patent owner cannot show written description support by picking and choosing claim elements from different embodiments that are never linked together in the specification.” Flash-Control, LLC. v. Intel Corporation, Case 20-2141, (Fed. Cir. 07/14/21) (non-precedential) (affirming Summ. J. written description invalidity), accessible at 20-2141.OPINION.7-14-2021_1803906.pdf (uscourts.gov);
Hyatt v. Dudas 492 F. 3d 1365 (2007), No. 2006-1171, (Fed. Cir. 06/28/07) (affirming ex parte rejection of claims on ground that “while each element may be individually described in the specification, the deficiency was the lack of adequate description of their combination”, accessible at Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F. 3d 1365 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2007;
Taylor v. Iancu, Case 18-1048 (non-precedential) (affirming summary judgment rejection in Sec. 145 action of claims combining features identified in specification but not described in combination with each other), accessible at 18-1048.Opinion.4-3-2020_1563153.pdf (uscourts.gov); and
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Recro Technology LLC, Case 16-2260 (Fed. Cir. 06/13/17) (non-precedential) (affirming PTAB written-description unpatentability determination in interference where claims combining features identified in spec. but not described in combination with each other), accessible at 16-2260.Opinion.6-9-2017.1.PDF (uscourts.gov).
Appropriate correction is required.
6. 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.
7. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-8; claim 3, and thus dependent claims 4-7; claim 4, and thus dependent claims 5-6; claim 5; claim 6; claim 7; claim 9; and claim 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.
Claim 9 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, and claim 10 incorporates the subject matter of claim 9. Accordingly, claims 9 and 10 are addressed concurrently with claim 1.
A) Claim 1 is reproduced below in part:
“A fixing bracket, configured to fix a wiring harness of a battery module placed in a box1, the fixing bracket comprising:
a fixing piece, wherein the fixing piece is configured to be inserted into a clearance between the battery module and a lateral face of the box along a length direction of the fixing piece, and one end of the fixing piece is connected to a bottom of the box; …”
The preamble defines the scope of the claims and is drawn to a fixing bracket. The battery module and the box are not part of the defined scope of the claim. Accordingly, requiring the box in the emphasized portion of the claim above in a structural cooperative relationship with one end of the fixing piece (i.e., “one end of the fixing piece is connected to a bottom of the box”) renders the claim indefinite given the box is outside the scope of “the fixing bracket” to which the claims are drawn to.
B) This issue above compounds in each of claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 which recites features of the fixing bracket in conjunction with features of the battery module and/or the box as quoted below, wherein the battery module and the box are not part of the claimed construct of a fixing bracket:
Claim 4: “and the bend portion is press-fitted into a clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box.”
Claim 5: “…the buckle is located in the clearance between the battery module and the lateral face of the box when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box.”
Claim 6: “…the buckle is located at a top of the battery module when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box.”
Claim 7: “…the plug-in end is connected to the bottom of the box…”
Accordingly, the claims are rendered indefinite by these recitations as they are outside of the claim construct of a fixing bracket.
C) Claim 3 is highly confusing and is indefinite for not clearly setting for the metes and bounds. Claim 1 first defines that the fixing piece includes “one end” and “another end.” Claim 3, then defines the fixing piece includes two entirely new entities of “a plug-in end” and a “connecting end,” however, the disclosure does not support all of: one end, another end, a plug-in end, and a connecting end as set forth in the claim. Instead, there are only two ends total for the fixing bracket 30: a plug-in end 311 (i.e., the “one end” of claim 1), and a connecting end (i.e., the “another end” of claim 1). Applicant is thus defining the same entities and setting them forth twice with different terms as if there are four separate “ends,” thereby rendering the claim indefinite. The claim is further problematic because claim 3 defines: “the one end being an end at which the fixing piece is connected to the buckle;” however, this is not what the disclosure teaches or other portions of the claims recite (e.g., claim 1: “wherein the buckle is connected to another end of the fixing piece” and claim 3: “the connecting end is connected to the buckle”).
The connecting end 312 (i.e., “the another end” of claim 1) is what is connected to the buckle (Fig. 2).
D) Claim 10 defines an electrical device comprising an electrical main body and the battery as defined. The meaning of “an electrical main body” is not clear. Is the main body required to have some form of electrical functionality? For example, if the electrical device is an electric car, and the battery as claimed provides power to the car, what exactly is the electrical main body supposed to be constituted of? The disclosure is entirely silent on the issue or any requirements of the electrical main body. Any amendments made to address this issue should provide specific support citation given the Examiner cannot find any explanation in the instant specification for the term. Regarding support citation, see MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
It is noted that failure to provide appropriate support citation may result in a Notice of Non-Compliance being issued with no new time period for reply.
Appropriate correction is required. For sections A and B above, it would appear correction could be made by either: 1) amending the preambles of claims 1-8 to a battery as in claim 9 (along with the corresponding structure recited in the body of claim 9 within claim 1) to set forth a clear and definitive claimed construct with the necessary structural cooperative relationships, or 2) the claims could be amended to define only features of the fixing bracket (see Fig. 3) without any features pertaining to the box or the battery module. The former option is recommended giving “a fixing bracket” is incredibly broad and could be a fixing bracket for any prior art field (e.g., a cooler, a vehicle part, furniture, etc.), whereas the instant application is directed to a technical solution specifically for the field of batteries and wiring harnesses (P3-9).
With regard to the other issues identified above, the Examiner will examine the claims against the prior art as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill et al. (US 5,643,693).
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches power distribution module 10 (“a fixing bracket”), configured to fix a wiring harness (via harness guide channel 13) of a battery module 70 placed in a box1, the power distribution module 10 (“fixing bracket”) comprising (see Figs. 1-11):
mounting bolt 72 (“a fixing piece”) (Fig. 1), wherein the fixing piece 72 is configured to be inserted into a clearance between the battery module and a lateral face of the box along a length direction of the fixing piece (mounting bolt 72 meets this capability), and one end (i.e., the bottom end that is bent and inserted into clamp 77) of the fixing piece 72 is [capable of] connect[ing] to a bottom of the box (see Claim Interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph rejections against this section of the claim, wherein the claim is examined against the prior art as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes); and
a buckle (20, 30, 40), wherein the buckle (20, 30, 40) is connected to another end (i.e., the top end) of the fixing piece 72 (note the connection of 72 with the buckle (20, 30, 40) occurring at harness guide flange 14- (C3/L47-49; Fig. 1)), and comprises a first snap portion (20, 30) and a second snap portion (40) that are snap-fitted to each other (C3/L36-47; C4/L29-32; C5/L18-22; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 9), and hardness guide channel 13 (“an accommodation channel”) (Fig. 4) configured to accommodate the wiring harness is formed between the first snap portion (20, 30) and the second snap portion (40).
It is noted that the designation of the first and second snap portions may be reversed. It is further noted that blocks 20 and 30 are taught as separate pieces in the first embodiment (Figs. 1-11), wherein Hill teaches that they alternatively may be molded as an integral unit as shown in Fig. 12 (i.e., buckle could be interpreted in this embodiment as components: 20/30 + 40).
Figs. 1 and 4 of Hill is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image3.png
766
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
760
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Hill teaches wherein an opening direction of the hardness guide channel 13 (“accommodation channel”) is perpendicular to the length direction of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) (Fig. 1, 4).
10. Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 108092211) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a fixing structure 100 (“fixing bracket”), configured to fix a wiring harness of a battery module placed in a box1, the fixing bracket 100 comprising:
a first connecting portion 11 (“fixing piece”), wherein the fixing piece is configured to be inserted into a clearance between the battery module and a lateral face of the box along a length direction of the fixing piece (first connecting portion 11 meets this capability), and one end (clamping portion 112) of the fixing piece 11 is [capable of] connect[ing] to a bottom of the box (see Claim Interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph rejections against this section of the claim, wherein the claim is examined against the prior art as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes); and
a “buckle” ((13/14/15) + 16), wherein the buckle is connected to another end of the fixing piece 11 (end portion of 111), and comprises a first snap portion (13/14/15) and a second snap portion 16 that are snap-fitted to each other (Figs. 2, 5, 9; final page, second paragraph of machine translation; entire disclosure relied upon), and a routing channel 17 (“an accommodation channel”) configured to accommodate the wiring harness (taught by Wang) is formed between the first snap portion (13/14/15) and the second snap portion 16.
It is noted that in a Second Interpretation of the claimed subject matter, the non-labeled projection with the hole (see Fig. 5: entity to the immediate right of reference numeral 112) reads on the claimed “fixing piece” with the remaining portions identified above for the buckle.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the first snap portion (13/14/15) comprises a first snap-hook 151, the second snap portion 16comprises a second snap-hook 163 disposed opposite to the first snap-hook 151, and the first snap-hook 151 and the second snap-hook 163 are snap-fitted to each other (Figs. 5, 9-11; final page, second paragraph of machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches wherein the fixing piece 11 comprises a plug-in end 112 and a connecting end 111, the connecting end 111 is connected to the buckle (13/14/15) + 16), and a thickness of the plug-in end 112 decreases stepwise from one end to another end, the one end being an end at which the fixing piece is connected to the buckle (13/14/15) + 16) (see Fig. 5). It is noted that the designation of “plug-in end and connecting end” can be reversed in an alternative interpretation.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches wherein the plug-in end 112 extends outward along a direction perpendicular to the length direction of the fixing piece 11 to form a bend portion (see the upward, bent projection at the end of the narrow portion of 11), and the bend portion is press-fitted into a clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the bend portion and the buckle ((13/14/15) + 16) are located on two opposite sides of the fixing piece11 respectively along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the fixing piece 11, and the buckle is located in the clearance between the battery module and the lateral face of the box when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches wherein the bend portion and the buckle ((13/14/15) + 16) are located on a same side of the fixing piece 11 along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the fixing piece 11, and the buckle is located at a top of the battery module when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph]. Note both claims 5 and 6 hold true given the buckle ((13/14/15) + 16) exists on both the opposite and same side relative to the bend portion.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches wherein an opening direction of the routing channel 17 (“an accommodation channel”) is perpendicular to the length direction of the mounting bolt 11 (“fixing piece”) (or the Second Interpretation fixing piece) (see Figs. 2, 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 5,643,693) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 108092211) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 2, Hill teaches wherein the first snap portion (20, 30) comprises a locking projection 23, 38b (“first snap-means”), the second snap portion (40) comprises a mating locking strap 46a, 45 (“second snap-means”) opposite to the locking projection 23, 38b, and the locking projection 23, 38b (“first snap-means’) and the locking strap 46a, 45 (“second snap-means”) are snap-fitted to each other (C3/L36-47; C4/L29-32; C5/L18-22; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 9).
The snapping-means is not disclosed as being in the format of a first snap-hook and a second snap-hook but rather a snap-fitted locking projection and locking strap that are disposed opposite to each other and snap-fitted together. The implementation of other known snap-fitting options is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art on the basis of design choice. Looking to known options to snap-fit mating snap portions of a fixing bracket intended to fix a wiring harness of a battery module, Wang teaches it is a known technique and construct to provide a buckle ((13/14/15) + 16) in which a first snap portion (13/14/15) and a second snap portion 16 are snap-fitted to each other and create a routing channel 17 (“accommodation channel”) configured to accommodate a wiring harness, wherein the first snap portion (13/14/15) comprises a first snap-hook (151)and the second snap portion 16 comprises a second snap0hook 163 that are disposed opposite to teach other and snap-fitted to each other (Figs. 2, 5, 9; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select a functionally equivalent snapping means such as snap-hooks snap-fitted together as taught by Wang in place of the locking projection and locking strap of Hill on the basis of the design choice and implementation of a functionally equivalent snap-fitting means to achieve a desired degree of togetherness of components.
13. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 5,643,693) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 213672957) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Hill teaches wherein the fixing piece (mounting bolt 72) comprises a plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77) and a connecting end (the top portion mated with nut 73), the connecting end is connected to the buckle (20, 30, 40) (via harness guide flange 14- (C3/L47-49; Fig. 1)), and [a thickness of the plug-in end decreases stepwise from one end to another end, the one end being an end at which the fixing piece is connected to the buckle]2. For compact prosecution the italicized language is being examined based on what Fig. 3 shows with respect to plug-in end 311.
In the same field of endeavor, Quin teaches analogous art of a clamping tool (I.e., “fixing bracket”) including a tapered clamp 2 inserted into a tapered hole section, wherein Qin teaches it is known to provide the end of the clamp 2 such that it is tapered, along with the hole having a matching tapered hole section, in order that better matching between the two components can be realized (.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a thickness of the plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77) of Hill such that it tapered (i.e., “a thickness decreases stepwise from one end to another end, the one end being an end at which the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) is connected to the buckle (20, 30, 40)”) given the technique and construct are known in the art and provide the predictable the predictable result of allowing the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) to better match with a hole section it is inserted into that also has a matching tapered section, which in turn provides for easier assembling and more secure mounting.
Regarding claim 4, Hill teaches wherein the plug-in end extends outward along a direction perpendicular to the length direction of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) to form a bend portion (see Fig. 1- the bend portion inserted into clamp 77), and the bend portion is press-fitted into a clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
Regarding claim 5, Hill teaches wherein the bend portion and the buckle (20, 30, 40) are located on two opposite sides of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) respectively along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) (see Fig. 1), and the buckle is located in the clearance between the battery module and the lateral face of the box when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
Regarding claim 6, Hill teaches wherein the bend portion and the buckle (20, 30, 40) are located on a same side of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) along the direction perpendicular to the length direction of the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) [note both claims 5 and 6 hold true given the buckle (20, 30, 40) exists on both the opposite and same side relative to the bend portion], and the buckle is located at a top of the battery module when the bend portion is press-fitted into the clearance between the battery module and the bottom of the box [the italicized language in brackets is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
14. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 5,643,693) in view of Qin et al. (CN 213672957) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2021/115324) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “the plug-in end is connected to the bottom of the box” which is non-limiting to the claim directed to a fixing bracket – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph].
Hill fails to disclose the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) further comprises a telescopic portion located between the plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77) and the connecting end (the top portion mated with nut 73), and the telescopic portion is telescopically disposed along the length direction of the fixing piece to adjust a distance between the plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77)and the connecting end (the top portion mated with nut 73).
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches analogous art of fixing member 20 (“fixing bracket”) and that it is a known technique to provide said fixing member 20 as a telescopic rod in order that the length of the telescopic rod can be adjusted and fixed by telescopic adjustment (page 1 of the machine translation). Zhang teaches (at least) the embodiment shown in Figs. 11-13 in which the length of the fixing member 20c can be adjusted and telescopically fixed by way of the telescopic portion in the central part thereof (pages 8-9 of the machine translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the mounting bolt 72 (“fixing piece”) of Hill with a telescopic portion located in a central location thereof between the plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77) and the connecting end (the top portion mated with nut 73), the telescopic portion is telescopically disposed along the length direction of the fixing piece to adjust a distance between the plug-in end (the bottom portion connected to clamp 77)and the connecting end (the top portion mated with nut 73) given Zhang teaches analogous art of a fixing member 20c (“fixing bracket”) with said features, the implementation of said construct providing for the taught and predictable feature of allowing the length of the fixing member 20c to be adjusted, thereby providing the advantage of being useful for a variety of module configurations of varying length.
15. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 5,643,693) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Otoguro et al. (US 2021/0061080).
Regarding claim 9, Hill teaches a battery (see Fig. 1 overall construct), comprising:
the power distribution module 10 (“fixing bracket”) according to claim 1 (entire rejection incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here);
the battery module 70 mounted to battery mounting platform 76 attached to the vehicle body (C6/L60-67) and comprising a busbar 25 (C4/L35-28) and the wiring harness 63a (C6/L19-27);
wherein the fixing bracket 10 is disposed in the clearance shown to fix the busbar 25 and the wiring harness 63a.
The construct of Hill is such that the battery module 70 is mounted to battery mounting platform 76 attached to the vehicle body (C6/L60-67), wherein Hill is silent as to further details of battery mounting platform 76 and the vehicle configuration and does not disclose a box in which the module 70 is placed, with the fixing bracket 10 disposed in the clearance between the battery module 70 and the box. Looking to known means by which to mount a battery module to a vehicle including a mounting platform, Otogura teaches it is a known technique to provide a battery stack 22 (“battery module”) mounted to vehicle lower structure 200 by way of battery frame 100 (Fig. 1; P20-21), the battery stack 22 on lower casing 21a (“mounting platform”) that is part of an overall casing 21 that defines a box (21a, 21b) (Fig. 1; P20-21, 26).
Therefore, it would look to known means by which to attach a battery 70 and battery mounting platform 76 to a vehicle, and to select the configuration taught by Otogura in which the battery stack 22 (“battery module”) is mounted to vehicle lower structure 200 (Fig. 1), the battery stack 22 on lower casing 21a (“mounting platform”) that is part of an overall casing 21 that defines a box (21a, 21b), the implementation thereof providing a known means by which the battery module 70 and mounting platform 77 of Hill can be attached to the vehicle, the use of casing 21 (“box”) including the surrounding upper and lower casing 21a, 21b providing the predictable results of protecting the battery module 70 and the other components therein from the external environment. The above modification of Hill as modified by Otogura provides the fixing bracket 10 to be disposed in a clearance between the battery module 70 and the box 21.
Regarding claim 10, Hill teaches an electrical vehicle (“an electrical device”), comprising: an electrical main body (the vehicle frame? Specifically vehicle lower structure 200 of Hill as modified by Otogura) [see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph]; and the battery according to claim 9 (see rejection above, the rejection entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lin et al. (US 5,389,462); Lippert et al. (US 5,439,759); and Darr et al. (US 2019/0123522).
Zhang et al. (WO 2021/115324) (machine translation provided) as relied upon above as a secondary reference teaches the following fixing bracket 30/3021:
PNG
media_image5.png
479
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 25
Wang et al. (WO 2020/211618) (using US 2022/0037745) as a copy thereof teaches this fixing member:
PNG
media_image6.png
460
433
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
479
377
media_image7.png
Greyscale
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 The claim is drawn to a fixing bracket as defined in the preamble. The italicized portion is considered intended-use language that is not further limiting. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02.
2 Highly indefinite language – see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph.
Prosecution Insights