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 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.
Claim 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 refers to “the through hole” which lacks antecedent basis. The claim is likely referring to a through hole in the turn up portion as described in claim 6.
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.
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) 1-3, 6, 9, 11-13, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2017/0117514).
Regarding claims 1-3, and 18,
YAMADA teaches battery covers 51 and 56. Cover 56 corresponds to the bottom tray for a battery as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. The parts 51 and 56 can be identical [0046] which makes descriptions for part 51 the same as part 56. In describing the cover the reference notes that the cover surface 51a and side surface 51b can be 1.5-2.5mm thick [0048] or 1.2-2.0mm [0049] while the flange portion 51f can be 1.6mm [0054]. The reference does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the flange is thicker than the cover/side surface. However, the scope of the reference plainly describes to one of ordinary skill in the art a cover/side surface of 1.5mm thickness with a flange portion of 1.6mm (t2>t1). At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to make a cover within the scope of the teachings of YAMADA by following directions without any inventive skill.
Regarding claim 6,
YAMADA further teaches that the assembled unit 10 is fastened to a frame using mechanical fixtures such as a bolt or rivet [0081]. The bolt or rivet requires a through hole to work. The reference does not expressly teach the diameter of the through hole or fastener. However, changing the size of the fastener is a simple design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Larger fasteners are more expensive and heavier but are also stronger. One of ordinary skill can determine the required strength and find a cost-effective fastener size.
Regarding claim 9,
The top and bottom portions 51 and 56 are made of a single piece, see figs. 1 and 5.
Regarding claims 11 and 12,
YAMADA teaches battery covers 51 and 56. Cover 56 corresponds to the bottom tray for a battery as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. The parts 51 and 56 can be identical [0046] which makes descriptions for part 51 the same as part 56. In describing the cover the reference notes that the cover surface 51a and side surface 51b can be 1.5-2.5mm thick [0048] or 1.2-2.0mm [0049] while the flange portion 51f can be 1.6mm [0054]. The reference does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the flange is thicker than the cover/side surface. However, the scope of the reference plainly describes to one of ordinary skill in the art a cover/side surface of 1.5mm thickness with a flange portion of 1.6mm (t2>t1). At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to make a cover within the scope of the teachings of YAMADA by following directions without any inventive skill.
YAMADA further teaches a frame (tray side frame) with a supporting column 81 in fig. 11, also shown as 81L and 81R in Fig. 10. The supporting columns can be on the “lower” side of the flanges (turn up portions) depending on orientation of the module. The fasteners (fixedly connected) are bolts or rivets (extend through the frame) [0081].
Regarding claim 13,
The side frame goes around the covers as shown in fig. 10 and 11. The side wall and turnup portion are integral. Accordingly, anything fixedly connected to the turnup portion is also fixedly connected to the sidewall.
Regarding claim 20,
YAMADA teaches using the batteries in vehicles [0005].
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2017/0117514) in view of ARAI et al. (US 2023/0256803).
Regarding claims 4,
YAMADA teaches a cavity that accommodates a battery but does not expressly teach the size of the cavity (or battery). However, changing the size of the battery is considered to be a change in size of a packaging MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. The battery tray and cover of YAMADA can be made to any desired size and accommodate different size batteries depending on the size of the battery needed for an application.
In addition, ARAI teaches a height Hr (rib height) [0082] which appears to be the same as the bolt pedestal [0118] which is part of the rib as shown in Fig. 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use known battery case sizing when making the battery covers of YAMADA as known operable sizes with batteries that can fit. The height Hr can be 20-70mm [0082] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 5,
YAMADA teaches that with respect to surface 51a the surface 51b may be tapered at 1-3 degrees [0050]. The angle between 51a and 51b is therefore up to 93°. The reference does not expressly teach an angle of 100-120°. However, ARAI teaches when making a battery tray for counting batteries, the wall and bottom of the tray can have an angle of 90-135° abstract. ARAI uses this angle because it is easier to manufacture by molding [0053]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the obtuse angles of ARAI as the bottom tray angle because they are easier to manufacture. The range of angles overlaps and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 10,
YAMADA teaches making the cover/tray from steel [0049] but does not teach making the tray from a composite material. However, ARAI teaches making a tray with fiber reinforced plastic (composite) abstract. The reinforced plastic reduces weight when compared to metal [0101]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composite material instead of steel to reduce weight.
Regarding claim 19,
YAMADA teaches a cavity that accommodates a battery but does not expressly teach the size of the cavity (or battery). However, changing the size of the battery is considered to be a change in size of a packaging MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. The battery tray and cover of YAMADA can be made to any desired size and accommodate different size batteries depending on the size of the battery needed for an application.
In addition, ARAI teaches a height Hr (rib height) [0082] which appears to be the same as the bolt pedestal [0118] which is part of the rib as shown in Fig. 4. Hr with respect to Hb (battery height) is Hb*0.3 <Hr. This overlaps the claimed range of h/4≤t≤h/3 and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2017/0117514) in view of KALMBACH et al. (US 2020/0161725).
Regarding claim 7,
YAMADA teaches a single continuous flange with multiple through holes. The reference does not teach using multiple sub-turnups. However, KALMBACH teaches that a plurality of individual flanges can be used to attach a body to a frame as shown in fig. 3 and [0043]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the individual flanges instead of a continuous flange as a known arrangement of flanges to attach a housing to a frame.
Regarding claim 8,
KALMBACH only teaches a single screw is used per flange as shown in Fig. 3. However, using more than one screw hole per flange is considered prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts, MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Adding more screws per flange does not change the operation of the flange (to secure the housing to the frame).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA et al. (US 2017/0117514) in view of NEGISHI (US 2024/0213606).
Regarding claim 13,
YAMADA teaches a frame to support the battery cover but does not provide detail to the frame or side frame. However, NEGISHI teaches that a battery case structure can improves resistance to a side collision [0007]. The case includes a flange portion 37 and sidewall portion 13 as shown in fig. 18 which is the same as YAMADA. The side frame is directly fixed to the flange with upper wall 88 by a rivet 89 while the sidewall can be fixed by a weld W1. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use the case structure of NEGISHI with the battery cover of YAMADA to insulate the battery from side collision.
Regarding claim 14,
NEGISHI teaches that the peripheral frame 6 (corresponding to a flange portion) and sidewall can also be fixed by welding [0065]. See fig. 10. Welding is considered to be a form of adhesive bonding.
Regarding claims 15 and 16,
NEGISHI further teaches that a cover 8 and reinforcing member 44 can be adhered to peripheral frame 6 [0067]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to add a reinforcing member as part of the side frame to add protection to the battery.
Regarding claim 17,
NEGISHI shows the reinforcing member extends the entire length of the accommodating space while the side frame portion only supports the flange portion. Accordingly w2 is significantly greater than 2*w1/3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights