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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 10/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to claim 6 appear to add subject matter that is not supported by the Drawings and specification; therefore, a new 112(a) and 112(b) rejection is added. Furthermore, claims 6-10 remain rejected in view of Lent (US 2014/0087234).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “housing” (claim 6) must be shown and labeled or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 6 has been amended to include a “housing”. However, there is no mention of a “housing” anywhere in the specification.
Furthermore, claim 6 states that “the elongated tail for contacting the battery extension of the battery pack for prohibiting contact of the snubber bracket with the housing of the battery pack”. This is not explicitly disclosed in the specification, and actually appears to contradict Fig. 4 of the drawings, which shows the snubber bracket in contact with what appears to be the unlabeled housing of the battery pack.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation, “the elongated tail for contacting the battery extension of the battery pack for prohibiting contact of the snubber bracket with the housing of the battery pack”. However, this limitation is not explicitly disclosed in the specification, or shown in the Drawings. In fact, the drawings show {Figs. 3-4} that the elongated tail {42} contacting the battery extension {50} does not prohibit contact of the snubber bracket {30} with the housing of the battery pack {12 (see how the top of snubber bracket 30 is in contact with what is assumed to be the housing in Fig. 4)}. The specification mentions that “the tail due to its stiffness prohibits the body of the bracket from contact with the high voltage battery module 12” [0019], and “the rear cradle is prohibited from contacting the high voltage battery module” [0020]. However, the specification never mentions the “housing” at all; let alone “the elongated tail for contacting the battery extension of the battery pack for prohibiting contact of the snubber bracket with the housing of the battery pack”. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 112(a), because the specification fails to 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.
Accordingly, claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of dependence from claim 6.
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 6-10 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 6 recites the limitation, “the elongated tail for contacting the battery extension of the battery pack for prohibiting contact of the snubber bracket with the housing of the battery pack”. This limitation is unclear and indefinite, because this limitation is not explicitly disclosed in the specification, or shown in the Drawings. In fact, the drawings show {Figs. 3-4} that the elongated tail {42} contacting the battery extension {50} does not prohibit contact of the snubber bracket {30} with the housing of the battery pack {12 (see how the top of snubber bracket 30 is in contact with what is assumed to be the housing in Fig. 4)}. Therefore, claim 6 appears to directly contradict the Drawings and Specification. Thus, claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Accordingly, claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of dependence from claim 6.
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.
(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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lent (US 2014/0087234).
Regarding claim 6, Lent discloses a vehicle {“vehicle” [0023]} comprising:
a rear cradle {20+30: the cradle extends along the outside of the battery modules 40+50; therefore, it is a rear cradle, front cradle and side cradle for the battery modules (Figs. 1-6)} with at least one snubber {240: “elastomeric member 240” [0020]};
a battery pack {40+50} having a housing {20+30} and a battery extension {112 (Fig. 6)}, the battery pack {40+50} separate and spaced apart from the rear cradle {20+30 (and separate and spaced apart from the housing and battery extension: Fig. 6)};
a snubber bracket {70} coupled with the at least one snubber {240} between the at least one snubber {240} and the housing {20+30} of the battery pack {40+50}, the snubber bracket {70} including:
a body {230};
a reinforcing nose {392 (Fig. 10)} extending from the body {230} providing a crush zone {Figs. 6, 10} for the at least one snubber {240};
an elongated tail {220} extending from the body {230}, the elongated tail {220} for contacting the battery extension {112 (Fig. 6)} of the battery pack {40+50} for prohibiting contact of the snubber bracket {70 (240)} with the housing {20+30} of the battery pack {40+50}.
Regarding claim 7, Lent discloses a step {(base portion of) 390+394 (Fig. 10)} is formed between the body {230} and the elongated tail {220}.
Regarding claim 8, Lent discloses the step {(base portion of) 390+394 (Fig. 10)} provides an additional crush zone for the snubber bracket {70}.
Regarding claim 9, Lent discloses a flange {upper and lower flange portions of 230 connected to 220 by 400+402+404+410 (Fig. 10)} extends from the body {230: “The extension portion 230 includes a first leg portion 390, a second leg portion 392, and a supporting plate portion 394. The supporting plate portion 394 is disposed between and coupled to the first and second leg portions 390, 392 and is substantially perpendicular to the first and second leg portions 390, 392. The first leg portion 390 is coupled to the plate portion 220 utilizing the weld joints 400, 402, 404. The second leg portion 392 is coupled to the plate portion 220 utilizing the weld joint 410 and two other weld joints (not shown)” [0022]}.
Regarding claim 10, Lent discloses a flange {upper and lower flange portions of 220 connected to 112 by 350+352+254+356+362+364+366+368+370 (Fig. 10)} extends from the elongated tail {220: “The plate portion 220 includes the apertures 350, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, 366, 368, 370, 372 extending therethrough. The apertures 350, 352, 354, 356, 358, 360, 362, 364, 366, 368, 370, 372 are configured to be aligned with the apertures 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 in the second side portion 112 such that screws 250, 252, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 264, 266, 268, 270, 272 respectively are disposed therethrough for coupling the plate portion 220 to the second side portion 112” [0021]}.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
