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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 02/20/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Indian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 3, “, according to an exemplary embodiment” should be removed.
Claim 13, line 1, “Side Crash” should be –side crash--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 shape corrugation processing of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 9-19 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 is not clearly understood because “the beams of box, C and I sections” is unclear. Is this claiming the beams have at least one of box, C, and I cross sections? Is this claiming beams in addition to the previously claimed beams? The claim has been read as requiring at least one of the beams to have one of box, C, and I cross sections.
Claim 6 is not clearly understood because “The automobile system” lacks a clear antecedent basis. The examiner suggests changing the term to –The BEV system--.
Claim 9 is not clearly understood because “base surfaces” and “the mounting elements” lack clear antecedent basis.
Claim 16 is not clearly understood because “shape corrugation processing” is unclear. The examiner believes this means the suspension tower has a corrugated shape, but this feature is not shown.
Claim 19 is not clearly understood because “end-to-end thermoplastic structural design” is not defined. This term was not found in a search of other patent applications and the internet. The claim, as best understood, requires the structure of claim 1 to be formed of thermoplastic material.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 only contains limitations claimed in claim 1 so it does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmon et al. (US 2022/0355636) in view of Schaper (5,934,397).
Harmon et al. discloses a battery electric vehicle system for a passenger and cargo application comprising a chassis mainframe (502,710A,710B) coupled to a plurality of crash structures (702A,702B), as shown in Figures 1 and 7. The plurality of crash structures comprises a front crash structure (702A) and a rear crash structure (702B), as shown in Figure 7. The front crash structure (702A) is attached to the chassis mainframe through a first flanged joint using rivets, as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0089].
PNG
media_image1.png
156
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A flanged joint butts two beams of the plurality of crash structures to provide both a load path for a load transfer from the plurality of crash structures and a base for arresting crash deformation. The flanged joint enables ease of repair in case of damage to the crash structure when complete replacement of the crash structure is required since the assemblies are interchangeable, as disclosed in paragraph [0062]. However, Harmon et al. does not disclose the adhesive bond.
In reference to claim 2, the limitations duplicate limitations of claim 1.
In reference to claim 8, suspension towers (1010A,1010B,1010C,1010D), body for a cabin, a plurality of side structures (10960A-D), the front crash structure (702A), and the rear crash structure (702B) are all directly mounted over the chassis mainframe, as shown in Figures 1, 10, and 19.
Schaper teaches using adhesives to connect assemblies of a vehicle structure, as disclosed on lines 41-44 of column 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use adhesive in addition to the rivets for the joint of Harmon et al., as taught by Schaper, with a reasonable expectation for success to strengthen the joint.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Harmon et al. (US 2022/0355636) and Schaper (5,934,397), as applied to claim 1, in view of Mukainakano (US 2021/0094243).
Harmon et al., as modified, in reference to claim 9 discloses a plurality of attachments to the chassis mainframe are shaped in order to provide the base for interfacing with mounting elements, as shown in Figure 7. Each interface of the plurality of attachments is inherently stiffened and strengthened for a smooth load transfer. This clause defines a function, not a structure. The structure has mechanical properties capable of transferring a load so it is considered stiffened and strengthened.
However, Harmon et al., as modified, does not disclose the claimed material.
Mukainakano, in reference to claim 3, teaches forming a vehicle structure from a combination of single direction fibers wrapped of woven fabric of the same fibers, as disclosed in the abstract. The pultrusion process does not further limit the structural limitations of the claim since the process does not result in additional structural features.
In reference to claim 4, the fiber orientation provides a major fiber volume fraction in the longitudinal direction with sufficient transverse direction distribution to handle shear and torsion loads, as disclosed in the abstract.
In reference to claim 19, the structure is formed from thermoplastic material, as disclosed in paragraph [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the chassis mainframe of Harmon et al., as modified, from a combination of single direction fibers wrapped of woven fabric of the same fibers, as taught by Mukainakano, with a reasonable expectation for success to reduce weight and corrosion while providing a sufficiently strong structure.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 4, in view of DE 102022105446.
Harmon et al., as twice modified, does not disclose the fiber volume fraction.
DE 102022105446 teaches forming a fiber reinforced composite with a volume fraction of about 50 percent for the fibers and about 50 percent for the resin, as disclosed in the 12 paragraph of the Detailed Description section of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Harmon et al., as twice modified, with a fiber volume of approximately 50 percent, as taught by DE 102022105446, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength with relatively low weight.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 5, in view of Mersmann (US 2021/0163079).
Harmon et al., as thrice modified, discloses beams with box cross sections, as shown in Figure 7. The walls may have any suitable thickness, as disclosed in paragraph [0057].
However Harmon et al., as thrice modified, does not explicitly state the thicknesses vary.
Mersmann discloses forming vehicle members with varied thicknesses to tailor the strength as needed, as disclosed in paragraph [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the beams of Harmon et al., as thrice modified, with varied thicknesses, as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength with relatively low weight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Harmon et al. (US 2022/0355636) and Schaper (5,934,397), as applied to claim 1, in view of Mersmann (US 2021/0163079).
Harmon et al., as modified, does not disclose the chassis mainframe terminates after the suspension towers.
Mersmann teaches forming a chassis mainframe that terminates after the suspension towers, as shown in Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the chassis mainframe of Harmon et al., as modified, to terminate after the suspension towers, as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious design choice that does not alter the function or operation of the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 9, in view of Browne et al. (US 2005/0104391).
Harmon et al., as twice modified, discloses the front crash structure (702A) comprises an assembly of composite beams form a U-shaped structure.
However, Harmon et al., as twice modified, does not disclose the longitudinal beams of the front crash structure have a telescopic construction embedded with foam.
Browne et al. teaches forming longitudinal beams (14) with a telescopic construction with embedded foam, as shown in Figures 1-3 and disclosed in paragraph [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the longitudinal beams of Harmon et al., as twice modified, with a telescopic construction with embedded foam, as taught by Browne et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to absorb impact energy and heal itself in minor impacts to reduce repair costs while protecting passengers.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 10.
Harmon et al., as thrice modified, is directed to using common modules to produce vehicles of different lengths and widths.
However, Harmon et al., as thrice modified, does not explicitly state the rear crash structure is shorter than the length of the front crash structure.
In reference to claim 12, a plurality of side crash pillars are attached to one or more side frames of the cabin, as shown in Figure 1. The crash pillars are the A-pillar, B-pillar, and C-pillar forming the openings of the doors, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 13, each side frame comprises the plurality of side crash pillars, as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the crash beams of the rear crash structure with a shorter length than the crash beams of the front crash structure of Harmon et al. with a reasonable expectation for success to effectively absorb impact energy from both the front and the rear at the minimum length of the vehicle since front impacts can be higher energy impacts than rear impacts.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 13, in view of Onoue et al. (US 2016/0356334).
Harmon et al., as quadruple modified, with respect to claim 15, discloses the chassis mainframe comprises an assembly of suspension tower, as shown in Figures 10-12B.
However, Harmon et al., as quadruple modified, does not disclose the specific material.
Onoue et al. teaches forming a vehicle pillar from bidirectional continuous E-glass fabric embedded with resin in 60-40% fiber-resin ratio, as disclosed in paragraphs [0113], [0152], [0183], and [0274].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the crash pillars of Harmon et al., as quadruple modified, from bidirectional continuous E-glass fabric embedded with resin in 60-40% fiber-resin ratio, as taught by Onoue et al., with a reasonable expectation for success provide a sufficiently strong and lightweight pillar to provide passenger protection.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 15, in view of Nishida et al. (US 2022/0274653).
Harmon et al., as quintuple modified, does not disclose the specifics of the suspension towers.
Nishida et al. teaches forming suspension towers (4) with a monocoque construction stiffened through a corrugation shape, as best understood, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraphs [0049]-[0050]. The shape of the suspension tower is the same as that shown in the applicant’s drawings so it is considered to be corrugated, as best understood.
In reference to claim 17, the two front suspension towers are cross connected using an overhead beam (20) to stiffen and strengthen the assembly of suspension towers, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the suspension towers of Harmon et al., as quintuple modified, with the shape and overhead beam, as taught by Nishida et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve rigidity of the suspension towers to improve the effectiveness of the suspension.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 17, in view of Atsumi et al. (US 2021/0214010).
Harmon et al., as hextuple modified, does not disclose the bracket.
Atsumi et al., teaches a connector bracket (50R,50L) is used for each interface between the suspension towers (4) and frame (2), as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a connector bracket at each interface of the suspension towers and the chassis mainframe of Harmon et al., as hextuple modified, as taught by Atsumi et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve rigidity of the suspension towers to improve the effectiveness of the suspension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 December 12, 2025