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 .
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 March 6, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
In claim 7, it is unclear what the recitation “an in-vehicle battery pack is diverted as the battery pack” means, rendering the mete and boundary of the claim unascertainable. Claim 7 is indefinite.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oide et al. (JP 2001015090 A, hereafter referred to as Oide) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 216055034 U, hereafter Xiao). For citation of purposes, Oide’s and Xiao’s English machine translations are being employed in this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Oide teaches a battery device (“1” in Figs) comprising a battery pack assembly (“3”) mounted on a support member (“19”), wherein the battery pack assembly includes a battery pack (e.g., “3”).
Oide is silent on a tray as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiao discloses a battery pack assembly includes a battery pack (See [n0013]: “the battery”; [n0025]) and a tray (“1”) positioned below the battery pack ([n0013]: “the bottom of the battery is also secured within the tray body”; [n0025]) and including a frame (“fixing block 5”, [n0025]) and a bottom plate (bottom portion of tray 1) connected to the frame (“fixing block 5 is fixing on the side wall of the tray body 1, [n0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used the battery pack assembly of Xiao in substitution for that of Oide to obtain a predictable battery device, since a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2143). As a result, the frame includes an upper surface (upper surface of “fixing block 5”) that supports (via “fixing rod 6”, see [n0015], etc.) the battery pack and a lower surface (lower surface of “fixing block 5”) supported by the support member (i.e., “fixing block 5” supported by 19 in Oide).
Oide in view of Xiao further teaches the bottom plate has a drain hole (“3” in Xiao).
Regarding claim 2, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, wherein the bottom plate is inclined to descend toward the drain hole (See [n0006], Xiao).
Regarding claim 3, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed location of the drain hole can be achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art through ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. It is noted that mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It also has previously been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, wherein the battery device includes an access port (“15” in Figs of Oide) for the battery pack assembly to a support including the support member. As to arranging the location of the drain hole, it is noted that mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It also has previously been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 5, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, wherein the drain hole is provided at a corner of the bottom plate (See the annotated drawing).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation represents an intended use of the drain hole and is not patentably distinguishable. It is noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 7, Oide in view of Xiao teaches the battery device according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitation represents an intended use of the battery device and is not patentably distinguishable. It is noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights