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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/22/2023 and 08/12/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0167544 to Barbat et al.
With respect to claim 1, Barbat et al. teach a system of energy absorption of an electric vehicle, the system comprising: a battery pack of an electric aircraft, wherein the battery pack comprises: a case 10, wherein the case is configured to circumscribe an inner volume of the battery pack 40; and at least a battery module installed within the inner volume of the case 10; and at least an energy absorbing material 126 located beneath the electric vehicle, wherein the at least an energy absorbing material 126 comprises a first energy absorbing material 126 and is configured to absorb energy from a crash of the electric vehicle (Barbat et al.: Sections [0010]-[0011]; Figs 1-5).
Barbat et al. do not specifically teach the battery pack is using for an electric aircraft, however, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to be used in an electric aircraft as the battery from Barbat et al. meets all of the limitations as claimed, and an aircraft is an example of vehicle.
With respect to claim 4, Barbat et al. teach the system, wherein the first energy absorbing material 126 is further configured to provide a deformable floor structure in the crash (Barbat et al.: Sections [0010]-[0011]; Figs 1-5).
With respect to claim 5, Barbat et al. teach the same battery pack, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the battery pack and those disclosed by Barbat et al., it would have expected for the battery pack of Barbat et al. to be configured to tolerate 50 ft battery drop test as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 6, Barbat et al. teach the same first energy absorbing material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the first energy absorbing material and those disclosed by Barbat et al., it would have expected for the first energy absorbing material of Barbat et al. to be completely crushable as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 7, Barbat et al. teach the same system, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the system and those disclosed by Barbat et al., it would have expected for the system of Barbat et al. to be configured to reduce an occupant loading to between 5 and 50 G's during a 50 ft aircraft drop test as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 8, Barbat et al. teach the system, wherein the first energy absorbing material 126 comprises a panel, wherein the panel comprises a honeycomb sandwich panel (Barbat et al.: Sections [0010]-[0011]; Figs 1-5).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Barbat et al. further teach by bonding the energy absorber 126 to the side 120, the battery support 50 can extend between the first and second rocker panels 106, 206, limiting exposure of the battery 40 during impact. In particular, the battery 40 can span the width of the vehicle while maintaining a shallower profile that is less susceptible to impact and easier to install. Furthermore, the energy absorber 126 absorbs more energy during impact by elastically and plastically deforming in a direction parallel to the impact. The cells 130 absorb more energy along the central axis 132, limiting energy transfer to the side 120 and the battery 40 (Barbat et al.: Section [0011]).
Barbat et al. do not specifically teach the system, further comprising: a frame crash panel, wherein the frame crash panel is placed on a frame of the aircraft; and a battery crash panel, wherein the battery crash panel is placed on the battery pack, and wherein: the frame crash panel is configured to receive a first impact of the crash; and the battery crash panel is configured to receive a second impact of the crash.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have multiple panels made with the first energy absorbing material forming at different locations in any vehicle, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
With respect to claim 11, Barbat et al. teach the same first energy absorbing material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the first energy absorbing material and those disclosed by Barbat et al., it would have expected for the first energy absorbing material of Barbat et al. to reduce an occupant loading during a 50 ft crash test to within a range of 5 to 50 G's as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 14, Barbat et al. teach the system, wherein the inner volume of the case comprises a crush zone (any empty space inside the case) that does not contain the at least a battery module (Barbat et al.: Section [0011]).
With respect to claim 20, Barbat et al. do not specifically teach the system, further comprising: an inner panel installed within the inner volume, between the case and the at least a battery module.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an inner panel installed within the inner volume, between the case and the at least a battery module, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0167544 to Barbat et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0162696 to Maus et al.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Barbat et al. do not specifically teach the system, wherein the case further comprises: a sealing rim positioned at least partially about an open side of the case; a first component that comprises at least a first side and a second side of the case; and a second component that comprises at least a third side of the case, wherein the second component additionally comprises: at least an electrical connection; and at least a mechanical connection, wherein the mechanical connection comprises a breakaway mount configured to release the battery module under a predetermined load.
However, Maus et al. teach a battery mounting assembly 10 comprising a lid 85 seals the outer walls 84 of the battery mounting assembly 10, additionally comprises: at least an electrical connection (not shown); and breakaway components 70 (at least a mechanical connection) (Maus et al.: Sections [0047]-[0048]; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Barbat et al. with the teaching above from Maus et al. with the motivation of having a means such the first battery mounting assembly 10 is constructed with a breakaway feature. In this embodiment, the first battery mounting assembly 10 would be constructed such that various components of the first battery mounting assembly 10 would breakaway or move in predetermined manners and absorb and dissipate energy under certain conditions caused by the vehicle 15 being involved in a traffic accident. It should be understood that when these components of the first battery mounting assembly 10 breakaway and move in such a manner they preferably remain attached to the vehicle 15. These components that are intended to break away under certain conditions will hereinafter be referred to as breakaway components 70. The breakaway components 70 would move in these predetermined manners when the first battery mounting assembly 10 is subjected to forces and/or accelerations in, certain directions, that are of a magnitude greater than those that would occur during normal vehicle 15 operation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0167544 to Barbat et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0050533 to Wei et al.
With respect to claim 12, Barbat et al. teach the system, further comprising: a landing gear, wherein the landing gear is configured to reduce an occupant loading during a 50 ft aircraft drop test.
However, Wei et al. teach an electric aircraft comprising a landing gear (Wei et al.: Section [0048]). Wei et al. teach the same landing gear, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the landing gear and those disclosed by Wei et al., it would have expected for the landing gear of Wei et al. to be configured to reduce an occupant loading during a 50 ft aircraft drop test as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Barbat et al. with the teaching above from Maus et al. with the motivation of having a means such a landing gear is an essential component of a aircraft.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2016/0167544 to Barbat et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0159567 to Pires et al.
With respect to claim 13, Barbat et al. do not specifically teach the system, further comprising: a seat energy absorber, wherein the seat energy absorber is located in a seat of the electric aircraft and is configured to absorb greater than 5 G in the crash of the electric aircraft.
However, Wei et al. teach a vehicle can further include additional struts or support structures in addition to the battery pack for additional support. For example, the vehicle portion can include struts crossing the width of a set of unitary battery packs or in parallel to a set of unitary battery packs. The additional struts or support structures may be configured to provide additional support for additional components associated with the vehicle, such a set of front or rear seat. in another example, support struts may be incorporated into one or more sides of the vehicle or adjacent to a set of unitary battery packs to react or absorb compressive, tensile, torsional, shear, or bending stresses imposed by other components, passengers, or loads from the vehicle. (Pires et al.: Section [0031]). Pires et al. teach the same seat energy absorber, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed the seat energy absorber and those disclosed by Pires et al., it would have expected for the seat energy absorber of Pires et al. to be located in a seat of the electric aircraft and is located in a seat of the electric aircraft and is configured to absorb greater than 5 G in the crash of the electric aircraft as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Barbat et al. with the teaching above from Maus et al. with the motivation of having a means such it would reduce impact from external forces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Milton I Cano and Tiffany Legette can be reached on (313) 446-4937 and (571) 270-7078, respectively. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 1/20/2026