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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (US 10112471 B2) (hereinafter “Higuchi”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle, comprising: a chassis; at least one track or wheel for supporting the chassis and propelling the electrically driven vehicle [Higuchi Fig. 6, Reference Characters 11 and 31/32; Higuchi Abstract: “The present invention provides a battery-driven traveling device”]; an electric motor for powering the at least one track or wheel [Higuchi Paragraph 29: “The electric chassis 10 also includes a pair of motors that independently drives the rotations of left and right front wheels 31L and 31R”]; a cavity in the chassis housing a battery that supplies power to the electric motor, the cavity being encased by structural portions of the chassis on top, bottom, and sides of the cavity, wherein the cavity comprises an opening towards the front or the rear of the vehicle for accessing the battery [Higuchi Fig. 6; Higuchi Paragraph 8: “the battery is preferably stored inside the vehicle body”].
Regarding Claim 2, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 1, further comprising: a rail supporting the battery within the cavity, wherein the rail is operable to slide the battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the battery [Higuchi Abstract: “two slide rails being composed of a left slide rail and a right slide rail and being supported by the framework section and extending substantially horizontally; a battery supporting member that is mounted to be insertable into the vehicle body and extractable from the vehicle body by using the two slide rails”].
Regarding Claim 3, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a second battery housed in the cavity [Higuchi Fig. 18, Reference Character 40; Higuchi Paragraph 107: “A battery supporting member 111 has mounted thereon two batteries, a left battery and a right battery.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 2, further comprising: a second rail supporting a second battery within the cavity, wherein the second rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery [Higuchi Fig. 7, Reference Character 103 (typ); Paragraph 51: inside slide rails 103 on both of left and right sides, the slide rails 103 being substantially horizontally extensible in the front-rear direction.”].
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (US 10112471 B2) (hereinafter “Higuchi”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, Higuchi teaches a chassis for providing primary structural support in an electrically driven vehicle [Higuchi Fig. 6, Reference Character 11], the electrically driven vehicle being propelled by at least one track or wheel powered by an electric motor receiving power from a battery [Higuchi Paragraph 29: “The electric chassis 10 also includes a pair of motors that independently drives the rotations of left and right front wheels 31L and 31R”], the chassis comprising: a cavity in the chassis for housing the battery, the cavity being encased by structural portions of the chassis on top, bottom, and sides of the cavity, wherein the cavity comprises an opening towards the front or the rear of the vehicle for accessing the battery [Higuchi Fig. 6; Higuchi Paragraph 8: “the battery is preferably stored inside the vehicle body”].
Regarding Claim 12, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 11, further comprising: a rail supporting the battery within the cavity, wherein the rail is operable to slide the battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the battery [Higuchi Abstract: “two slide rails being composed of a left slide rail and a right slide rail and being supported by the framework section and extending substantially horizontally; a battery supporting member that is mounted to be insertable into the vehicle body and extractable from the vehicle body by using the two slide rails”].
Regarding Claim 13, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 11, further comprising a second battery housed in the cavity [Higuchi Fig. 18, Reference Character 40; Higuchi Paragraph 107: “A battery supporting member 111 has mounted thereon two batteries, a left battery and a right battery.”].
Regarding Claim 14, Higuchi teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 12, further comprising: a second rail supporting a second battery within the cavity, wherein the second rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery [Higuchi Fig. 7, Reference Character 103 (typ); Paragraph 51: inside slide rails 103 on both of left and right sides, the slide rails 103 being substantially horizontally extensible in the front-rear direction.”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 10112471 B2) (hereinafter “Higuchi”) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20120058043 A) (hereinafter “Cho”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a vertical partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 3, further comprising a vertical partition wall separating the cavity into a first sub-compartment for housing the first battery and a second sub-compartment for housing the second battery [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a vertical partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 6, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a second rail. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 5, further comprising: the first rail supporting the first battery within the first sub-compartment, wherein the first rail is operable to slide the battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the first battery; and the second rail supporting the second battery within the second sub-compartment, wherein the second rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second rail in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 7, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach rails mounted to a partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 6, wherein the first rail and the second rail are mounted to the partition wall [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, mounting rails on a partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 8, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach third or fourth rails. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 7, further comprising: a third rail supporting the first battery within the first sub-compartment, wherein the third rail is operable to slide the first battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the first battery, and wherein the third rail is mounted to a wall of the cavity; and a fourth rail supporting the second battery within the second sub-compartment, wherein the fourth rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery, and wherein the fourth rail is mounted to a wall of the cavity [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a third rail and a fourth rail in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 9, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a horizontal partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 3, further comprising a horizontal partition wall separating the cavity into a first sub-compartment for housing the first battery and a second sub-compartment for housing the second battery [Cho Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a horizontal partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 10112471 B2) (hereinafter “Higuchi”) in view of Heckeroth (US 7828099 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 10, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a front attachment. Heckeroth teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 2, wherein the cavity comprises an opening towards the front of the vehicle for accessing the battery, further comprising: a front attachment at the front of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is operable to raise the front attachment to a battery service height providing sufficient clearance to slide the battery out of the cavity opening [Heckeroth Figs. 5, 7, and 8; Heckeroth Paragraph 13: “Secondary battery 14 is ideally installed within electric tractor 10 upon rails 16 by positioning secondary battery 14 onto a jack at either the front or rear of the vehicle. The electric tractor is then moved to enable L-shaped bracket 21 to slip within rails 16 as shown in FIG. 3 whereupon the jack is lowered to enable L-shaped bracket 21 to be suspended either directly upon rails 16 or rollers 22”; Paragraph 16: “Reference is made to FIG. 5 which depicts the converse of the invention disclosed in FIG. 4. Specifically, tractor 50 is now configured with front end loader assembly 51 including shovel 52.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a front attachment raisable to provide clearance for the battery in view of Heckeroth. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Heckeroth because this would have achieved the desirable result of obviating the need to buy, use, and store dead weight to counterbalance the front attachment, as recognized by Heckeroth [Heckeroth Paragraph 16: “Whenever shovel 52 is called upon to capture a weighted mass, the operator of tractor 50 would be called upon to purchase and install dead weight proximate rear end 53 of vehicle 50 to prevent tractor 50 from tipping causing its rear wheel to leave the ground. However, secondary battery 14 being slideable upon rails 16 can be positioned proximate rear end 53 to obviate the need for such dead weight.”].
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US 10112471 B2) (hereinafter “Higuchi”) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20120058043 A) (hereinafter “Cho”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a vertical partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 13, further comprising a vertical partition wall separating the cavity into a first sub-compartment for housing the first battery and a second sub-compartment for housing the second battery [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a vertical partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 16, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a second rail. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 15, further comprising: the first rail supporting the first battery within the first sub-compartment, wherein the first rail is operable to slide the battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the first battery; and the second rail supporting the second battery within the second sub-compartment, wherein the second rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second rail in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 17, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach rails mounted to a partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 16, wherein the first rail and the second rail are mounted to the partition wall [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, mounting rails on a partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 18, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach third or fourth rails. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 17, further comprising: a third rail supporting the first battery within the first sub-compartment, wherein the third rail is operable to slide the first battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the first battery, and wherein the third rail is mounted to a wall of the cavity; and a fourth rail supporting the second battery within the second sub-compartment, wherein the fourth rail is operable to slide the second battery out of the cavity opening while supporting the second battery, and wherein the fourth rail is mounted to a wall of the cavity [Cho Figs. 2, 4, and 5; Cho Paragraph 0063: “Referring to FIG. 5, the upper and lower slide bars 310 of the battery module 300 are disposed outside the upper and lower guide bars 210 of the lattice-shaped partition wall 200 and reciprocate with each other. Based on 200, the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a third rail and a fourth rail in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Regarding Claim 19, Higuchi teaches an electrically driven vehicle but does not teach a horizontal partition wall. Cho teaches the electrically driven vehicle of claim 13, further comprising a horizontal partition wall separating the cavity into a first sub-compartment for housing the first battery and a second sub-compartment for housing the second battery [Cho Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrically driven vehicle of Higuchi to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a horizontal partition wall in view of Cho. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Higuchi and Cho because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving battery maintainability, as recognized by Cho [Cho Paragraph 0063: “the battery module 300 may realize a sliding mechanism through a single axis linear motion, thereby improving battery maintainability.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights