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 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the edge beam for a battery tray" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 already introduced “a battery tray”. It is unclear whether claim 2 refers to the same battery tray recited in claim 1 or introduces a different entirely new battery tray. Examiner suggests amending as follows: –[[a]] the battery tray--. Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, please check all the claims for the same issue.
The term “close to” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “close to” is undefined and open to interpretation. The claim does not provide an objective boundary for how close is close enough so that a person of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably certain of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111146376 A.
Regarding claims 1 & 12: Zhou et al. discloses an edge beam for a battery tray (integral frame 4 comprised of transverse frame 41 and longitudinal frame 42), the battery tray having a placement groove (the inward battery-receiving space bounded by side plates 2 and integral frame 4 which receives the battery within the battery box) configured to place a battery core, the edge beam comprising: an edge beam body (integral frame 4), the edge beam body defining a cavity (rectangular hollow cross section of integral frame 4), the edge beam body having a partition portion (supporting member 43), the partition portion being located in the cavity, the partition portion being connected between a top wall and a bottom wall of the cavity (supporting member 43 extends between opposite corners of the rectangular hollow frame) to partition the cavity into a plurality of sub-cavities (supporting member 43 partitions the rectangular hollow interior of frame 4 into two triangular sub-cavities), the plurality of sub-cavities being arranged in sequence in a width direction of the edge beam (Fig. 4), and in a direction from an upper end to a lower end of the edge beam, the partition portion being inclined away from the placement groove (in Fig. 4 the supporting member 43 extends diagonally, such that, from the top end toward the bottom end of the frame, supporting member 43 extends away from the inward battery receiving side of the frame).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 1. Zhou et al. further discloses wherein in the width direction of the edge beam, the cavity has a first side wall arranged away from the placement groove (the outward side wall of the rectangular hollow cross-section of integral frame 4, opposite the inward battery receiving space); the first side wall being connected between the top wall and the bottom wall of the cavity (the outward wall of the rectangular frame extends between and joins the top and bottom walls of the rectangular frame), and the first side wall being connected to the partition portion (supporting member 43 has an end connected to a corner of the rectangular hollow frame where the outward side wall meets one of the top or bottom walls, thereby connecting supporting member 43 to the first side wall).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 1. Zhou et al. further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of each sub-cavity is a triangle (supporting member 43 divides the rectangular hollow interior of integral frame 4 into two triangular sub-cavities as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 1. Zhou et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of sub-cavities comprise a first sub-cavity and a second sub-cavity (the two triangular regions formed on opposite sides of supporting member 43 within frame 4; Fig. 4), the first sub-cavity being located on a side of the second sub-cavity close to the placement groove (triangular region positioned on the inward battery receiving side of supporting member 43 which is closer to the inward battery receiving space than the other triangular region; Fig. 4), a cross-sectional shape of the first sub-cavity being a triangle or a trapezoid, and/or a cross-sectional shape of the second sub-cavity being a trapezoid (the first sub-cavity is triangular as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou et al. discloses a battery pack, comprising a battery core and the battery tray according to claim 12. Zhou et al. further disclose the battery tray having the placement groove, and the battery core being placed in the placement groove (see Pg. 1: “Technical Field” and “Background Technique”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising the battery pack (see Pg. 1: “Background Technique”) according to claim 14.
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 3, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 2. Zhou et al. further discloses wherein the cavity has a second side wall close to the placement groove (see the inward side wall of frame 4 adjacent the inward battery receiving space); the second side wall being connected between the top wall and the bottom wall of the cavity (the inward wall of frame 4 extends between and joins the top and bottom walls); the second side wall being connected to the partition portion (supporting member 43 has an end connected to a corner of frame 4 where the inward side wall meets one of the top or bottom walls, so as to connect supporting member 43 to the second side wall).
Zhou et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Zhou et al. does not disclose that, in a direction from the upper end to the lower end of the edge beam, the second side wall inclining toward the placement groove.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incline the inward side wall toward the battery receiving region, because changing the inclination of a wall forming a hollow structural beam would have been a predictable variation of the beam cross-sectional geometry, involving only routine design choice to accommodate desired packaging and structural requirements, while retaining the same function of defining and reinforcing the cavity. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 4. Zhou et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Zhou et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein his triangle is an equicrural triangle or an equilateral triangle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure the triangular sub-cavity as an equicrural triangle or an equilateral triangle, because selecting the relative dimensions and angles of the triangle would have been a predictable variation of the cross-sectional geometry of the edge beam, involving routine design choice to obtain a desired balance of structural strength, load distribution and available internal space, while retaining the same function of reinforcing the hollow edge beam. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 1. Zhou et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Zhou et al. does not disclose an included angle between the bottom wall of the cavity and the partition portion is β; and β satisfies a relation: 50⁰ ≤ β ≤ 70⁰.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select an angle between the bottom wall of the cavity and supporting member 43 within the claimed range of 50⁰ to 70⁰. Zhou et al. teaches that the diagonal supporting member divides the frame into triangular structures to provide structural strength and resistance to deformation. The particular inclination of supporting member 43 would have been a result effective design parameter affecting the geometry and structural characteristics of the triangular sub-cavities. Accordingly, determining a workable angle within the claimed range through routine optimization would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 3. Zhou et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Zhou et al. does not disclose wherein an included angle between the second side wall and the partition portion is α; and α satisfies a relation: 50⁰ ≤ α ≤ 70⁰.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select the relative inclination of the second side wall an supporting member 43 such that the included angle falls within the claimed rang of 50⁰ to 70⁰. The relative angular relationship of the wall and supporting member determines the cross-sectional geometry of the resulting sub-cavity and would have been a predictable design parameter affecting the shape and structural characteristics of the hollow edge beam. Determining a suitable angle within the claimed range through routine optimization would therefore have been withing the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou et al. discloses the edge beam for a battery tray according to claim 1. Zhou et al. differs from the invention as claimed because Zhou et al. does not explicitly disclose that the edge beam is formed in one piece. Instead, Zhou et al. discloses an integral frame 4 comprising transverse frame 41 and longitudinal frame 42 that are welded together (Pg. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the edge beam as a single piece rather than separately formed frame portions joined together, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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. The prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest an edge beam comprising a support portion arranged on a side of the edge beam body closet to the placement groove and configured to support the battery core as claimed. A prior art search did not uncover a reference that teaches this feature.
Claim 10 is 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. The prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest wherein the edge beam comprises a support portion; the support portion is arranged on a side of the edge beam body close to the placement groove; and the support portion is configured to support the battery core. A prior art search did not uncover a reference that teaches this feature.
Claim 13 is 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. The prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest a bottom tray plate, the bottom tray plate comprising a bottom plate body and an extension, the bottom plate body defining the placement groove configured to place a battery core, and the extension extending along a circumferential edge of the bottom plate body; and a side frame, the side frame comprising a first edge beam, a second edge beam, a third edge beam, and a fourth edge beam, at least one of the first edge beam and the second edge beam being the edge beam, the first edge beam and the second edge beam being oppositely arranged in a first direction, the third edge beam and the fourth edge beam being oppositely arranged in a second direction, the first edge beam, the second edge beam, the third edge beam, and the fourth edge beam being connected to form a mounting space, the bottom plate body being mounted in the mounting space, in a height direction of the battery tray, the extension being located above the side frame and arranged on the side frame, the first edge beam and/or the second edge beam having a support portion, and the support portion being configured to support the bottom tray plate, wherein one of the first direction and the second direction is a length direction of the battery tray, and the other thereof is a width direction of the battery tray. A prior art search did not uncover a references that teaches these limitations.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and cited on PTO Form 892 is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313) 446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-5:30.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights