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 statements (IDS) submitted on (1/21/25 4/6/26) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
1. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Addanki et al. (US 9,884,545).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Addanki discloses a battery pack comprising: a first portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2); a second portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), attached to the first portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) and forming an enclosed cavity with the first portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), wherein: the second portion comprises a set of support assemblies (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), each positioned adjacent to one corner of the second portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) and configured to attach to a vehicle frame (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), and each support assembly in the set of support assemblies comprises (a) a support bracket (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) configured to fixedly attached to the vehicle frame (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) and (b) a support bushing (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) fixedly attached to the second portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) and attached to the support bracket (Addanki, annotated FIG 2); and a set of battery modules (Addanki, FIG 1, cells 18 equally spaced gaps) positioned within the enclosed cavity and separated by a set of module gaps (Addanki, FIG 1, cells 18 equally spaced gaps).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
679
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Addanki discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the support bushing comprises an opening for receiving a bolt to attach to a vehicle frame extending in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the vehicle frame (Addanki, annotated FIG 2 illustrates an exemplary bolt 116 within the bushing structure adapted to ultimately connect to the vehicle frame 58 vis mount 70).
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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki et al. (US 9,884,545) in view of Tanigaki et al. (US 9,742,043).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Addanki discloses the battery pack of claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the set of support assemblies is configured to attach to cross-members of the vehicle frame.
-Nevertheless, Tanigaki discloses a plurality of cross members with battery pack connections in FIG 2.
- 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 Addanki to have cross member connection as taught by Tanigaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase mounting orientations suitable for a plurality of vehicle applications.
PNG
media_image3.png
736
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki et al. (US 9,884,545) in view of Sweet et al. (US PG PUB NO 2021/0184290).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Sweet discloses the battery pack of claim 1.
-However, it fails to disclose further comprises a battery management system (BMS) positioned within the enclosed cavity and connected to each battery module in the set of battery modules.
-Nevertheless, Sweet discloses a BMS (104) adapted for a battery pack (100).
- 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 Addanki to have a BMS as taught by Sweet with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase vehicle communication with the battery functions such as temperature, state of charge and degradation.
PNG
media_image4.png
734
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addanki et al. (US 9,884,545).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Addanki discloses an electric vehicle comprising: a vehicle frame (58); and a set of battery packs (Addanki discloses a single module having sub-assemblies 18 containing individual cells that are gapped and afforded the overall mounting enclosure which can if desired be duplicated to create a set for large volume vehicles and would be a matter of duplication of parts. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) regarding a duplication. 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 Addanki to have a set of modules with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide adequate energy and storage thereof for a large vehicle application), enclosed within and attached to the vehicle frame (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), wherein: each pack in the set of battery packs comprises a first portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), a second portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), attached to the first portion (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) and forming an enclosed cavity (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) with the first portion, and a set of battery modules (18) positioned within the enclosed cavity, the second portion comprises a set of support assemblies (Addanki, annotated FIG 2), each positioned adjacent to one corner of the second portion and attached to the vehicle frame (Addanki, annotated FIG 2 illustrates the battery mounting supports adjacent the front and rear at the sides of the enclosure at the lateral frame rails 58), and each support assembly in the set of support assemblies comprises (a) a support bracket (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) fixedly attached to the vehicle frame and (b) a support bushing (Addanki, annotated FIG 2) fixedly attached to the second portion and attached to the support bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 6-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Addanki et al. (US 9,884,545) represents the most similar battery mounting structure as that claimed by Applicants but fails to disclose the additional limitations as set forth in Claim 2: (a rigid bushing enclosure bolted to the second portion of each pack in the set of battery packs, and an elastomeric bushing supported and surrounded by the rigid bushing enclosure.), Claim 6: (each pack in the set of battery packs further comprises a set of pressure-relief valves positioned in and protruding through a wall of the first portion, and each valve in the set of pressure-relief valves is configured to provide a fluid path from the enclosed cavity to environment outside of the battery pack when pressure inside the enclosed cavity is at or exceeds a set threshold and is further configured to fluidically isolate the enclosed cavity from the environment when the pressure inside the enclosed cavity is below the set threshold.), Claim 11: (an enclosure comprising a first set of side walls, a first thermal wall, and a second thermal wall, wherein: the first set of side walls and the first thermal wall define a first enclosure portion, and a thermal portion is defined, at least in part, by the first thermal wall and the second thermal wall collectively forming a thermal cavity therebetween; and a first set of batteries, positioned within the first enclosure portion, surrounded by the first set of side walls, and thermally coupled to the first thermal wall.), Claim 14: (an enclosure comprising a first set of side walls, a first thermal wall, and a second thermal wall, wherein: the first set of side walls and the first thermal wall define a first enclosure portion, and a thermal portion is defined, at least in part, by the first thermal wall and the second thermal wall collectively forming a thermal cavity therebetween; and a first set of batteries, positioned within the first enclosure portion, surrounded by the first set of side walls, and thermally coupled to the first thermal wall.).
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 Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
