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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 February 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMAZAKI et al. (US 20200075907 A1) hereinafter referred to as Shimazaki and further in view of WU (CN 115360469 A, citations from enclosed machine translation) hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Shimazaki teaches, a battery pack (p. 2, [0029]) comprising; a battery module; 37 (Fig. 7; p. 2, [0030]) a battery case accommodating the battery module; electrical lines 38 extend from their respective battery modules 34 and are bundled together in the case (Fig. 5; p. 3, [0035]) wherein the battery case includes: a bottom surface; flat case bottom wall 31a (Fig. 7; p. 2, [0031]) a side wall standing from an outer edge portion of the bottom surface; left & right case walls 31d (Fig. 7; p. 2, [0031]) wherein the cross member includes: a member main body formed by aluminum die casting 31e and made by metal/aluminum die-casting (Fig. 7; p. 2, [0030]) together with at least a part of the bottom surface and the side wall; made from a large number of ribs arising from the case main body 31 (Fig. 7; p. 2, [0031]) wherein the member main body includes a recessed portion a plurality of recessed portions are seen along the cross member in Figure 7 (examiner labeled Figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1064
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shimazaki does not teach a reinforcing plate or a central portion where wiring is provided between a recess and plate. Shimazaki only teaches an electrical power line 38 extending from the plurality of battery modules 34 disposed between the cross member and the upper case 32a (Fig. 5)
Wu does teach, these limitations specifically and a reinforcing plate installed on an upper surface of the member main body, an arched bracket 501 is fixed between both half-beam members that comprise the cross members 502 & 503, where a connecting plate 5012 is on the top surface (Figs. 7-8; p. 5, 23-25) in a central portion of the battery case, central groove 4 and 501 is fixed in the middle (Fig. 1; p. 5, lines 12-13) and wherein the wiring or the pipe is provided between the member main body and the reinforcing plate the busbar and wire harness for the battery modules can pass through the opening (Figs. 1-11 p. 5 lines 1-2).
Further, both Shimazaki and Wu are considered analogous in the art as both inventions are directed to a box-like case body of a battery pack for electric vehicles with cross body members provided for to increase the structural strength thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify that if the electric components of a battery pack would need to pass through a recessed portion of the cross member of a battery case, it would require a bracket/brace/plate of some sort to strengthening the weakened cross member to allow passage of electrical lines. A skilled artisan would identify an arch as an extremely strong shape that would protect against a variety of forces. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to add the arch of Wu with its fixing plates 5012 on top of the central channel 4 and member to allow passage of the electrical lines and further strengthen the cross member 31e which would be weakened by the addition of a recess of sufficient size to allow passage of electrical lines.
Regarding claim 5, Shimazaki modified by Wu does teach The battery pack according to claim 1 (see above).
Shimazaki modified by Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcing plate is provided with a fixing portion to which an electronic component is attached.
Shimazaki does teach a battery control device, junction board or a cell voltage sensor 35 disposed above the battery modules 34 (p. 2, [0030]).
Wu further teaches a plurality of connecting frames 9 along the central portion of the battery case not only fix wire harnesses and bus bars but can also be used for installing other components (Fig. 1; p. 5, lines 3-5) in addition to the reinforcing structure. Both inventions teach fixing of electronic components to the battery case.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the existing electrical components of Shimazaki and take the connection frames of Wu from the central region of the base and move them to the reinforcing plate as the electrical lines would be above the crossbeams and disposed under the reinforcing plates. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to rearrange the existing fixing components to connect to the battery module control device and any other additional components under the reinforcing plate.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki as modified by Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of STAWIARSKI et al. (WO 2022197830 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation) hereinafter referred to as Stawiarski.
Regarding claim 2, modified Shimazaki teaches the battery pack according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claims 1 & 5) but does not teach any more than a single cross member where a reinforcing structure is attached.
Stawiarski does teach this limitation, wherein a plurality of the cross members are provided as shown that multiple cross members 146 may be added to the frame to increase its strength (Fig 14; p. 15, lines 9-10) and wherein the reinforcing plate is provided on a part only out of the plurality of cross members as seen in Figures 10-11, a recessed portion exists in the center portion of the cross members. Stawiarski further teaches, a multitude of openings 110, 112 (Figs. 12-13) can be added to allow passage of wires, harness, cooling lines, pipes etc. can be employed and are not limited to any particular component, nor size or shape (Figs. 11-13; p. 14 lines, 4-14). As the shape of the opening or recess of the crossmember can vary, the need for a reinforcing member can vary as well. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to add a reinforcing plate only to cross members that contain a recess of significant size as is claimed.
Further, modified Shimazaki and Stawiarski are considered analogous in the art as the inventions are directed towards a vehicle battery tray where cross members are added to increase structural strength and stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additional cross members that can vary in shape of the central recesses of Stawiarski and add to the battery case of modified Shimazaki. Where the reinforcing structure would be added only to cross members that have a central recess that could weaken the integrity of the box if left un-reinforced, to add strength to the battery case in the event of impact.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki as modified by Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 217145628 U, citations from enclosed machine translation) hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claim 3, modified Shimazaki teaches the battery pack according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claims 1 & 5) but does not teach the material of the reinforcing plate.
Zhou does disclose the limitation wherein the reinforcing plate is formed of high-tensile steel the reinforcing plate 8 is welded and fixed on the upper folded edge of the cross-steel beam (Figs. 2 & 3; p. 2, lines 27-28). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to weld a material of the same composition to itself, in this case a high-strength steel, to ensure that battery pack has high structural strength (p. 2, lines 31-32).
Further, Zhou and modified Shimazaki are considered analogous in the art as they are directed towards the construction of a battery packet requiring high strength to maintain its structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the steel reinforcing plate of a Zhou with its high strength characteristics and apply it to the reinforcing arch and plate of Shimazaki modified by Wu to enhance the structural stability of the battery case. As the drawbacks associated with steel construction would not apply given only the reinforcing plate would be made of high strength steel.
Regarding claim 4, Shimazaki modified by Wu and Zhou teaches the battery pack according to claim 3 (see above rejection of claim 3) and Wu further teaches wherein the reinforcing plate is fixed to the cross member with a bolt the connecting structure between the connection plate 5012 and the two half-beams adopts conventional bolts (p. 1, line 34). As the reinforcing plate would be made of steel and the cross member would be of die-casted aluminum there would not be any issues concerning the fabrication of the cross member and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to use the already provided welding holes 20 of Zhou to bolt down the plate (Zhou; Fig. 3).
Shimazaki, Wu, and Zhou are all considered analogous in the art as all three inventions are directed towards the construction of a battery case with cross members to increase strength and stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to steel reinforcing plate of a Zhou with its high strength characteristics and apply it to the reinforcing arch and plate of Shimazaki modified by Wu to enhance the structural stability of the battery case as the drawbacks associated with steel construction would not apply given only the reinforcing plate would be made out of high strength steel. In addition, the bolts allow for a certain amount of floating that can compensate for installation errors (Wu; p. 5, lines 36-37) and would be an obvious addition due to the advantage of increased strength and tolerances in fabrication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE WALTER VIGIL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE WALTER VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights