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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 March 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and has been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 7 of Copending Application No. 18/597,084 (hereafter referred to as “copending application ‘084”) in view of Tang et al. (US 20240357837; “Tang”) and in further view of Borghi et al. (US 20220169125 A1; “Borghi”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘084 patent application describes the following elements present in claim 1, including a battery device, a battery pack, a tray that is positioned below the battery pack and that includes a frame and a bottom plate connected to the frame. The frame includes an upper face that supports the battery pack, and a lower face supported by the support member. However, copending application ‘084 does not claim the bottom plate being disposed upward from the lower face of the frame. Tang discloses a battery tray which includes a tray bottom plate and a frame, wherein the support is located below the bottom plate (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Tang, annotated by the examiner
Therefore, the copending application ‘084 in view of Tang teaches the supporting portion of the frame is located below the tray bottom plate (i.e. the bottom plate is disposed upward from the lower face of the frame). By virtue of the supporting portion of the frame being below the tray bottom plate, it is understood that the bottom plate is above the lower face of the frame (see e.g., [0058], [0067], [0069] and [0081], and 10, 11, 20, and 22 in Figure 6, as annotated above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery tray structure to feature a relationship wherein the bottom plate of the battery tray is above the lower face of the frame of the support in order to enhance the stability of the battery device.
The copending application, in view of Tang, further fails to teach a plurality of battery pack assemblies accommodated stacked in an up down direction, though the copending application does describe a singular battery pack assembly mounted on a support member. Borghi teaches a battery pack assembly containing a plurality of battery modules stacked vertically within a battery enclosure that features a bottom panel that is configured to support at least a portion of the weight of the modules (i.e. a plurality of battery pack assemblies accommodated stacked in an up-down direction on a support member; see e.g. [0049], [0061], and [0075], Figures 4A-G and 5A-E). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to accommodate multiple battery pack assemblies into a single battery device for further downstream uses such as in a vehicle. The spatial orientation therein is therefore a consequence of design, where the battery assemblies are housed together in either a vertical or horizontal fashion. Regarding Claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘084 patent application describe the following elements present in claim 2, wherein the bottom plate has a drain hole (claim 1 of ‘084) and the bottom plate is inclined to descend toward the drain hole (claim 2 of ‘084).
Regarding Claim 3, copending application ‘084 in view of Tang does not claim the battery device according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack is supported by the frame via an insulator. Tang teaches the battery core being supported by a supporting member of the frame, on which the tray bottom plate is configured as an insulating member (i.e. the battery pack is supported by the frame via an insulator, see e.g. [0073] and [0067] of Tang). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to introduce an insulator between the battery pack and the frame so as to prevent electrical shorts, dampen vibrations, and thermally protect the battery pack.
Regarding Claim 4, claim 7 of the ‘084 patent application describes the following elements present in claim 4, wherein the battery device is installed at a stationary location and an in-vehicle battery pack is diverted as the battery pack (i.e. “an in-vehicle battery pack is diverted for use as the battery pack”).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Borghi.
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches a battery core (i.e. a battery pack), and a battery tray that includes a tray bottom plate and a frame configured to support the battery core from underneath (i.e. a tray that is positioned below the battery pack and that includes a frame and a bottom plate connected to the frame; see e.g. [0058] and [0067], Figs 4 and 6.) The tray bottom plate of Tang further features an extension portion covering the entire upper surface of the frame, namely in contact with the supporting portion (i.e. the frame includes an upper face that supports the battery pack; see e.g. [0067] and [0072], 20 and 22 in Figs 5 and 6, see further the annotated Figure 6 above) and the bottom surface of the supporting portion of the frame has a structure strengthening portion extending below that is configured with a boss structure which is connected to the supporting portion of the frame (i.e. a lower face that is supported by the support member; see e.g. [0063] and [0064], Figure 12 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
991
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 12, as annotated by the examiner
The battery tray of Tang also teaches the supporting portion of the frame is located below the tray bottom plate (i.e. the bottom plate is disposed upward from the lower face of the frame). By virtue of the supporting portion of the frame being below the tray bottom plate, it is understood that the bottom plate is above the lower face of the frame (see e.g., [0058], [0067], [0069] and [0081], and 10, 11, 20, and 22 in Figure 6, as annotated above).
However, Tang does not teach a plurality of battery pack assemblies, featuring the described embodiments as shown above, stacked in an up-down direction on a support member.
Borghi teaches a battery pack assembly containing a plurality of battery modules stacked vertically within a battery enclosure that features a bottom panel that is configured to support at least a portion of the weight of the modules (i.e. a plurality of battery pack assemblies accommodated stacked in an up-down direction on a support member; see e.g. [0049], [0061], and [0075], Figures 4A-G and 5A-E). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize the battery tray and support of Tang so as to accommodate multiple battery pack assemblies as taught by Borghi to improve the stability of a battery device featuring a plurality of battery pack assemblies.
Regarding Claim 3, Tang in view of Borghi teaches the battery core being supported by a supporting member of the frame, on which the tray bottom plate is configured as an insulating member (i.e. the battery pack is supported by the frame via an insulator, see e.g. [0073] and [0067] of Tang).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang in view of Borghi teaches the battery pack as being mounted on the vehicle (i.e. the battery device is installed at a stationary location, [0094] of Tang) so as to provide electric energy for the vehicle (i.e. an in-vehicle battery pack is diverted for use as the battery pack, [0094] of Tang).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Borghi and in further view of Kohda et al. (US 7117966 B2; “Kohda”).
Regarding Claim 2, the tray bottom plate of Tang does not feature a drain hole, nor is the bottom plate inclined so as to be lower toward the aforementioned drain hole. Kohda teaches a canted/inclined battery support tray including at least one drain opening which is configured so that water would tend to flow toward the drain opening (i.e. the bottom plate includes a drain hole and is inclined so as to be lower toward the drain hole; see e.g. [45], Fig 8 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
611
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Kohda, annotated by the examiner
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bottom plate of the tray as taught by Tang to feature an inclined structure where at the bottom of the incline, the drain hole as taught by Kohda would be introduced so as to provide a way for water to escape the battery enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MALONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1730. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30a-5p, F: 7:30a-4p.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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 PATRICK MALONEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights