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
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8, 10, and 15 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okabe et al. (US 11,400,994).
As for claims 1 and 16, Okabe et al. disclose a vehicle frame/battery mounting structure for a vehicle, comprising: a lower mount structure (40a) coupled to a lower portion of the vehicle frame; and an upper mount structure (40b) coupled to an upper portion of the vehicle frame, wherein the lower mount structure and the upper mount structure are configured to receive a battery unit in a space formed between the lower mount structure and the upper mount structure such that the battery unit is slidably disposed in an inclined position in the space (Fig. 2).
As for claims 2 and 17, the lower mount structure is having a four-sided enclosure (Fig. 3) and the upper mount structure is having a battery fixing member (41), wherein the four-sided enclosure is configured to receive a bottom portion of the battery unit and the battery fixing member is configured to secure a top portion of the battery unit.
As for claims 3 and 18, the battery fixing member associated with the upper mount structure comprises a rubber padding to absorb shock and jerk experienced by the upper mount structure (column 7, lines 41 – 43).
As for claims 8 and 10, the upper mount structure comprises a seat mount (23) configured to mount a seat associated with the vehicle and the inclined position of the battery unit includes an inclination angle that is based on a position of the seat mount.
As for claim 15, the upper mount structure is pivotally coupled to the upper portion of the vehicle frame, and wherein a movement of a seat coupled to the upper mount structure causes the upper mount structure to move, leaving a gap in the vehicle frame to slidably remove the battery unit from the space (Fig. 12).
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) 4 – 7, 9, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US 11,400,994) alone.
As for claims 4, 5, and 19, Okabe et al. disclose the use of rubber padding to absorb shocks, but do not explicitly disclose rubber pads on a base portion or sides of the lower mount structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that providing additional rubber pads on the lower mount structure would protect the batteries both during insertion and during driving.
As for claim 6, Okabe et al. disclose an inclined position of the battery, but is silent with respect to the exact angle with respect to the horizontal plane. It has been held that, where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art device is a recitation of the dimensions of the claimed device, and the claimed device would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, the battery is oriented so as to be accessible and easily removed.
As for claim 7, Okabe et al. are silent with respect to the means of connection between the mount structures and the vehicle frame. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of a bolted joint, a welded joint, and a pivot joint, as each are well known in the art for joining vehicle frame members.
As for claim 9, Okabe et al. disclose a saddle seat, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to have a generally U-shaped transverse section.
As for claim 13, it is known in the art to provide shock absorbers between vehicle frame components to improve ride comfort and prevent damage to vehicle components.
As for claim 20, Okabe et al. disclose the battery mounting structure claimed. While Okabe et al. is silent with respect to the method of assembling the battery mounting structure, the steps of coupling the mount structures to the vehicle frame are implied.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US 11,400,994) in view of Miyashiro et al. (US 10,611,425).
As for claim 11, Miyashiro et al. disclose a pair of brackets mounting a tank cover (Figs. 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Okabe et al. to include the brackets and tank cover of Miyashiro to further enclose and protect the batteries.
As for claim 12, Miyashiro et al. disclose electric wire guides (see 82, 55c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Okabe et al. to include the wire guides Miyashiro to protect the necessary electrical connections between the battery and other vehicle components.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US 11,400,994) in view of Yamazaki (US 9,481,249).
Okabe et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, but do not disclose drain pores. Yamazaki discloses a base portion of a vehicle battery mount comprising drain pores (61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Okabe et al. to include the drain pores of Yamazaki in order to discharge water that enters the battery mount and prevent damage to the batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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 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.
/Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613