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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, applicant had requested that these double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until prosecution on the merits is otherwise completed. Accordingly, double patenting rejection is maintained herein.
Double Patenting
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 Langi, 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/AIN25, 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/applyingonline/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims a working machine comprising: a machine body, a ground engaging propulsion structure to permit movement of the machine over the ground a load handling apparatus coupled to the machine body and moveable by a movement actuator with respect to the machine body, at least one electric energy storage module configured to provide electrical energy for actuating a movement actuator of the load handling apparatus, and a controller configured to: receive or acquire information representative of a power capacity of said electric energy storage module; determine permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based on the received or acquired information; and issue an operations signal for use by the movement actuator of the working machine (claim 1) or a display configured to display information corresponding to the determined permitted and/or prohibited operations (claim 2).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the controller is configured to receive or acquire information representative of the power capacity directly from the at least one electric energy storage module (claim 12).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the controller includes a machine stabilization decision logic configured such that the permitted load of the load handling apparatus and/or the permitted lift height of the load handling apparatus is dependent on the information representative of the power capacity of the said electric energy storage module (claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the working machine comprises at least two electric energy storage modules (claim 13).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the working machine comprises a mount for at least a first electric energy storage module and a second electric energy storage module, the machine being operable with at least one of the first and second electric storage modules present (claim 13).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the first and second electric energy storage modules are located one above the other (claim 20).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the first and/or second electric energy storage modules are configured to be removable from the mount and replaceable, such that the first and/or second electric energy storage modules are interchangeable (claim 13).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the first and/or second electric energy storage modules comprise a connector to connect the respective electric energy storage module to the working machine (claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the controller is configured to determine the weight of the electric energy storage module from the power capacity (claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the at least one electric energy storage module is selected based on its power capacity and an intended use of the working machine, wherein the permitted and/or prohibited operations relate to the intended use (claim 16).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the electric energy storage module has a power capacity in the range of 10 to 50 kWh (Claim 21).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 12, 012, 322 B2 claims the machine further comprises an operator cab which has a fixed angular orientation with respect to front and/or rear axles of the working machine (claim 18).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 2011/0264316 A1) in view of Slattery et al. (US 2014/0277887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCabe discloses a working machine comprising a machine body (industrial vehicle 10, para. 0020, Fig. 1);
a ground engaging propulsion structure to permit movement of the machine over the ground (propulsion drive system 25 and traction motor 43, paras. 0021–0023, Fig. 2);
a load handling apparatus coupled to the machine body and movable by a movement actuator with respect to the machine body (load carrier 18, mast 19, lift motor 51, and hydraulic circuit 53, paras. 0020–0021 and 0025, Figs. 1–2);
a first electric energy storage module configured to provide electrical energy for actuating the movement actuator of the load handling apparatus (battery 37 supplying electrical energy to lift motor control 23, paras. 0022 and 0025, Fig. 2); and
a controller configured to receive or acquire information representative of a predetermined power capacity of an electric energy storage module (vehicle controller 21 receiving battery specification information including manufacturer-rated battery capacity stored in field 163 of specification data table 160, paras. 0027, 0035, and 0053, Figs. 2 and 5),
determine permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based on received battery information (vehicle controller 21 restricting lift height, permitted load weight, and vehicle speed based on battery weight, paras. 0053–0054, Fig. 10),
and issue an operations signal for use by the movement actuator of the working machine or a display configured to display information corresponding to the determined permitted and/or prohibited operations (vehicle controller 21 providing command signals to lift motor control 23 and information to operator display 55, paras. 0021, 0025–0026, and 0054, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state the first electric energy storage module having a first configuration, wherein the first electric energy storage module is interchangeable with a second electric energy storage module having a second configuration different from the first configuration; receiving or acquiring information representative of a first predetermined power capacity of the first electric energy storage module when the working machine includes the first electric energy storage module or a second predetermined power capacity of the second electric energy storage module when the working machine includes the second electric energy storage module; and determining permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based on the received or acquired predetermined power capacity information.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches interchangeable battery modules having first and second different configurations, wherein each module is separately capable of supplying electrical power to the vehicle (paras. 0024–0028, Fig. 1); a processor configured to receive input parameters from the installed battery modules and determine their type and capacity (para. 0037, Fig. 3); and adjusting vehicle operating parameters according to the determined battery type, capacity, and configuration, including adjusting motor torque limitations based on the battery characteristics (paras. 0037–0038 and 0055–0056, Figs. 3 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 2, McCabe discloses the controller is configured to receive or acquire information representative of the predetermined power capacity directly from an electric energy storage module (battery sensor module 64 mounted on battery 37, memory 152 storing battery specification information including rated battery capacity, and power line communication circuit 153 transmitting battery data through cable 38 to vehicle controller 21, paras. 0027, 0033–0035, and 0039–0040, Figs. 2 and 4–5).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state receiving or acquiring information representative of the predetermined power capacity directly from the first and second electric energy storage modules having different configurations.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches receiving input parameters from interchangeable battery modules arranged in the vehicle, determining the type and capacity of the installed modules based on those parameters, and communicating battery type and capacity through vehicle communication messages (paras. 0026, 0037, and 0047, Figs. 1–3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 4, McCabe discloses the electric energy storage unit comprises an electric energy storage module configured to provide electrical energy to the working machine (battery 37, para. 0022, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the electric energy storage unit comprises first and second electric energy storage modules, and wherein when the electric energy storage unit is in the first configuration, the electric energy storage unit includes only the first electric energy storage module, and wherein when the electric energy storage unit is in the second configuration, the electric energy storage unit includes (i) the first electric energy storage module and the second electric energy storage module or (ii) only the second electric energy storage module.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches a vehicle configured to interchangeably accommodate a first type of battery module and a second type of battery module, each separately configured to supply electrical power to the vehicle (para. 0026, Fig. 1); and a battery housing configured to receive different types of batteries at separate times, wherein either the first type or the second type is provided in the housing for use with the vehicle (para. 0028, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 5, McCabe discloses the electric energy storage modules have predetermined power capacities (McCabe, manufacturer-rated battery capacity stored in specification data table 160, field 163, para. 0035, Fig. 5).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the at least two electric energy storage modules have different power capacities in the claimed configurable electric energy storage unit.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches interchangeable battery modules having different types and capacities, wherein the processor determines the installed battery capacity and adjusts vehicle parameters accordingly (paras. 0023, 0026, and 0037, Figs. 1–3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 7, McCabe discloses the working machine comprises an arrangement for receiving an electric energy storage module (battery 37 installed in industrial vehicle 10, paras. 0022 and 0029, Fig. 2), the machine being operable with the electric energy storage module present (battery 37 supplying electrical power to the vehicle controller, propulsion drive system, and lift motor control, para. 0022, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the working machine comprises a mount for at least the first electric energy storage module and the second electric energy storage module, the machine being operable with at least one of the first and second electric energy storage modules present.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches a vehicle body having a battery housing 14 for receiving battery packs or modules (para. 0025, Fig. 1), wherein the vehicle is configured to interchangeably accommodate first and second types of battery modules, each separately configured to supply electrical power to the vehicle (para. 0026, Fig. 1), and wherein the battery housing receives alternative battery types at separate times (para. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 10, McCabe discloses an electric energy storage module is removable and replaceable (McCabe, removable battery 37 replaced with another charged battery, paras. 0006, 0010, and 0029; and battery cable 38 connected through mating connectors 34 and 36, para. 0022, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the first and/or second electric energy storage modules are configured to be removable from the mount and replaceable in a working machine having first and second differently configured interchangeable modules.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches first and second types of battery modules configured to be interchangeably accommodated within the vehicle (para. 0026, Fig. 1), wherein the battery housing receives alternative battery types at separate times (para. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 11, McCabe discloses the first and/or second electric energy storage modules comprise a connector to connect the respective electric energy storage module to the working machine (battery 37 electrically connected to industrial vehicle 10 through cable 38, connector 36, and mating vehicle connector 34, para. 0022, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, McCabe discloses the working machine includes electric energy storage modules having predetermined power capacities (McCabe, manufacturer-rated battery capacity, para. 0035, Fig. 5) and a controller configured to determine permitted and/or prohibited operations according to battery-related information (McCabe, battery-weight-based restrictions, paras. 0053–0054, Fig. 10).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the first and second electric energy storage modules are selected based on the first and second predetermined power capacities and an intended use of the working machine, wherein the permitted and/or prohibited operations relate to the intended use.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches accommodating alternative battery modules having different types and capacities to support different vehicle requirements (paras. 0023–0028, Fig. 1), wherein the processor determines battery type and capacity and adjusts vehicle subsystem parameters accordingly (paras. 0037–0038, Fig. 3), including adjusting torque limitations according to battery characteristics (paras. 0055–0056, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 21, McCabe discloses a working machine comprising a machine body (industrial vehicle 10, para. 0020, Fig. 1); a ground engaging propulsion structure to permit movement of the machine over the ground (propulsion drive system 25 and traction motor 43, paras. 0021–0023, Fig. 2); a load handling apparatus coupled to the machine body and movable by a movement actuator with respect to the machine body (load carrier 18, mast 19, lift motor 51, and hydraulic circuit 53, paras. 0020–0021 and 0025, Figs. 1–2); at least one electric energy storage module configured to provide electrical energy for actuating the movement actuator of the load handling apparatus (battery 37 supplying electrical energy to lift motor control 23, para. 0022, Fig. 2); and a controller configured to receive or acquire information representative of a predetermined power capacity of the electric energy storage module, wherein the predetermined power capacity is fixed and is the amount of electrical energy the at least one electric energy storage module is capable of storing (vehicle controller 21 receiving manufacturer-rated battery capacity information from specification data table 160, field 163, paras. 0035 and 0053, Figs. 2 and 5); determine permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based on battery information (vehicle controller 21 restricting lift height, permitted load weight, and vehicle speed according to battery weight, paras. 0053–0054, Fig. 10); and issue an operations signal for use by the movement actuator of the working machine or a display configured to display information corresponding to the determined permitted and/or prohibited operations (vehicle controller 21 sending commands to lift motor control 23 and information to operator display 55, paras. 0021, 0025–0026, and 0054, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state determining permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based specifically on the received or acquired information representative of the fixed predetermined power capacity of the electric energy storage module.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches determining the type and capacity of battery modules arranged in a vehicle and adjusting vehicle subsystem parameters according to the determined battery characteristics (para. 0037, Fig. 3), including adjusting motor torque limitations according to battery type and capacity (paras. 0055–0056, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Regarding claim 22, McCabe discloses a working machine comprising a machine body (industrial vehicle 10, para. 0020, Fig. 1); a ground engaging propulsion structure to permit movement of the machine over the ground (propulsion drive system 25 and traction motor 43, paras. 0021–0023, Fig. 2); a load handling apparatus coupled to the machine body and movable by a movement actuator with respect to the machine body (load carrier 18, mast 19, lift motor 51, and hydraulic circuit 53, paras. 0020–0021 and 0025, Figs. 1–2); an electric energy storage unit configured to provide electrical energy for actuating the movement actuator of the load handling apparatus (battery 37 supplying electrical energy to lift motor control 23, para. 0022, Fig. 2); and a controller configured to receive or acquire information representative of a predetermined power capacity of an electric energy storage unit (vehicle controller 21 receiving manufacturer-rated battery capacity information from specification data table 160, field 163, paras. 0035 and 0053, Figs. 2 and 5); determine permitted and/or prohibited operations of the working machine based on received battery information (vehicle controller 21 restricting vehicle operations according to battery weight, paras. 0053–0054, Fig. 10); and issue an operations signal for use by the movement actuator of the working machine or a display configured to display information corresponding to the determined permitted and/or prohibited operations (vehicle controller 21 issuing commands to lift motor control 23 and providing information to operator display 55, paras. 0021, 0025–0026, and 0054, Fig. 2).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state the electric energy storage unit configurable between a first configuration and a second configuration different from the first configuration; receiving or acquiring information representative of a first predetermined power capacity of the electric energy storage unit when the electric energy storage unit is in the first configuration and a second predetermined power capacity of the electric energy storage unit when the electric energy storage unit is in the second configuration; and determining permitted and/or prohibited operations based on the received or acquired predetermined capacity information corresponding to the first and second configurations.
On the other hand, Slattery teaches interchangeable battery modules having different configurations and capacities, each separately configured to supply electrical power to the vehicle (paras. 0024–0028, Fig. 1); a processor configured to determine the installed battery type, capacity, and configuration and adjust vehicle subsystem parameters accordingly (paras. 0037–0038, Fig. 3); and adjusting motor torque limitations according to the determined battery characteristics (paras. 0055–0056, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify McCabe's industrial vehicle to incorporate Slattery's interchangeable battery modules and capacity-responsive control with a reasonable expectation of success to accommodate different battery configurations and automatically adjust permitted and/or prohibited vehicle operations according to the installed battery capacity.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe and Slattery in further view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0079449 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McCabe discloses the working machine comprises a mount for electric energy storage modules (Slattery, battery housing 14, paras. 0025–0028, Fig. 1).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the first and second electric energy storage modules are located one above the other.
On the other hand, Kim teaches a battery module assembly comprising first and third battery modules 60-1 and 60-3 located one above the other, and second and fourth battery modules 60-2 and 60-4 located one above the other (para. 0059, Fig. 7); and protrusions and corresponding indentations configured to maintain the relative positions of vertically stacked battery modules (paras. 0061–0063, Figs. 3–5 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the McCabe reference and arrange the first and second electric energy storage modules one above the other, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently utilize available packaging space and maintain a compact battery-module arrangement within the working machine.
Regarding claim 9, McCabe discloses teaches the working machine according to claim 7, as discussed above, wherein the working machine comprises a mount for electric energy storage modules (Slattery, battery housing 14, paras. 0025–0028, Fig. 1).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the first and second electric energy storage modules are mounted side by side.
On the other hand, Kim teaches first and second battery modules 60-1 and 60-2 arranged adjacent to one another and mechanically connected through connection units 67 and 67-1 provided at the sides of the modules (paras. 0052–0054, Figs. 3 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the McCabe reference and arrange the first and second electric energy storage modules one above the other, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to efficiently utilize available packaging space and maintain a compact battery-module arrangement within the working machine.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe and Slattery, and in further view of Taneda et al. (US 2012/0073888 A1).
Regarding claim 12, McCabe discloses the working machine comprises a mount for the first and second electric energy storage modules, the machine being operable with at least one of the modules present (McCabe, para. 0022, Fig. 2; Slattery, paras. 0025–0028, Fig. 1).
However, McCabe does not explicitly state wherein the first and/or second electric energy storage modules are fixed to the machine.
On the other hand, Taneda teaches a battery positioning structure for an electric vehicle comprising first and second battery modules 5a and 5b secured to the vehicle body by a bracket 21, bands 22, and bolts 23a and 23b (paras. 0052, 0056–0058, and 0060–0062, Figs. 1–4), wherein the bracket is attached around the battery modules and fastened to the vehicle body by the bolts to fixedly secure the battery modules to the vehicle (paras. 0060–0062, Figs. 2–3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the battery mounting arrangement of McCabe to incorporate Taneda's bracket and fastening arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success thereby fixing the first and/or second electric energy storage modules to the working machine to prevent displacement during operation while permitting removal for servicing or replacement.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe and Slattery in further in view of Paavolainen (US 2017/0001846 A1).
Regarding claim 20, McCabe does not explicitly state the working machine is a telescopic handler.
However, Paavolainen teaches a working machine in the form of a telescopic handler 100 comprising a chassis 110 supported by wheels 109, a boom assembly 120, and a liftable attachment 130 (paras. [0014]–[0015], Fig. 1a), wherein the telescopic boom 122 is configured to extend and retract (para. [0018]). Paavolainen further teaches that the telescopic handler may include an electric or hybrid motor 111 and electrically operated boom components (paras. [0017] and [0020]–[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to implement the battery-module arrangement and capacity-responsive operating control of McCabe in a telescopic handler, as taught by Paavolainen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adapt the electrically powered operations of the telescopic handler to the capacity of the installed battery module, thereby facilitating operation of the machine in accordance with the available electrical energy capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 14, and 18 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights