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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, and 13is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawatani et al (EP2626233B1, hereinafter Kawatani).
Regarding claim 1, Kawatani discloses a battery pack (Kawatani, Fig.18D, 19 – battery pack) including a groove extending (Kawatani, Fig.18D, 60 – engagement recess) into an outer circumferential surface thereof and a locking member (Kawatani, Fig.18D, 713 – link part) movably mounted in the groove; and a battery pack mounting part (Kawatani, Fig.18D, 29 – terminal base) having a mounting space defined therein, in which the battery pack is accommodated, and an inclined protrusion (Kawatani, Fig.18D, 66E – stopper) locked to the locking member so that a position of the battery pack disposed in the mounting space is detachably fixed.
Regarding claim 2, Kawatani discloses the replaceable battery module is configured such that when a force is applied in a mounting direction to mount the battery pack in the mounting space, the locking member passes by the inclined protrusion after contacting the inclined protrusion, and the locking member is locked to the inclined protrusion after passing by the inclined protrusion (Kawatani, Figs.18A-D).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kawatani discloses the battery pack has a wing part (Kawatani, Fig.11, 711 and 712 – ribs) extending along the mounting direction of the battery pack and defining a boundary of the groove, and the locking mechanism is connected to the wing part.
Regarding claim 4, Kawatani discloses the wing part is spaced apart from a bottom surface of the groove and defines a sidewall of the groove (Kawatani, Fig.11, 711 and 712 – ribs).
PNG
media_image2.png
679
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kawatani discloses an electric vehicle comprising the replaceable battery module (Kawatani, [0001]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 - 7 and 11 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawatani et al (EP2626233B1, hereinafter Kawatani) in view of JPH01145177U, hereinafter JP.
Regarding claim 5, Kawatani discloses all of claim 3 as shown above. Kawatani does not disclose a locking member comprising a first end connected to the wing and a second end having a hook shaped head that is movable. JP discloses a battery pack and mount with the battery pack having two wing locking structures with hook shaped heads (JP, Figs 5 and 8, 43 and 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the locking member of Kawatani with the locking member of JP because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
479
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 5 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses the hook head part pressed by the protrusion to move when passing by and the hook head part configured to be released from the force pressed by the protrusion when completing passage (JP, Figs 5 and 8, 43 – 44 and 36 – 37).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 5 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses two parts of the hook head part having different thicknesses along the mounting direction of the battery (JP, Figs 5 and 8 , 43 – 44, indents on the members).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses the locking member being made of an elastic material. Kawatani also discloses the locking member having a region that bends when external force is applied (JP, Figs 5 and 8, 43 and 44). In subsequent figures the locking members go from not attached to the protrusions to attached to them. Since the part of the locking member closest to the protrusions is not configured to latch to the protrusion the locking member must bend when being pushed in the mounting direction (JP, Figs 5 and 8 , 43 – 44 and 36 – 37) , when the indent on the locking member meets the protrusion the locking member snaps back into place. This action of bending (deforming) and snapping back into place is inherent of elastic materials.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses the locking member having a region that bends when external force is applied (JP, Figs 5 and 8, 43 and 44). In subsequent figures the locking members go from not attached to the protrusions to attached to them. Since the part of the locking member closest to the protrusions is not configured to latch to the protrusion the locking member must bend when being pushed in the mounting direction (JP, Figs 5 and 8 , 43 – 44 and 36 – 37) , when the indent on the locking member meets the protrusion the locking member snaps back into place.
Claim(s) 8 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawatani et al (EP2626233B1, hereinafter Kawatani) in view of JPH01145177U, hereinafter JP as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Picavet (US20090044997A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kawatani and JP disclose all of claim 7 as shown above. They do not disclose the inclined protrusions having different inclined parts with thicknesses that increase and decrease along the mounting direction of the battery pack. Picavet discloses a fixing device for a battery with lugs (Picavet, Fig.3, 21) that lock the battery in place, these lugs have different thicknesses depending on the direction in the mounting direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the inclined protrusions of modified Kawatani with the lugs of Picavet because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
PNG
media_image4.png
595
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 8 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses when the battery pack is mounted, the interreference part pass by the inclined protrusion while sliding along the protrusion (Picavet, Figs.11-13, see parts 21 and 14b).
PNG
media_image5.png
1062
713
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Kawatani discloses all of claim 7 as shown above. Modified Kawatani also discloses when the battery pack is mounted in the mounting space is separated from the battery pack mounting part and the locking fixing part passes by the protrusion while sliding along it (Picavet, Figs.11-13, see parts 21 and 14b).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawatani et al (EP2626233B1, hereinafter Kawatani) in view Goodwyn (US20210091439A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kawatani discloses all of claim 1 as shown above. Kawatani does not disclose the use of this replaceable battery module in a battery swap station. Kawatani does disclose that the module is detachable form the vehicle (Kawatani, [0007]). Goodwyn discloses that Battey swapping solutions benefit the electric vehicle industry by reducing initial purchase cost and eliminating battery range problems for consumers (Goodwyn, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the detachable battery module of Kawatani with the battery exchange station of Goodwyn to reduce initial purchase cost and eliminate battery range problems for consumers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights