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 Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 1, line 1, “A box for battery” should read “A box for a battery” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 are 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.
Claim 15 recites “an outer surface of the battery cell facing the bearing member is a first outer surface” (lines 1 and 2). In depending from claim 12, which does not require a bearing member, it is unclear if claim 15 is meant to introduce a new “bearing member” or to reference and further limit claim 13/14’s “bearing member” even though claim 15 does not depend from either claim 13 or 14.
The instant specification’s ¶ 0023, 0024, 0026, and 0027 describe that the battery cell is on or suspended from the bearing member, and the cell has a first outer surface facing the bearing member and a second outer surface facing away from the first surface. Thus, the description of the outer surfaces appears to reference the same bearing member. Accordingly, for this Office Action claim 15 will be treated as depending from claim 13 and further limiting the cell’s outer surfaces relative to the bearing member.
Claim 18 recites “the battery being provided at the bottom of a body of the vehicle” (line 2). As instant fig. 1 envisages a polyhedral vehicle and claim 18 does not provide any structural indicators clearly designating the “bottom”, it is unclear which of the vehicle’s surfaces “the bottom” references.
Fig. 1 envisions the battery as stowed adjacent the wheels as part of the vehicle’s underbody, though such is merely an embodiment and, thus, non-limiting to the claimed location. Thus, for this Office Action claim 18 will be interpreted to require, as “the bottom”, any longitudinal surface of the vehicle body, which appears consistent with fig. 1 and the broader specification.
Claim 19 recites “the battery is connected to the body via the top of the box, and the top of the box is configured to form at least a portion of a chassis of the body” (lines 1–3). In ultimately depending from claim 1, which only recites “the box has … a top surface” (lines 1 and 2), it is unclear if claim 19’s “top of the box” implicitly references the “top surface” or an entire “top” of the box (i.e., intended scope unclear because “top of the box” appears broader than “top surface of the box”).
The instant spec.’s ¶ 0130 describes that the top of box 10 is used to connect battery 100 to vehicle 1000 and form a chassis of the vehicle. Fig. 15 appears to further intend the “top surface” of the box to mount the battery to the vehicle as seen with seats 300 atop mounting beams 141 on the “top surface”. Thus, for this Office Action claim 19 will be interpreted to require that “the battery is connected to the body via the top surface of the box, and the top surface of the box is configured to form at least a portion of a chassis of the body”, consistent with fig. 15.
Dependent claim 16 fails to correct claim 15’s deficiency and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–10, 12, and 17–19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20210111388 A1) (Stephens).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Stephens discloses a box for a battery (e.g., tray 510, fig. 17) wherein the box has an accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery cell (battery containment area 522, fig. 19) and a top surface facing away from the accommodating cavity (as part of cover 526, fig. 17); and (per annot. fig. 18 below) a first region and a second region are formed on the top surface of the box (see interior 1st region and peripheral 2nd region), the second region surrounding the first region (per below), the second region being constructed with multiple mounting portions (brackets 19 denoted MPs below).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “the battery being mounted on an external apparatus through the mounting portions” reflects intended use of the battery via the mounting portions given claim 1 does not positively require a battery as the scope is to a box (MPEP 2111.02 (II)). Thus, the prior art’s structure need only be capable of allowing a battery to be mounted on an external apparatus through the mounting portions. Nonetheless, Stephens discloses mounting the battery on an external apparatus (vehicle) through the mounting portions (fig. 16, ¶ 0076).
Further, as seen above, Stephens discloses some distance between geometric centers of orthographic projections of every two adjacent mounting portions in the second region by disclosing adjacently spaced mounting portions (see spaced brackets 519), though Stephens fails to disclose the distance and, thus, 80–500 mm (claim 1) or 80–300 mm (claim 2).
One skilled in the art would reasonably recognize, however, that this distance is merely defined by the number of Stephens’s brackets and would understand there must be enough brackets to effectively secure the battery/box to the external apparatus such as the vehicle (as in ¶ 0076) but that including too many brackets would necessarily increase cost as well as make the box’s design more complex and, thus, potentially adversely affect manufacturability.
To balance sufficient mounting/securing of the battery/box with cost effectiveness and manufacturability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to arrive at each recited range by routinely optimizing the number of—and, thus, spacing between—the mounting portions (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 3, Stephens discloses the box according to claim 1.
Stephens, in a separate embodiment, discloses that a flanged portion 46 of the cover may include a seal such as a gasket or adhesive around the flange’s upper surface to prevent gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area through an upper opening of the tub (fig. 5 and 5C, ¶ 0056). As seen in fig. 5, the flange would correspond spatially to the periphery of the cover in fig. 17/18—i.e., an outer opening into and out of the tub—and, thus, would be between the first and second regions and would surround the (interior) first region of Stephens’s cover.
Although Stephens may fail to disclose a sealing region further formed on the top surface of the box, wherein the sealing region is disposed between the first region and the second region, the sealing region surrounds the first region, and the sealing region is used for installing a sealing member, it would have been obvious to form a sealing region between the first and second regions and surrounding the first region, the sealing region used for installing a sealing member, by incorporating the fig. 5 seal around the periphery of Stephens’s cover with the reasonable expectation of preventing gases, liquids, and debris from entering or exiting the battery containment area.
Further, the sealing member would be configured to be at least in fluidic contact with the external apparatus by preventing any gases and liquids—e.g., from the vehicle—from entering the containment area; Examiner observes no special definition of “contact” such that at least fluidic contact appears to meet this limitation.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Stephens discloses the box according to claim 3, wherein the first region, the second region, and the sealing region are coplanar (as the seal would be disposed along the periphery of the cover between the first and second regions (as in fig. 5C and ¶ 0056), there would be no angles between any of these regions (i.e., second region is extension of first region, and sealing region is simply between and aligned with first and second regions) such that all three regions would be coplanar).
Regarding claim 6, Stephens discloses the box according to claim 1, wherein the mounting portion comprises at least one mounting hole (holes in brackets 519), the mounting hole running through the second region (by extending through the top surface of the brackets within the second region above).
Regarding claims 7–10, Stephens discloses the box according to claim 1, wherein the box comprises a main body (tub 520 plus cover 526), wherein the main body encloses the accommodating cavity (e.g., figs. 17–19, and a top surface of the main body forms at least a portion of the top surface of the box (cover 526), the first region and at least a portion of the second region being located on the top surface of the main body (per claim 1 above),
wherein (per annot. fig. 22 below) the box further comprises a lateral beam (longitudinal support beams 550 plus lateral support beams 552, figs. 17–19 and 22), wherein the main body has a circumferential sidewall disposed around a top outer edge of the main body (tub 520’s surrounding wall 530 mating with cover 526 defines circumferential sidewall around top outer edge of main body), the lateral beam is disposed on the circumferential sidewall (per below, beams 550 and 552 are joined to the tub’s surrounding wall), and the top surface of the main body and a top surface of the lateral beam jointly define the top surface of the box (as seen in explanation of claim 1 above and figs. 17 and 18, the top surface of at least the longitudinal beams 550 include the brackets 519 that, together with the cover, i.e., top surface of main body, form the top surface of the box),
wherein the mounting portions are located in the second region defined by the top surface of the lateral beam (the brackets 519 defined by top of longitudinal beams 550, as seen in annot. fig. 18 above), wherein the lateral beam comprises at least two first sub-beams (longitudinal beams 550) and at least two second sub-beams (lateral beams 552) that are all disposed on the circumferential sidewall (per below on tub’s surrounding/peripheral wall 530), wherein the first sub-beams extend in a first direction and are spaced apart from each other (extending longitudinally and spaced laterally), and the second sub-beams extend in a second direction intersecting the first direction and are spaced apart from each other (extending laterally and spaced longitudinally); and the mounting portions are disposed on the first sub-beams (on longitudinal beams 550).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
921
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen above and in annot. fig. 18, Stephens discloses, in the first direction, some distance between geometric centers of orthographic projections of every two adjacent mounting portions in the second region by disclosing adjacently spaced mounting portions (spaced brackets 519), though Stephens fails to disclose the distance and, thus, 80–500 mm.
As explained above, however, the skilled artisan would recognize that this distance is merely defined by the number of Stephens’s brackets and would understand there must be enough brackets to effectively secure the battery/box to the external apparatus such as the vehicle (as in ¶ 0076) but that including too many brackets would necessarily increase cost as well as make the box’s design more complex and, thus, potentially adversely affect manufacturability.
To balance sufficient mounting/securing of the battery/box with cost effectiveness and manufacturability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the number of—and, thus, spacing between—the mounting portions (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 12, Stephens discloses a battery comprising the box according to claim 1 (fig. 17/18); and a battery cell accommodated in the accommodating cavity (cells in compartments of containment area 522, ¶ 0076/0077).
Regarding claims 17–19, Stephens discloses an electric apparatus (electric vehicle, fig. 16 and ¶ 0076), comprising a battery according to claim 11 (Id.), wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical energy to the electric apparatus (necessarily as power source, as implied in, e.g., ¶ 0002), wherein the electric apparatus comprises a vehicle (fig. 16, ¶ 0076), the battery being provided at the bottom of a body of the vehicle (fig. 16; see also fig. 1 and ¶ 0048), wherein the battery is connected to the body via the top surface of the box (via brackets 519 extending from top of box in second region, fig. 16), and the top surface of the box is configured to form at least a portion of a chassis of the body (by being connected to/part of vehicle underbody, i.e., chassis, in fig. 16 (note that the outlined car appears to be an aerial view such that the box is connected to or part of the chassis); see also fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11 and 13–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (US 20210111388 A1) (Stephens), as applied to claims 8 and 12, in view of Wiemann et al. (WO 2020016460 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20210339616 A1) (Wiemann).
Regarding claim 11, Stephens discloses the box according to claim 8, wherein the main body comprises a frame (tub 520), wherein the frame encloses a cavity with at least a top end being open (i.e., surrounds and, thus, encloses at least a portion/compartment of battery containment area—i.e., a cavity (e.g., any compartment defined by cross members 536 could be considered “a cavity”)—while leaving top end open), the cover covers the top end of the cavity (as cover 526 stretches fully across containment area 522 and, thus, would cover any compartment/”cavity” within containment area), and the bearing member and the frame enclose at least a portion of the accommodating cavity (closing containment area 522 in figs. 17–19); and the lateral beam is disposed on the circumferential sidewall defined by the frame (beams 550 and 552 disposed on peripheral wall 530 defined by tub 520, fig. 22).
Despite disclosing the cover 526, however, Stephens appears to fail to disclose that the cover is configured to bear any weight and, thus, fails to disclose a bearing member covering the top end of the cavity and, with the frame, enclosing at least a portion of the accommodating cavity.
Wiemann teaches an analogous battery carrier for a vehicle (Title), teaching that the battery pack is suspended from the cover by a distance A from the trough bottom to simplify assembly and maintenance (¶ 0011). Further, if the lid braces the suspended battery pack, then, in addition to securing the battery pack, the lid can serve as a heat exchanger to effectively and simply control the pack’s temperature (¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to suspend Stephens’s cells from the cover—such that the cover would bear weight and, thus, become a “bearing member” (consistent with special definition provided in instant spec.’s ¶ 0359) covering the top end of the cavity and, with the frame, enclosing at least a portion of the accommodating cavity—with the reasonable expectation of not only successfully securing the battery pack but also simplifying assembly and maintenance as well as allowing heat exchange for simple and effective temperature control of the cells, as taught by Wiemann.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Stephens discloses the battery according to claim 12, wherein the box comprises a main body (tub 520 plus cover 526, figs. 17–19), wherein the main body enables enclosing the accommodating cavity (Id.), and the main body comprises a cover located on the top of the box and configured for defining the accommodating cavity (cover 526 defining top of containment area 522, figs. 17–19).
Despite disclosing the cover 526, however, Stephens appears to fail to disclose that the cover is configured to bear any weight and, thus, fails to disclose a bearing member located on the top of the box and configured for defining the accommodating cavity, the battery cell being provided on the bearing member and suspended from the bearing member.
Wiemann teaches an analogous battery carrier for a vehicle (Title), teaching that the battery pack is suspended from the cover by a distance A from the trough bottom to simplify assembly and maintenance (¶ 0011). Further, if the lid braces the suspended battery pack, then, in addition to securing the battery pack, the lid can serve as a heat exchanger to effectively and simply control the pack’s temperature (¶ 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to suspend Stephens’s cells from the cover—such that the cover would bear weight and, thus, become a “bearing member” (consistent with special definition provided in instant spec.’s ¶ 0359) located on the top of the box and configured for defining the accommodating cavity, the battery cell being provided on the bearing member and suspended from the bearing member—with the reasonable expectation of not only successfully securing the battery pack but also simplifying assembly and maintenance as well as allowing heat exchange for simple and effective temperature control of the cells, as taught by Wiemann.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Stephens discloses the battery according to claim 13 (see 112(b) above).
As seen in, e.g., fig. 2, Stephens discloses cells (battery modules 14), each of which would necessarily include electrode terminals for external power output. Further, if viewing fig. 2’s cells in terms of figs. 17–19, each cell has a first axial surface facing the cover as well as second lateral surfaces facing a direction orthogonal to—and, thus, away from—the cover.
However, in appearing unconcerned with the specific structure the cells and terminals, Stephens fails to disclose the location of the terminals and, thus, that an outer surface of the battery cell facing the bearing member is a first outer surface, and the electrode terminals are arranged on an outer surface of the battery cell other than the first outer surface, wherein the battery cell has a second outer surface disposed facing away from the first outer surface, and the electrode terminals are arranged on the second outer surface.
Wiemann further teaches that battery electrode terminals (poles 13) may be provided on a lateral surface facing a direction orthogonal to an axial direction of—and, thus, away from—lid 3 (fig. 1) because such positioning transverse to the carrier enables producing an electrical connection in a space-efficient way (¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Stephens's terminals must necessarily be positioned somewhere on each of the cells for output, and, as demonstrated by Wiemann, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the terminals on one of Stephens’s given cell’s lateral second outer surfaces facing away from the axial first outer surface with the reasonable expectation of achieving an electrical connection in a space-efficient way, as taught by Wiemann.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2020000090 A1: similar frame with side walls with sloped peripheral portions including vehicle-mounting holes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights