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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/14/2023, 9/07/2023, and 2/28/2025, were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “opposed to each other” (Claim 1 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) and
“directly under or directly above the first bracket or the second bracket” (Claim 6 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “opposed to each other” (line 5-6),” which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation: "directly under or directly above the first bracket or the second bracket" (line 6), which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation: "upward/downward direction" (line 3/4), which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishida et al. (US 12,565,753 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Kishida discloses: An electric work machine (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 2) comprising: a first damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 42+64) and a second damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 42+64); and
a battery frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 28+30+32) including a first bracket (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 30+32) supported by the first damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6) and a second bracket (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 30+28+66) supported by the second damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6), wherein the battery frame is provided with a first surface and a second surface opposed to each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-6), and the first bracket is arranged on the first surface and the second bracket is arranged on the second surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Kishida discloses: wherein the first bracket protrudes toward a side opposite to the second surface and the second bracket protrudes toward a side opposite to the first surface (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Kishida discloses: wherein the first bracket and the second bracket are arranged at height positions different from each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-6) .
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Kishida discloses: wherein the battery frame has a center of gravity located in a region lying between a first attachment region where the first bracket is attached to the battery frame and a second attachment region where the second bracket is attached to the battery frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, Kishida discloses: further comprising a third damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 64+42), wherein the battery frame further includes a third bracket supported by the third damping member (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 28+30+66), and the third bracket is arranged on a same surface where the first bracket or the second bracket is arranged (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Kishida discloses: wherein the third bracket is arranged directly under or directly above the first bracket or the second bracket (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Kishida discloses: further comprising: a plurality of frame plates (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 28+30) layered in an upward/downward direction; and a pillar attached to the plurality of frame plates layered in the upward/downward direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 28+30).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Kishida discloses: wherein the pillar is provided with a lower portion and an upper portion located above the lower portion, and the lower portion is larger in diameter than the upper portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-6).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Kishida discloses: wherein the battery frame includes a plurality of battery packs (See, e.g., Fig.1-6, 26) and a frame that fixes the plurality of battery packs by surrounding the plurality of battery packs (See, e.g., Fig.1-6)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights