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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (CN 209566780 U) as provided by (CN209566780 A) machine translation as an English language equivalent in view of Huang et al. (EP 3,733,435 A1) and Tullius (GB 1 519 104).
Claim 1:
Lan discloses a locking mechanism comprising
a lock base (10) and a lock tongue (20) rotatably mounted on the lock base (10) around a rotary connection (fig. 5, page 13, line 19 bridging page 14, line 2),
the lock base (10) being provided with an accommodating cavity (102) for locking and fixing a lock shaft (30) of a battery pack (figs. 1-5, page 12, lines 12-16),
the lock tongue (20) being rotated so that the lock shaft (30) located within the accommodating cavity (102) is in a locked state (fig. 5) or an unlocked state (fig. 8), characterized in that when the lock shaft (30) is in the locked state (fig. 5), a center of the rotary connection of the lock tongue (20) is higher than a shaft center of the lock shaft (30) (K gap) (fig. 5, page 9, lines 18-23).
Lan fails to disclose a rotary shaft. Instead, Lan discloses a rotary connection (fig. 5, page 13, line 19 bridging page 14, line 2).
Huang discloses a locking mechanism comprising;
a lock base (110) and a lock tongue (120) rotatably mounted on the lock base (110) around a rotary shaft (160), the lock base (110) being provided with an accommodating cavity (112) for locking and fixing a lock shaft (200) of a battery pack (figs 1-7, para [0026], [0029] and [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the rotary connection of Lan for the rotary shaft of Huang since it was known that generic rotary connections and rotary shafts are analogues for rotatably connecting a lock tongue to a lock base. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Lan in view of Huang renders obvious the lock tongue (Lan, 20) comprises a fixed end rotatably connected to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160), a contact end (Lan, 202) extending toward the locking position of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) and adapted to abut the lock shaft (Lan, 30), and a rotation end extending toward the outside of the lock base (Lan, 10) and adapted to rotate about the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) under an external force (Lan, fig. 5, page 12, lines 12-24; - See also annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, below);
when the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state, the lock shaft (Lan, 30) exerts a first acting force (F1) on the lock tongue (Lan, 20), and the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) exerts a second acting force (F2) on the lock tongue (Lan, 20), and the first acting force (F1) is opposite to the second acting force (F2) (see annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, below);
the rotation end abuts downwardly against the top of the lock base (Lan, 10) when the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state (this condition occurs at F3) (see annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, below);
the lock shaft (Lan, 30) generates a first acting force (F1) on the lock tongue (Lan, 20), the first acting force forms a first moment with respect to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) (see annotated reproduction of Lan fig. 5, below); and, the lock base (Lan, 10) generates a third acting force (F3) on the rotation end (Lan, 20), the third acting force forms a second moment with respect to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160), and the first moment is opposite to the second moment (see annotated reproduction of Lan FIG. 5, below)
the lock tongue (Lan, 20) comprises a contact end (Lan, 202), and the contact between the contact end (Lan, 202) and an outer circumferential surface of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is a surface contact; the contact end (Lan, 202) has a cambered surface that fits to an outer circumferential surface of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) (see annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, below);
the contact end (Lan, 202) is provided with a tangent angle extending towards the shaft center of the lock shaft (Lan, 30), and the tangent angle contacts an outer wall of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) below the shaft center of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) when the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state (this condition occurs at F1), the lock shaft exerts the first acting force on the lock tongue at least partly through the tangent angle, so that a direction of the first acting force is directed below the shaft center of the rotary shaft (see annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, below).
Lan in view of Huang fails to disclose a partially coated lock shaft. Instead, Lan in view of Huang renders obvious a generic shaft and equivalents thereof.
Tullius discloses an assembly including a detachable balance weight for mounting at the front of a motor vehicle (page 1, lines 11-13), further comprising a partially coated (22) lock shaft (18) forming a contact surface (21) with a slot (20) (fig. page 2, lines 104 – 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the generic shaft of Lan in view of Huang for the partially coated shaft of Tullius in order to compensate for tolerances within the cambered surface of Lan in view of Huang and/or slight deformation of the lock shaft of Lan in view of Huang (Tullius, page 2, lines 108-13). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
1273
1784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1022
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1022
1432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1, characterized in that one end of the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) is a locking position of the lock shaft (Lan, 30), and the other end is a connection position of the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) of the lock tongue (Lan, 20) (Lan, fig. 5, page 12, lines 12-24; - See also annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, above);
Claim 6:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1, characterized in that the lock tongue (Lan, 20) comprises a contact end (Lan 202) that abuts against the lock shaft (Lan, 30) when the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state, and a position on the lock shaft (Lan, 30) that contacts the contact end includes an outer wall of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) below the shaft center of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) (this condition occurs at F1) (Lan, fig. 5, page 12, lines 12-24; - see also annotated reproductions of Lan fig. 5, above).
Claim 9:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 2, characterized in that a shaft center line of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) and a shaft center line of the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) are provided to be located on a same reference plane, and an angle exists between a movement direction of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) in the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) and the reference plane (see annotated reproduction of Lan fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1273
1784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 10:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 2, characterized in that the locking mechanism comprises an elastic member (Lan, 40) that acts on the lock shaft (Lan, 30) such that the lock shaft (Lan, 30) in the locked state is press-fixed to the locked position in the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) by the elastic member (Lan, 40) and the lock tongue (Lan, 20) (Lan, fig. 5, page 15, line bridging page 16, line 40).
Claim 11:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1; and, Lan, the base reference, fails to disclose or fairly suggest the locking mechanism comprises at least two sets of the lock bases and the lock tongues. Instead, Lan, the base reference, describes a single locking mechanism. Huang discloses a quick-swap support frame (30) including at least two sets of lock bases and lock tongues (figs. 8-9, para [0047] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the locking mechanism for a vehicle battery pack of Lan by providing a quick-swap support frame comprising at least two lock bases and lock tongues as taught by Huang in order to provide multiple locking mechanisms to support the length of the vehicle battery pack on both sides of the battery pack as taught by Huang (figs. 8-9, para [0048]-[0049]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In addition, the claim limitation requiring at least two sets of the lock bases and lock tongues is mere duplication of the lock base and lock tongue set forth in claim 1 and is rendered obvious over Lan in view of Huang and Tullius. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lan in view of Huang and Tullius to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as recited in claim 11 because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B “Duplication of Parts” which describes the prima facie obviousness of the use of duplicate parts to improve an apparatus disclosed in the prior art.
Claim 12:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 11, characterized in that the locking mechanism comprises a connecting rod (Huang, 330) to which a rotation end of each of the lock tongues is connected to achieve simultaneous locking and unlocking of a plurality of the lock tongues (Huang, figs. 8-9, para [0048] and [0049]).
Claim 13:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1, characterized in that the lock base (Lan, 10) has an opening for the lock shaft (Lan, 30) to enter the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102), and the opening (Lan, 101) has a guide portion (Lan, fig. 2, page 12, lines 12-24 – see also annotated reproduction of Lan, fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image5.png
514
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 14:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 13, characterized in that the opening (Lan, 101) is provided downward, and the guide portion constitutes a flared mouth that flares downward (Lan, fig. 2, page 12, lines 12-24 – see also annotated reproduction of Lan, fig. 2, above).
The guide portion as reflected in figure 2 of Lan presents with a flared mouth that flares downward as required of claim 14. In the event that examiner’s position is not affirmed, then Lan fails to disclose a flared mouth that flares downward. Instead, Lan discloses a downward facing opening including a non-linear, rounded opening (See annotated reproduction of fig 2, above).
Huang discloses a locking mechanism comprising a lock base (110); a lock tongue (120); a rotary shaft (160); an accommodating cavity (112); and an opening (111) having a guide portion for a lock shaft (200) of a battery pack (figs 1-7, para [0026], [0029] and [0039]), wherein the guide portion constitutes a flared mouth (bell mouth) that flares downward (figs. 1-7, para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have swapped the generic guide portion on the opening of Lan for flared mouth guide portion of Huang since it was known that generic rounded guide portion and flared mouth guide portions are analogues for providing a convenient path for the lock shaft of the battery pack (Huang, para [0032]). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious the locking mechanism according to claim 1, characterized in that the lock tongue (Lan, 20) comprises a fixedly connected lock tongue body (lock tongue fixed end) and a lock tongue extension (lock tongue rotation end), the lock tongue extension located outside the lock base (Lan, 10), and the lock tongue body can prevent the lock shaft (Lan, 30) from leaving the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) from the opening of the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) when the lock tongue (Lan, 20) is in the locked state (see annotated reproduction of Lan figure 5, above);
the locking mechanism further comprises a return member (50) provided to the lock base (Lan, 10) and acting on the lock tongue (Lan, 20), and the return member (50) is elastically deformable for rotating the lock tongue (Lan, 20) in a locking direction to return from the unlocked state to the locked state (Lan, figs 1-7, page 16, lines 6-14).
Claim 16:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious a battery bracket, characterized by comprising the locking mechanism according to claim 1 (Lan, page 8, lines 17-20).
Claim 17:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious an electric vehicle, characterized by comprising the battery bracket according to claim 16 (Lan, page 8, lines 17-20).
Claim 18:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious a method for locking a battery pack, characterized in that the method for locking the battery pack uses the locking mechanism according to claim 1, and the method for locking the battery pack comprises the following steps of:
placing the lock shaft (Lan, 30) of the battery pack in the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) (Lan, figs. 3-4, page 18, lines 2-18); and
rotating the lock tongue (Lan, 20) so that the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state (Lan, fig. 5, page 18, lines 2-18);
Claim 19:
Lan in view of Huang and Tullius renders obvious a method for unlocking a battery pack, characterized in that the method for unlocking the battery pack uses the locking mechanism according to claim 1, and the method for unlocking the battery pack comprises the following steps of:
rotating the lock tongue (Lan, 20) so that the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the unlocked state (Lan, figs. 7-10, page 18, line 20 bridging page 19, line 22); and
removing the lock shaft (Lan, 30) of the battery pack from the accommodating cavity (Lan, 102) (Lan, figs. 7-10, page 18, line 20 bridging page 19, line 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10 September 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 2-14, Applicant argues the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Lan in view of Huang and Tullius is improper because Examiner’s proposed combination of the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner disagrees.
Regarding technical feature A
On page 6, applicant argues Lan (CN 209566780U) fails to disclose or fairly suggest when the lockable shaft is in the locked state, a shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue is higher than a shaft center of the lockable shaft. Examiner disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lan, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. In addition, it is evident from the annotated reproduction of figure 5 of Lan that the shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue is higher than the shaft center of the lockable shaft as required of claim 1 (see annotated reproduction of Figure 5, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
875
1226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues Lan does not clearly define the relationship between the arc center of the second locking part and the axis center of the lock shaft. Examiner disagrees. It is evident from the annotated reproduction of figure 5 of Lan that the shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue is higher than the shaft center of the lockable shaft as required of claim 1 (see annotated reproduction of Figure 5, above).
On page 6, applicant further argues Figure 7e of Lan (CN 209 566 780 U) cannot clearly determine the positional relationship between the shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue and shaft center of the lock shaft. Examiner disagrees. Figures 1, 2, and/or 3 of applicant’s annotated reproduction of figure 7e were not relied upon to teach or fairly suggest applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 8, applicant further argues there is no discussion in Lan regarding the position between the shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue and the shaft center of the lock shaft. Examiner disagrees. It is evident from the annotated reproduction of figure 5 of Lan that the shaft center of the rotary shaft of the lock tongue is higher than the shaft center of the lockable shaft as required of claim 1 (see annotated reproduction of Figure 5, above).
Regarding technical feature B
On page 8, applicant further argues Lan does not disclose the technical feature B because Lan does disclose a rotary shaft. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lan, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding technical feature C
On page 8 bridging page 9, applicant further argues Lan does not disclose the lock tongue comprises a fixed end rotatably connected to the rotary shaft, a contact end extending toward the locking position of the lock shaft and adapted to abut the lock shaft, and a rotation end extending toward the outside of the lock base and adapted to rotate about the rotary shaft under an external force. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lan, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner’s proposed combination of Lan, Huang and Tullius renders obvious the lock tongue (Lan, 20) comprises a fixed end rotatably connected to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160), a contact end (Lan, 202) extending toward the locking position of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) and adapted to abut the lock shaft (Lan, 30), and a rotation end extending toward the outside of the lock base (Lan, 10) and adapted to rotate about the rotary shaft (Huang, 160) under an external force.
Regarding technical feature D
On pages 11-12, applicant further argues Lan does not disclose the lock shaft generates a first acting force on the lock tongue, the first acting force forms a first moment with respect to the rotary shaft, and the lock base generates a third acting force on the rotation end, the third acting force forms a second moment with respect to the rotary shaft, and the first moment is opposite to the second moment. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lan, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner’s proposed combination of Lan, Huang and Tullius renders obvious the lock shaft (Lan, 30) generates a first acting force (F1) on the lock tongue (Lan, 20), the first acting force forms a first moment with respect to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160); and, the lock base (Lan, 10) generates a third acting force (F3) on the rotation end (Lan, 20), the third acting force forms a second moment with respect to the rotary shaft (Huang, 160), and the first moment is opposite to the second moment as required of applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding technical feature E
On pages 9-11, applicant further argues Lan does not disclose the contact end is provided with a tangent angle extending towards the shaft center of the lock shaft, and the tangent angle contacts an outer wall of the lock shaft below the shaft center of the lock shaft when the lock shaft is in the locked state; the lock shaft exerts the first acting force on the lock tongue at least partly through the tangent angle, so that a direction of the first acting force is directed below the shaft center of the rotary shaft. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lan, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner’s proposed combination of Lan, Huang and Tullius renders obvious the contact end (Lan, 202) is provided with a tangent angle extending towards the shaft center of the lock shaft (Lan, 30), and the tangent angle contacts an outer wall of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) below the shaft center of the lock shaft (Lan, 30) when the lock shaft (Lan, 30) is in the locked state (this condition occurs at F1), the lock shaft exerts the first acting force on the lock tongue at least partly through the tangent angle, so that a direction of the first acting force is directed below the shaft center of the rotary shaft as required of applicant’s claimed invention.
On page 13, applicant further argues Huang fails to disclose or fairly suggest applicant’s claimed invention. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Huang, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner’s proposed combination of Lan, Huang and Tullius renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by independent claim 1.
On page 14, applicant further argues Tullius fails to disclose or fairly suggest applicant’s claimed invention. As recited above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Tullius, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention. Examiner’s proposed combination of Lan, Huang and Tullius renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang (WO 2019/129288 A1) as provided by Zhang (US 2022/0275665-A1) as and English language equivalent discloses a quick change bracket system including a lock mechanism for an electric vehicle battery pack.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights