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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (CN 113745740 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a battery pack mounting structure for a vehicle (battery 200, box body 10, bushing 30, buckle 40, figs.1-12), the structure comprising: a side member (edge beam 20, fig.2-3) disposed at a lateral side of a battery pack (box body 10, fig.2), the side member comprising a plurality of partition walls (plates 21 and 22, fig.3); a side bush (sleeve 30 and buckle 40, figs.2-11) fastened passing through the side member vertically and passing through the plurality of partition walls (sleeve 30 and buckle 40 pass through the plates 21 and 22, figs.2-11); and a side mounting bolt fastened to a vehicle body while passing through the side bush and the plurality of partition walls (connecting piece as locking bolt pass through the holes 221 and 211 to secure the body 1 to vehicle 1000, figs.1-12, last two paragraphs on page 14 of translated copy).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses wherein the side bush is coupled to the side member as an upper unit (sleeve 30, figs.2-10) fastened from above the side member and a lower unit (buckle 40, figs.2-10) fastened from below the side member are coupled to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses wherein the upper unit and the lower unit are forcibly fitted to each other to be a single body (sleeve 30 and buckle 40 are fitted to each other, figs.2-10).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses wherein, relatively to each other, the upper unit and the lower unit comprise a plurality of ribs (buckle has clamping parts 42 and 43, figs.4-9) disposed locally protruding from a circumferential surface (clamping parts 42 and 43 are on outer circumference surface of buckle main body 41, figs.4-9) thereof and a retainer (sleeve 30 has grooves 341 and 342, and flange 33, figs.4-9) disposed to keep the plurality of ribs transformed and inserted therein.
Regarding claim 6, wherein: the upper unit or the lower unit is provided integrally with a stopper protrusion (limiting bumps 44, fig.11) that is configured to restrict rotation relative to the side member; and the side member comprises a stopper groove (limiting groove 222, fig.10) that is integral thereto, wherein the stopper groove is configured to allow the stopper protrusion to be inserted therein and prevent the side bush from the rotation relative to the side member (limiting bumps 44 are inserted into limiting grooves 222, figs.3 and 10-11).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses wherein: the plurality of partition walls of the side member are disposed in parallel with each other (plates 21 and 22 are parallel, figs.3-4); and the side bush is coupled penetrating the plurality of partition walls perpendicularly (sleeve 30 and buckle 40 are perpendicular to the plates 21 and 22, figs.3-4).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses a battery pack mounting structure for a vehicle (battery 200, box body 10, bushing 30, buckle 40, figs.1-12), the structure comprising: a side member (edge beam 20, figs.2-3) comprising a horizontal extension portion protruding in a lateral direction (plates 21 and 22, fig.3), wherein the horizontal extension portion of the side member comprises a plurality of horizontal plates (plates 21 and 22, fig.3) spaced apart from each other vertically; and a side bush (sleeve 30 and buckle 40, figs.2-11) fastened penetrating the horizontal extension portion of the side member vertically, wherein the side bush is configured to be connected to at least two horizontal plates of the plurality of horizontal plates (sleeve 30 and buckle 40 connect to the plates 21 and 22, figs.2-11).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses wherein the side bush is configured to be connected to and penetrate the at least two horizontal plates (plates 21 and 22, figs.2-11) comprising a topmost horizontal plate (plate 21, figs.2-11) among the plurality of horizontal plates of the horizontal extension portion.
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses wherein the side bush comprises: an upper unit (sleeve 30, figs.2-11) disposed penetrating a topmost horizontal plate (plate 21, figs.2-11) among the plurality of horizontal plates of the horizontal extension portion; and a lower unit (buckle 40, figs.2-11) coupled to the upper unit while penetrating a horizontal plate (plate 22, figs.2-11) of the plurality of horizontal plates other than the topmost horizontal plate.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 113745740 A) in view of Eheim (US 12506225 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the battery pack of claim 3 and upper and lower units secured to one another, but fails to disclose wherein, relatively to each other, the upper unit and the lower unit comprise a male threaded portion disposed locally protruding from a circumferential surface thereof and a female threaded portion disposed to keep the male threaded portion transformed and inserted therein.
However, Eheim discloses the upper unit and the lower unit comprise a male threaded portion (external thread 30, figs.1-6) disposed locally protruding from a circumferential surface thereof and a female threaded portion (internal thread 24, figs.1-6) disposed to keep the male threaded portion transformed and inserted therein (figs.1-6).
Lin and Eheim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery mounting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin with the threaded coupling of Eheim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one coupling assembly for another with predictable results of the threaded coupling being more secure to prevent the upper and lower unit from decoupling.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 113745740 A) in view of Eichberger (CN 111433936 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the battery pack mounting structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose a plurality of comb-pattern protrusions.
However, Eichberger discloses a plurality of comb-pattern protrusions (76, figs.3a-4b) on an outer circumferential surface thereof so as to be forcibly fitted into the side member (wall 52, figs.3a-4b).
Lin and Eichberger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin with the protrusions of Eichberger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of securing the side bushing to the wall via the protrusions.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 113745740 A) in view of Lee (US 20210387550 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses a battery pack mounting structure for a vehicle (battery 200, box body 10, bushing 30, buckle 40, figs.1-12), the structure comprising: a pair of side members (edge beam 20, figs.2-3) respectively disposed at lateral sides of a battery pack (box body 10, fig.2), each of the side members comprising a plurality of partition walls (plates 21 and 22, figs.2-3); a frontward wall and a rearward wall (front and rear walls of box body 10, fig.2) disposed on a front and a rear side of the battery pack (fig.2), respectively, wherein the side members together with the frontward wall and the rearward wall define an accommodating space to accommodate a plurality of battery modules (space inside the box body 10 accommodates batteries, fig.2); side bushes (sleeve 30 and buckle 40, figs.2-11) fastened passing through the side members vertically and passing through the plurality of partition walls (sleeve 30 and buckle 40 passes through the plates 21 and 22, figs.2-11); and side mounting bolts (connecting piece as locking bolt pass through the holes 221 and 211 to secure the body 1 to vehicle 1000, figs.1-12, last two paragraphs on page 14 of translated copy) fastened to a vehicle body while passing through the side bushes and the plurality of partition walls. Lin fails to disclose a longitudinal member and transverse member inside the accommodating space.
However, Lee discloses a longitudinal member (longitudinal member 26, fig.5) crossing the accommodating space and having both ends supported on the frontward wall and the rearward wall, respectively; a transverse member (crossmembers 25, fig.5) intersecting the longitudinal member and having both ends supported on the side members, respectively;
Lin and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin with the support members of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of making the battery pack more rigid with the support members making the battery pack safer.
Regarding claim 14, Lin in combination with Lee, Lee discloses wherein a center mounting bolt (through bolt 24a, figs.4-5) for securing the battery pack to the vehicle body by penetrating the battery pack vertically is fastened at an intersection between the longitudinal member and the transverse member (through bolt 24a extends though cap 29 which one can be seen at the intersection between the members 25 and 29 as seen in figs.4-5).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (CN 113745740 A) in view of Lee (US 20210387550 A1), and further view of Hara (US 20170305249 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lin in combination with Lee, Lee discloses wherein only one longitudinal member (longitudinal member 26, fig.5), but fails to disclose only one transverse member are disposed in the accommodating space. Lee discloses multiple transverse members (crossmembers 25, fig.5).
However, Hara discloses only one transverse member (battery reinforcement member 36 extends in width direction of vehicle under cross member 15, paragraph [0056], figs.7 and 15-16).
Lee and Hara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee with the only one crossmember of Hara with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of multiple cross members for a singular cross members simplifying the design to accommodate different arrangement of batteries.
Regarding claim 13, Lin in combination with Lee disclose the battery pack of claim 11 but fail to disclose module mounting.
However, Hara discloses a module mounting bar on an inner side thereof; and each of the battery modules accommodated in the accommodating space has a structure in which a first side of two sides perpendicular to an overlapping direction of battery cells is fastened to the module mounting bars and a second side of the two sides is fastened to the longitudinal member (Battery modules 9 have fixing plates 28 and 29 which are accommodate by portions 55 and tabs on the reinforcement member 36 which extends longitudinal and transverse, figs.9-18).
Lee and Hara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee with the battery mounting of Hara with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the batteries to be securely mounted inside the battery box.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 15, and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 depends upon claim 7 which is rejected, but claim 8 has the limitation of “the side bush is shaped like a cone of which an outer diameter decreases downwards from a top flange; and the comb-pattern protrusions on the outer circumferential surface of the side bush are press-fitted to all the plurality of partition walls of the side member”. The primary reference of Lin and the teaching reference of Eichberger fail to disclose the side bush being cone shaped, and the protrusions of Eichberger are press-fitted to a singular wall (53) and not a plurality of walls. Modifying Eichberger would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight. For the above reasons claim 8 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 8 giving it the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Claim 15 depends upon claim 14 which is rejected, but claim 15 has the limitation of “wherein: at the intersection between the longitudinal member and the transverse member, a through mounting bush is disposed penetrating the battery pack from a lower side of the battery pack to an upper side of the transverse member in order to define a first space through which the center mounting bolt passes; a securing mounting bush is inserted in the upper side of the transverse member to surround an outer side of the through mounting bush; and a bush bolt is coupled to a top of the through mounting bush while defining a second space for the center mounting bolt to pass therethrough and comprising a top configured to press the securing mounting bush against the transverse member”. Lee discloses wherein: at the intersection between the longitudinal member and the transverse member, a through mounting bush (through pipe 23, figs.4-5) is disposed penetrating the battery pack from a lower side of the battery pack to an upper side of the transverse member in order to define a first space through which the center mounting bolt passes (through pipe 23 defines space for bolt 24a to pass, figs.4-5). Lee fails to disclose a securing mounting bush is inserted in the upper side of the transverse member to surround an outer side of the through mounting bush; and a bush bolt is coupled to a top of the through mounting bush while defining a second space for the center mounting bolt to pass therethrough and comprising a top configured to press the securing mounting bush against the transverse member. Lim (US 20210184194 A1) discloses a securing mounting bush (member 44), but the securing mounting bush (44) does not surround an outer side of the through mounting bush (41, fig.4). The prior art either taken alone or in combination fail to disclose of fairly suggest all of the limitations of claim 15. For the reasons above claim 15 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 depends upon claim 16 which is rejected but claim 19 has the limitation of “wherein: the side bush is shaped like a cone of which an outer diameter decreases downwards from a top flange; and the side bush comprises a plurality of comb-pattern protrusions disposed on an outer circumferential surface thereof and forcibly press-fitted to the horizontal plates of the horizontal extension portion”. Claim 19 has similar allowable subject matter as discussed above in claim 8. Eichberger discloses a plurality of comb-pattern protrusions (76, figs.3a-4b) on an outer circumferential surface thereof so as to be forcibly fitted into the side member (wall 52, figs.3a-4b). The primary reference of Lin and the teaching reference of Eichberger fail to disclose the side bush being cone shaped, and the protrusions of Eichberger are press-fitted to a singular wall (53) and not a plurality of walls. Modifying Eichberger would be modifying a modifying reference and would be hindsight. For the above reasons claim 19 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 giving it the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613