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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Wording in Line 24 of Page 3: Replacing “the another” with “the other” is suggested.
Wording in Line 3 of Page 4: Replacing “the another” with “the other” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality. Wording in Line 8: Replacing “the another” with “the other” 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)(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawada et al. (JP 2022165246 A) (hereinafter “Sawada”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Sawada teaches a vehicle body lower structure [Sawada Figs. 1-3; Sawada Abstract: “at a lower part of a vehicle body 2, a vehicle body frame 3 having a pair of side members 3A”] comprising: a pair of side rails disposed apart from each other in a vehicle width direction of a vehicle and extending in a front-rear direction of the vehicle [Sawada Fig. 2, Reference Character 3]; a pair of hydrogen tanks respectively disposed outside the pair of side rails in the vehicle width direction [Sawada Fig. 2, Reference Character 31 (typ); Sawada Paragraph 0030: “The hydrogen gas supply system 30 includes, from the upstream side of the fuel cell stack 10, a fuel tank 31 as a hydrogen gas supply source”]; a pair of protection members configured to respectively protect the pair of hydrogen tanks from external impact [Sawada Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 64 and 66; Sawada Paragraph 0049: “horizontal side bar 64, two vertical end bars 65, and an upper bar 66.”]; and a battery supported by the pair of side rails between the pair of protection members [Sawada Fig. 2, Reference Character 52].
Regarding Claim 2, Sawada teaches the vehicle body lower structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a front axle attached to a front wheel of the vehicle; a rear axle attached to a rear wheel of the vehicle; and another battery different from the battery, wherein the battery is disposed between the front axle and the rear axle, and the another battery is disposed behind the rear axle [Fig. 2, Reference Character 52 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 3, Sawada teaches the vehicle body lower structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the battery is disposed below lower ends of the pair of side rails [Sawada Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Characters 3 and 52 (Note battery 52 below rails 3 in Fig. 3.)].
Regarding Claim 4, Sawada teaches the vehicle body lower structure according to claim 1, further comprising a radiator disposed outside one of the pair of protection members in the vehicle width direction [Sawada Fig. 2, Reference Character 43B (typ); Sawada Abstract: “The radiator 43B is attached to the vehicle body 2 so as to line up with the fuel tank 31 on further outer side of the vehicle width direction W with respect to the fuel tank”].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (JP 2022165246 A) (hereinafter “Sawada”) in view of Koenig (FR 2964913 A1). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, Sawada teaches a vehicle body lower structure comprising a battery but does not teach a lithium ion battery. Inoue teaches the vehicle body lower structure according to claim 1, wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery [Koenig Abstract: Assembly for protecting a receptacle of a high capacity electric energy storage system i.e. lithium-ion battery, of a vehicle (claimed) e.g. electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle, against the penetration of a chassis part i.e. rear crosspiece, of the vehicle during central or lateral rear impact of the vehicle. Can also be used for protecting the receptacle of the high capacity electric energy storage system against penetration of a front crosspiece of the vehicle during the impact of the vehicle.”]. 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 vehicle body lower structure of Sawada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a lithium-ion battery in view of Koenig. It should be noted that while Koenig does not provide an explicit motivation for specifying a lithium-ion battery, the use of a lithium battery would provide high energy density, long cycle life, low self-discharge rates, and fast charging capabilities, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
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