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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/908,270. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/7/2024 and 6/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology should be removed (i.e., line 1, “comprises” should be changed to - -includes- -). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the battery” should be changed to - -the battery unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a battery unit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “a longitudinal direction” should be changed to - -the longitudinal direction- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 3, “a vehicle longitudinal direction”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “a vehicle forward side” should be changed to - -the vehicle forward side- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 5, line 5, “a vehicle forward side”). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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, lines 8-9 state, “wherein said battery unit is configured such that weight thereof becomes heavier while being separated from said motor” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, as the battery unit has a single weight, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “weight thereof becomes heavier”. Additionally, it is unclear what the phrase “while being separated from said motor” is referring to.
Claim 2, line 2 states, “while being separated from said motor” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what the phrase “while being separated from said motor” is referring to.
Claims 3-8, 13 and 14 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claims 1 and/or 2.
Claim 9, line 8 states, “said weight configuration” rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to.
Claims 10-12 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claim 9.
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, 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SIMON et al. (US 2023/0173903 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, SIMON et al. discloses an electric automobile (Figs. 2a-2f), comprising: a tunnel portion (Fig. 2a; containing battery unit modules 126 and 128) provided at a central portion (Fig. 2b), in a vehicle width direction, of a floor panel (Fig. 2a), protruding upward and extending in a vehicle longitudinal direction (Fig. 2a); a battery unit (107) installed in the tunnel portion (Fig. 2a) and including plural batteries (126, 128; paragraph [0085], “battery cells”) which are provided in line along the vehicle longitudinal direction (Figs. 2a and 2b); and a motor (102) provided on a forward (Fig. 2a) or rearward side of the battery unit and operative to drive a driving wheel (104) when receiving electric power from the battery, wherein said battery unit is configured such that weight thereof becomes heavier while being separated from said motor (Fig. 2c).
Regarding Claim 2 as best understood, SIMON et al. discloses said battery unit is configured such that width thereof, in a plan view, becomes wider while being separated from said motor (Fig. 2b).
Regarding Claim 4 as best understood, SIMON et al. discloses a driveshaft to transmit a rotational force of said motor to the driving wheel (unlabeled rotational output of motor 102), wherein said motor is arranged closer to a central portion, in a longitudinal direction, of the automobile than said driveshaft (note, the motor housing will inherently have a larger diameter than the driveshaft and therefore be closer to the central portion).
Regarding Claim 6 as best understood, SIMON et al. discloses a dash panel (Figs. 2a and 2b) extending from a front-end portion of the floor panel upward (Figs. 2a) and in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 2b), wherein a front-end portion of said battery unit is positioned on a vehicle rearward side of said dash panel (Fis. 2a and 2b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CALANDRUCCIO (US 11,351,850) discloses a battery arrangement for an electric vehicle (see Fig. 9).
GAERLAN (US 2010/0031682 A1) discloses a vehicle with a motor and battery (ABSTRACT).
GRISCOM (US 408,232) discloses a battery propulsion system for a vehicle (see Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights