DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/909796, filed on 10/08/2024. Claims 1-3 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 10/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 3 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 3 states “a second cushioning material provided near a center of the floor panel provided between the floor tunnel and a mounting portion of the battery to a vehicle in a vehicle width direction”. This limitation is grammatically confusing making it unclear. Is the second cushioning material or the floor panel that is provided between the floor tunnel and mounting portion? What is “to a vehicle in a vehicle width direction” referencing? Is this referring to the mounting portion of the battery? What is meant by “to a vehicle”?
Claim 3 states “the second cushioning material being provided on an outer with respect to the first cushioning material”. It is unclear what is meant by “on an outer”. An outer what?
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022038401 to Kawase et al.
Kawase discloses:
(Claim 1) A vehicle lower part structure (Fig. 3) equipped with a battery (30), comprising a first cushioning material (52) disposed near a vehicle center (Fig. 4 CL) so as to be sandwiched between the battery and a floor panel (Fig. 3 element 20) in a vehicle up-down direction.
(Claim 2) wherein the first cushioning material is provided near a floor tunnel (Fig. 4 shows a portion corresponding to the floor tunnel along the center line CL in the left-right direction) of a floor.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022103590 to Chagi et al.
Chagi discloses:
(Claim 1) A vehicle lower part structure (Fig. 3) equipped with a battery (138), comprising a first cushioning material (158 160) disposed near a vehicle center (see Fig. 2, portion close to center) so as to be sandwiched between the battery and a floor panel (Fig. 3 element 102) in a vehicle up-down direction.
(Claim 2) wherein the first cushioning material is provided near a floor tunnel (Fig. 3 element 108) of a floor (102).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagi.
Chagi discloses:
The limitations of claim 2.
(Claim 3 as best understood) further comprising a second cushioning material (146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156) provided near a center of the floor panel provided between the floor tunnel and a mounting portion of the battery to a vehicle in a vehicle width direction, the second cushioning material being provided on an outer with respect to the first cushioning material (Fig. 2, first cushioning material “outer” a portion of the first cushioning material), wherein the first cushioning material is configured to be different than the second cushioning material (Par. [0045] first cushioning material is made of EPT sealer, par. [0037], second cushioning material made of urethane).
Chagi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first cushioning material is configured to be more rigid than the second cushioning material.
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 Chagi to have the first cushioning material more rigid than the second cushioning material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. Both EPT sealer and urethane cover a broad spectrum of material that all have various rigidity values. One of ordinary skill could choose an EPT sealer with higher rigidity than urethane and produce predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase in view of Chagi.
Kawase discloses:
The limitations of claim 2.
(Claim 3 as best understood) further comprising a second cushioning material (50) provided near a center of the floor panel provided between the floor tunnel and a mounting portion of the battery to a vehicle in a vehicle width direction, the second cushioning material being provided on an outer with respect to the first cushioning material (See Fig. 4).
Kawase is silent towards:
(Claim 3) wherein the first cushioning material is configured to be more rigid than the second cushioning material.
Chagi teaches:
Two different cushioning materials, one made of EPT sealer and one made of urethane (see par. [0037 and [0045]).
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 Kawase to have the first cushioning material more rigid than the second cushioning material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. Chagi teaches using two different cushioning materials. One of these materials will have a higher rigidity than the other. One of ordinary skill could apply the higher rigidity material to the first cushioning material and the other material to he second cushioning material and produce predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haijima et al (US 2014/0287290) discloses a structure for mounting electric storage apparatus.
Dupper (US 2022/0024292) discloses a body structure for an electrically operated vehicle.
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