DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/759453, filed on 06/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “a battery mounting device provided in the battery module compartment” and “adjust a mounting position of the vehicle battery within the battery module compartment”. A review of the drawings and specification show in Fig. 1 battery module compartment 18 with tray 32 defining the bottom of the compartment. Fig. 3 shows battery mounting device 20 with the linear displacement devices deposed underneath tray 32. It is therefore considered new matter as these limitations are not adequately described in the original specification.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claims 1-20 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 1 states “a battery mounting device provided in the battery module compartment” and “adjust a mounting position of the vehicle battery within the battery module compartment”. A review of the drawings and specification show in Fig. 1 battery module compartment 18 with tray 32 defining the bottom of the compartment. Fig. 3 shows battery mounting device 20 with the linear displacement devices deposed underneath tray 32. It is therefore unclear how the battery mounting device is provided in the battery module compartment when it appears to be outside the battery module compartment. It is also unclear how the battery would move within the battery module compartment itself when it appears it is the battery module compartment that is being moved. For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as best understood in view of the drawings and specification.
Claim 19 states “wherein each of the first track and the second track is an elongated screw”. The terms “the first track” and “the second track” lack antecedent basis. There is also no further limitation regarding the relationship of these tracks and screw and how it interacts with the rest of the components. It appears claim 19 should depend on another claim that already establishes these tracks.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11639092 to Wright.
Wright discloses:
(Claim 1 as best understood) A vehicle (Fig. 2A) comprising: a vehicle body (100) having a battery module compartment (Fig. 3A 111); at least one weight sensor (Fig. 8 element 154) configured to detect weight distribution information regarding the vehicle (Col. 11 ln 38-50, weight at each wheel can be sensed by the sensors); at least one environmental sensor (Fig. 8 element 154) configured to detect information regarding an environment in a vicinity of the vehicle (Col. 11 ln 38-50, road grade); a battery mounting device (Fig. 3B element 105) provided in the battery module compartment (element 105 is provided in the battery module compartment similar to how the current invention has the battery mounting device “provided in” the battery module compartment); a vehicle battery (cells within battery pack 110) movably mounted on the battery mounting device (105, 120) and movably disposed within the battery module compartment; and an electronic controller (150) in electronic communication with the at least one weight sensor and the at least one environmental sensor to receive the detected weight distribution information and the information regarding the environment in the vicinity of the vehicle (see Fig. 8), the electronic controller configured to electronically control the battery mounting device to adjust a mounting position of the vehicle battery within the battery module compartment based on at least one of the weight distribution information and the information regarding the environment in the vicinity of the vehicle (Fig. 9 elements 910, 920, 930, col. 12 ln 13-39).
(Claim 2) wherein the battery mounting device includes a first linear displacement device (Fig. 2F-2G) configured to provide linear adjustment of the vehicle battery along a first direction, and the battery mounting device further includes a second linear displacement device (Fig. 2A-2C element 105) configured to provide linear adjustment of the vehicle battery along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Col. 6 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 8, can be moved on two or more axes).
(Claim 5) wherein the second direction is a longitudinal direction (X-axis) of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the second linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the second direction upon determining that the vehicle is on mountainous terrain (uses road grade sensor to determine position, thus adjusts based on “mountainous terrain”).
(Claim 11) wherein the first linear displacement device includes a first platform (120) having a pair of first tracks (124) extending along a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
(Claim 17) further comprising a user interface in communication with the electronic controller, the electronic controller being further configured to adjust a mounting position of the vehicle battery based on information received from the user interface (Fig. 9 element 190, col. 12 ln 20-22).
(Claim 20) the electronic controller is configured to dynamically adjust the mounting of the vehicle battery when the vehicle is in a mode in which a driver can select a desired weight distribution during driving (See Fig. 8 element 190, Col. 11 ln 55-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wright.
Wright discloses:
The limitations of claim 11.
(Claim 12) wherein the second linear displacement device includes a second platform (120) having a pair of second tracks (124) extending along a lateral direction of the vehicle, the vehicle battery being movably mounted to move along the first and second tracks (see Col. 7 ln 49-51, can be used for moving along other axes).
(Claim 13) wherein the battery mounting device further includes a third linear displacement device configured to provide linear adjustment of the vehicle battery along a height direction of the vehicle (see Figs. 2D-2E, Col. 6 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 8, can be moved on two or more axes).
(Claim 14) wherein the third linear displacement device includes a third platform (120) having a pair of third tracks (124) extending along the height direction, the third platform being supported to one of the first and second platforms (see Col. 7 ln 49-51, can be used for moving along other axes).
(Claim 15) wherein the vehicle battery is mounted on the third platform (see Fig. 2D, battery pack is mounted on 120, thus battery is mounted on 120).
(Claim 16) wherein the electronic controller being configured to control the third linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the height direction based on manual input from a vehicle operator (Fig. 9 element 190, col. 12 ln 20-22).
(Claim 18) wherein the battery mounting device includes: a first linear displacement device (Fig. 2F-2G) configured to provide linear adjustment of the vehicle battery along a first direction, the first linear displacement device comprising: a first track (Fig. 3A element 124) extending along a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and at least one first support platform (platform at 121 under channel 124) provided on the first track to movably support the vehicle battery along the first track, and a second linear displacement device (Fig. 2A-2C element 105) configured to provide linear adjustment of the vehicle battery along a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (Col. 6 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 8, can be moved on two or more axes), the second linear displacement device comprising: a second track (Fig. 3A element 124) extending along a lateral direction of the vehicle (see Col. 7 ln 49-51, can be used for moving along other axes), and at least one second support platform (platform at 121 under channel 124) provided on the second track to movably support the vehicle battery along the second track.
Moving the battery on two or more axes (Col. 6 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 8, can be moved on two or more axes).
While the drawings show each axis displacement device separately, the document as a whole discloses each limitation. Even if this interpretation is not convincing enough, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Wright to have the three tracks used together to displace the battery in all three directions using the disclosed platforms in order to effectively move the battery structure in 3-D space.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of DE102009053139 to Riepenhausen.
Wright discloses:
The limitations of claims 2, 5, and 11.
(Claim 3) wherein the first direction is a lateral direction (Y-axis) of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the first linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the first direction upon determining that a weight differential between left and right wheels of the vehicle (see Abstract, moves battery based on changes in center of gravity (weight differential)).
(Claim 4) wherein the second direction is a longitudinal direction (X-axis) of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the second linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the second direction upon determining a weight differential between vehicle’s front and rear wheels (see Abstract, moves battery based on changes in center of gravity (weight differential)).
Wright does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 3) determining a weight differential between left and right wheels of the vehicle exceeding a first predetermined differential threshold.
(Claim 4) determining a weight differential between front and rear wheels of the vehicle exceeding a second predetermined differential threshold.
(Claim 19) wherein each of the first track and the second track is an elongated screw.
Riepenhausen teaches:
(Claim 3) wherein the first direction is a lateral direction (Y-axis) of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the first linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the first direction upon determining a weight differential between left and right wheels of the vehicle exceeds a first predetermined differential threshold (see par. [0011], once sensors determine there is “unequal distribution”, thus a threshold has been passed).
(Claim 4) wherein the second direction is a longitudinal direction (X-axis) of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the second linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the second direction upon determining a weight differential between front and rear wheels of the vehicle exceeds a second predetermined differential threshold (see par. [0011], once sensors determine there is “unequal distribution”, thus a second threshold has been passed to move in the X-axis).
(Claim 6) wherein the second direction is the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, the electronic controller being configured to control the second linear displacement device to provide linear adjustment direction along the second direction upon determining that the vehicle is traveling on slippery terrain (see par. [0011] determines while in slippery terrain).
(Claim 19) wherein each of the first track and the second track is an elongated screw (see Abstract, various drive systems are given as possible arrangements, including a screw drive, lead screw, and motion screw).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Wright to adjust the weight when unequal distribution occurs, even in slippery terrain, as taught by Riepenhausen, in order to better balance the vehicle in these conditions. Wright already discloses adjusting the center of mass of the vehicle based on balancing weight distribution. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply the control of Riepenhausen to Wright and produce predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Wright to have the tracks be screws, as taught by Riepenhausen, as an obvious design choice to the type of drive wanted in moving the battery. Screw drives provide great stability in keeping the battery in place once the motor has turned off.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0384580 to Powell.
Wright discloses:
The limitations of claims 1 and 2.
(Claim 7) wherein the first linear displacement device includes a first actuator (105) and a first track (Fig. 3A element 124) extending along a longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
(Claim 8) wherein the first linear displacement device includes at least one first support platform (platform at 121 under channel 124) provided on the first track to movably support the vehicle battery along the first track.
(Claim 9) wherein the second linear displacement device includes a second actuator (105) and a second track (Fig. 3A element 124) extending along a lateral direction of the vehicle (see Col. 7 ln 49-51, can be used for moving along other axes).
(Claim 10) wherein the second linear displacement device includes at least one second support platform (platform at 121 under channel 124) provided on the second track to movably support the vehicle battery along the second track.
Using different types of actuators to move the platform (Col. 6 ln 30-31).
Wright does not explicitly disclose:
(Claim 7) a first gear that is powered by the first actuator and a first track engaging the first gear.
(Claim 9) a second gear that is powered by the second actuator and a second track engaging the second gear.
Powell teaches:
A similar battery mounting device with a first and second actuator with first and second gears engaging the first and second tracks (see Fig. 1, par. [0031]-[0032]).
An alternate actuator being a pneumatic or hydraulic device (Par. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, the structure of Wright to use the actuator taught by Powell as an obvious design choice to the type of actuator wanted. Both Wright and Powell teach the ability to use different types of actuators depending on preference. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply the actuator of Powell to Wright and produce predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wright fails to teach a battery mounting device provided in the battery module compartment, the vehicle battery movably disposed within the battery module compartment, and the battery mounting device adjusting a mounting position of the vehicle battery within the battery module compartment.
As discussed in the interview on 08/21/2026, it appears that the current invention also does not have these claimed limitations, thus the new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above. As best understood in view of the current specification and drawings, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights