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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (7/2/25) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaney (US 7,520,355).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Chaney discloses a method/apparatus for securing a battery module (4) in a vehicle (1), the method comprising: providing a bay (Chaney, FIG 2) in the vehicle adjacent to a vehicle component (Chaney 25, FIG 4); inserting the battery module into the bay (Chaney, FIG 2), wherein the battery module has a wall (Chaney is exemplary and annotated FIG 4 shows walls) and wherein the wall is spaced from the vehicle component by a gap (Chaney, FIG 5, the battery 4 fits in the bay which inherently requires a gap or space for insertion/removal); and actuating a locking implement (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence) to move from a passive configuration to an active configuration (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence) in which the locking implement extends between the battery module and vehicle component to prevent movement of the battery module relative to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
803
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Chaney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: actuating the locking implement to move from the active configuration to the passive configuration by retracting the locking implement out of the gap (The lock operates to engage/disengage the battery); and removing the battery module from the bay (Chaney, FIG 2).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Chaney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the locking implement is mounted to the vehicle component (When assembled, all components of the vehicle are mounted together).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Chaney discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the vehicle component is a cross beam (36).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Chaney discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the cross beam defines an interior volume (Chaney, FIG 4), and wherein the locking implement is located in the interior volume in the passive configuration (Chaney, FIG 5).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Chaney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the vehicle component is a first vehicle component (Each piece of 36); the bay is located adjacent to the first vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4) and to a second vehicle component (Cross members 36 surround the battery forming a plurality of components); the wall is a first wall wherein the battery module further includes a second wall (Chaney, FIG 4 frame 3 has a plurality of walls surrounding battery 4); the gap is a first gap located between the first wall and the first vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4); a second gap (Chaney, FIG 4) is located between the second wall and the second vehicle component (Gaps and spaces are inherent for assembly except where interference fit is required); the locking implement is a first locking implement which contacts the first wall of the battery module in the active configuration(Chaney, FIG 4); and the method comprises actuating a second locking implement to move from a passive configuration to an active configuration (Chanel FIGS 4-5 illustrate an exemplary retention system) in which the second locking implement extends between the battery module and vehicle component to prevent movement of the battery module relative to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Chaney discloses a housing system for a battery module (4) in a vehicle (1), the housing system comprising: a bay (Chaney, FIG 2) in the vehicle adjacent to a vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4 illustrates exemplary battery enclosure components) configured to receive the battery module with a gap between the battery module and the vehicle component; and a locking implement (Chaney, FIG 5) configured to move from a passive configuration to an active configuration (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence) in which the locking implement extends between the battery module and vehicle component to prevent movement of the battery module relative to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 12, wherein the locking implement is configured to move from the active configuration to the passive configuration in which the locking implement is not located in the gap (Chaney, discloses lock actuation in Column 1, Lines 55-65).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 13, wherein the locking implement is mounted to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 5).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 14, wherein the vehicle component is a cross beam (36) wherein the cross beam defines an interior volume (Chaney, FIG 5), and wherein the locking implement is located in the interior volume in the passive configuration (Chaney, FIG 5).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Chaney discloses a vehicle comprising: an electric propulsion system (Chaney, Abstract discloses an electric-hybrid vehicle); a battery module (4); a battery module bay (Chaney, FIG 2) adjacent to a vehicle component (36) and configured to receive the battery module with a gap (Gaps and spaces are conventional in the art to assemble components absent an interference fit relationship) between the battery module and the vehicle component; and a locking implement (Chaney, FIG 5) configured to move from a passive configuration to an active configuration in which the locking implement extends between the battery module and vehicle component to prevent movement of the battery module relative to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 5, Column 1, Lines 55-65 discloses locking sequence).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 6, 10-11, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 7,520,355).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Chaney discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the cross beam includes an upper end, wherein the battery module includes a laterally-extending upper tab, and wherein inserting the battery module into the bay comprises contacting the laterally-extending upper tab to the upper end (Chaney discloses exemplary ledges or tabs 31 and 37 which can be duplicated on an upper surface for additional alignment with the battery enclosure. Regarding rearrangement of parts, see In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have upper tabs similar to the lower tabs 31 and 37 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce alignment difficulty with the battery enclosure) and supporting the battery module with the cross beam while the locking implement is in the passive configuration (Chaney, FIGS 3-4).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Chaney discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising compressing the battery module between the first locking implement and the second locking implement when the first locking implement and the second locking implement are moved to the respective active configurations (Chaney, the locks bolt on either side and compress the battery pack for at least preventing rattle and vibration).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Chaney discloses the method of claim 9, wherein: the first wall is a first sidewall (Chaney, FIGS 4-5); the second wall is second sidewall (Chaney, FIGS 4-5) opposite the first sidewall; a first end wall and a second end wall connect the first sidewall and the second sidewall (Chaney, FIGS 4-5, ignition contacts 41A-D support the battery enclosure beams in each corner and increase strength and battery stability when assembled); the first end wall and second end wall are separated by a side length (Incorporating corner frames enables for predetermined side and end lengths suitable for multiple vehicle applications); the first sidewall and second sidewall are separated by an end length (Incorporating corner frames enables for predetermined side and end lengths suitable for multiple vehicle applications); and the side length is greater than the end length (Chaney FIG 4, is exemplary and the sides appear longer than the width/ends and is a matter of desired shape based on battery applications. Regarding change in shape, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have desired length with respect to sides and ends with a reasonable expectation of success in order to package any desired battery enclosure.).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 15, wherein the cross beam includes an upper end (Beams 30 and 36 have upper ends), wherein the battery module includes a laterally-extending upper tab configured to sit on the upper end (Chaney discloses exemplary ledges or tabs 31 and 37 which can be duplicated on an upper surface for additional alignment with the battery enclosure. Regarding rearrangement of parts, see In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have upper tabs similar to the lower tabs 31 and 37 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce alignment difficulty with the battery enclosure) and supporting the battery module with the cross beam while the locking implement is in the passive configuration (Chaney, FIGS 3-4).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 17, wherein: the vehicle component is a first vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4);
the bay is located adjacent to the first vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4) and to a second vehicle component (When assembled, each component is in and adjacent the bay); the gap is a first gap located between the battery module and the first vehicle component (Each component requires a tolerance gap for assembly/disassembly ease);
a second gap is located between the battery module and the second vehicle component (Any number of gaps can be formed corresponding to the number of components which are adjacent during assembly/disassembly); the locking implement is a first locking implement (Chaney, FIGS 5 and 8a); and the housing system comprises a second locking implement (Chaney illustrates locks on each longitudinal end of the battery bay) configured to move from a passive configuration to an active configuration in which the second locking implement extends between the battery module and vehicle component to prevent movement of the battery module relative to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIGS 4-5 and 8a).
Claims 7-8, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney (US 7,520,355) in view of Inoue et al. (US 11,752,853).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Chaney discloses the method of claim 6.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein actuating the locking implement comprises manipulating an implement actuator overlying the cross beam.
-Nevertheless, Inoue, discloses a battery to frame arrangement and requires a mechanical implement for manipulation to secure/remove the retention bolts 17a.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have a manual attachment system as taught by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a manual system with fewer components and reduced cost.
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Chaney/Inoue teaches the method of claim 7, wherein manipulating the implement actuator comprises rotating the implement actuator about an axis parallel to the bay (Bolts 17a of Inoue rotate about a vertical axis parallel to the battery bay).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Chaney discloses the housing system of claim 16.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein actuating the locking implement comprises manipulating an implement actuator overlying the cross beam.
-Nevertheless, Inoue, discloses a battery to frame arrangement and requires a mechanical implement for manipulation to secure/remove the retention bolts 17a.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have a manual attachment system as taught by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a manual system with fewer components and reduced cost.
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Chaney discloses the vehicle of claim 19, wherein: the locking implement is configured to move from the active configuration to the passive configuration in which the locking implement is retracted out of the gap (Chaney, FIGS 5 and 8a); the locking implement is mounted to the vehicle component (Chaney, FIG 4);
the vehicle component is a cross beam (Beams 30 and 36 are exemplary and support the locks and battery) defining an interior volume and including an upper end (Chaney, FIGS 5 and 8a); the locking implement is located in the interior volume in the passive configuration (Chaney, FIGS 5 and 8a); the battery module includes a laterally-extending upper tab configured to sit on the upper end (Chaney illustrates exemplary ledge/tabs 31 and 37 which can be formed on the battery enclosure of Chaney to correspond with the beams upper portion. Regarding rearrangement of parts, see In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have upper tabs similar to the lower tabs 31 and 37 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce alignment difficulty with the battery enclosure).
-However, it fails to disclose wherein actuating the locking implement comprises manipulating an implement actuator overlying the cross beam.
-Nevertheless, Inoue discloses a battery to frame arrangement and requires a mechanical implement for manipulation to secure/remove the retention bolts 17a.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chaney to have a manual attachment system as taught by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a manual system with fewer components and reduced cost.
-Regarding the remaining limitations: the locking implement and the implement actuator are rotatable about an axis parallel to the battery module bay (Bolts 17a of Inoue rotate about a vertical axis parallel to the battery bay).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights