DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed October 30, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed October 30, 2025.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenhouten (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0030605) in view of Hart (Hart, P.; “3D Printing Material Spotlight: Stratsys FDM Nylon 12CF”, 2017, p. 1-9) and Drexler (US PG Pub. NO. 2021/0363748).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Tenhouten teaches a vehicle frame and exoskeleton (500, 600, 702, 1200; i.e. “tub”) comprising a composite structure comprising a 3D-printed shell (506, 614, 1200), a first layer (706) coupled to the shell, a honeycomb material (704) coupled with the shell, and a second layer (708) coupled with the shell (Figs. 5-7; par. 87, 99-102, 115, 119; claims 28-37).
The teachings of Tenhouten differ from the current invention in that his 3D-printed shell is not taught to include a portion made from or including carbon-fiber nylon filament. However, Tenhouten does teach that the parts of his product may be made from 3-D printed plastic (par. 56, 92). Hart further teaches that Stratasys FDM Nylon 12CF, which is a carbon fiber-reinforced nylon filament for 3D printing, demonstrates a very high strength-to-weight ratio, making it ideal for applications where strength and reduced weight are important, demonstrates double the strength and stiffness of unreinforced nylon filament, provides improved wear resistance, and is applicable in a variety of different areas (p. 1-7, text). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Tenhouten’s 3D-printed parts from a carbon-fiber reinforced nylon filament, such as Stratasys FDM Nylon 12CF, because Tenhouten teaches that plastics are appropriate materials for his 3D-printed parts and because the taught carbon-fiber reinforced nylon filament demonstrates an excellent strength-to weight ratio, provides improved wear resistance, and is widely applicable.
The teachings of Tenhouten further differ from the current invention in that his first and second layers are not explicitly taught to be “prepreg carbon fiber layers” and in that epoxy is not disclosed as being coupled to the shell, as instantly claimed. However, Tenhouten does teach that the honeycomb panels in his product may be 3-D printed or produced separately from the frame, by conventional techniques (par. 119). Drexler further teaches a honeycomb panel comprising a honeycomb core, which may be a Nomex honeycomb, that is sandwiched between and bonded via layers of an adhesive, which may be epoxy, to two prepreg layers, which may each be carbon-fiber prepregs comprising carbon-fiber fabrics impregnated with resin (par. 28-30, 32, 44,45). Drexler teaches that the panel may be coupled to a rigid surface of a transport vehicle including by bonding with an adhesive, such as epoxy (par. 28). Drexler’s honeycomb panel is beneficial because it is lightweight, lower-cost, and can be used to absorb, attenuate, and mitigate ambient sound in various types of vehicles (par. 26, 42, 46). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach (i.e. “couple”), including by bonding with a layer of epoxy adhesive, one or more honeycomb panels of Drexler’s design, i.e. one or more honeycomb panels including a Nomex honeycomb sandwiched between and bound with layers of epoxy to two carbon fiber prepreg layers (i.e. a “first prepreg carbon layer” and a “second prepreg carbon layer”), to one or more of the rigid surfaces in Tenhouten and Hart’s vehicle, including to one or more of the 3-D printed shell/tub components comprising at least a portion of carbon fiber nylon filament, as discussed above, because Tenhouten teaches that honeycomb panels may be included in/on his vehicle, including in/on the shell and “tub” parts, in order to provide the vehicle with good noise attenuation and mitigation, and because Drexler’s panel is lightweight, low-cost, and effective at mitigating ambient sounds on a variety of types of vehicles.
As the layers of the prior art honeycomb panel are coupled to each other via layers of epoxy and the honeycomb panel may be coupled to via an epoxy layer to the 3-D printed shell, and as all of the layers are coupled either directly or indirectly to each other, the product of Tenhouten, Hart, and Drexler includes a 3-D printed shell comprising carbon-fiber nylon filament, a first prepreg carbon layer (i.e. “carbon-fiber fabric impregnated with resin”) coupled with the shell, a second prepreg carbon layer (i.e. “carbon-fiber fabric impregnated with resin”) coupled with the shell, a Nomex honeycomb material coupled with the shell, and multiple layers of epoxy, including a first layer of epoxy disposed between the first carbon fiber prepreg and the honeycomb, and a second layer of epoxy disposed between the second carbon fiber prepreg and the honeycomb, coupled to the shell.
The teachings of the cited prior art may be considered to differ from the current invention in that none explicitly teaches a composite structure that includes carbon fiber prepregs bonded to a 3D-printed shell, as claimed. The cited prior art also do not explicitly refer to a “thermal management assembly” adjoined to the vehicle as claimed. However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to join one or more of Drexler’s panels to Tenhouten’s vehicle tub for sound absorption and noise mitigation. As shown in Tenhouten’s figures, the taught 3D printed frame (506, 614, 1200; i.e. “tub”) is itself three-dimensional, and includes areas corresponding to a roof, where passengers may be positioned below portions of the composite structure, body portions, where passengers may be positioned beside, partially below, or partially above portions of the composite structure, and wheel wells, where the composite structure is positioned above car wheels (Figs. 5-8, 12). Tenhouten’s vehicle also includes a floor (516), which is positioned under passengers (Fig. 5). Drexler teaches that noise-attenuation techniques, such as attaching sound-absorbing panels to surfaces, are typically incorporated into vehicles to reduce the transfer of sound and to improve passenger comfort and safety (par. 2). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach Drexler’s panels to any of the surfaces of Tenhouten’s composite tub, including attaching one or more panels such that they are located below a portion of the tub (e.g. below the roof, an inwardly tilting side frame piece, etc.) and attaching one or more panels such that they are located above a portion of the tub or composite vehicle (e.g. over the floor, a part of the wheel well, a part of the bumper, etc.) in order to absorb sound and mitigate noise in those directions and/or from those surfaces, and in order to improve the comfort and safety of passengers who are carried inside of the vehicle.
The product rendered obvious by Tenhouten, Hart, and Drexler, which includes Drexler’s noise mitigation panels coupled to the 3D-printed shell at various locations, including locations wherein a first sound mitigation panel of the structure discussed above is positioned below a portion of the shell (i.e. and below an “underside portion”) and wherein a second sound mitigation panel is positioned above a portion of the shell, includes a first prepreg from the first sound mitigation panel that is coupled to an underside portion of the shell and a second prepreg from the second sound mitigation panel that is coupled to a top side portion of the shell. As the vehicle has a hollow interior, there is space between at least some part of the composite structure and a panel that is coupled to at least some other part of the composite structure.
As just noted, although the cited prior art does not explicitly refer to a “thermal management assembly” coupled to the composite structure, it would have been obvious to couple panels of Drexel’s design to various locations on the prior art composite structure. At least one of Drexel’s panels, which is coupled to the composite structure such that there is at least some space between the panel and at least some other part of the composite structure, may be considered to correspond to the recited “thermal management assembly” because, as noted above, the panel includes two carbon fiber layers, each of which may be considered a “carbon-fiber shield” (i.e. a “first carbon-fiber shield” and a “second carbon-fiber shield”), with a honeycomb, which necessarily has at least some thermal conductivity and, therefore, qualifies as a “conductive layer”, disposed between the carbon fiber layers.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the prepregs on Drexler’s panels are not taught to be printed on the shell. However, Tenhouten does teach that the honeycomb panels and other layers that are included on his vehicle may be produced by 3D printing, including by being co-printed with other portions of the vehicle (par. 119). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to 3D-print one or more of the composite carbon fiber layers (i.e. “prepregs”) forming the noise mitigation panels on/in the prior art product, including printing the layers onto the shells to which they are to be attached because Tenhouten explicitly teaches that 3D-printing is an appropriate and effective means for making the parts of his vehicle, including by printing layers of honeycomb panels onto other portions (e.g. the 3D-printed shell) of his vehicle.
The requirement that the carbon fiber prepregs are printed onto portions of the shell is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Tenhouten, Hart, and Drexler’s product, even not considering the obviousness of 3D-printing the carbon fiber prepreg sheets onto the shells that was just discussed, meets the claim requirement because it has the structure that is implied.
The requirement that the claimed tub is for an electric vehicle is a statement of intended use. The product of the prior art, as discussed above, meets this limitation because it is capable of being used for an electric vehicle.
The requirement that the “thermal management assembly” is for “thermal management” and “to enclose a battery pack between the second carbon shield and the composite structure” are also statements of intended use. One of Drexel’s panels, which would have been obvious to couple to the composite structure for the reasons discussed above, meets these requirements because it is capable of being used to provide at least some thermal management (e.g. its presence alters how heat flows from one side of it to the other versus if no panel occupied the space) and of enclosing a battery pack between it (including its “second carbon-fiber shield”) and at least some other part of the composite structure.
Regarding claim 6, Drexler’s Nomex honeycomb core may have a thickness in the range of 0.25 to 2 inches (i.e. 6.35 to 50.8 mm) (par. 8). The instantly claimed thickness range is encompassed and rendered obvious by Drexler. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenhouten in view of Hart, Yamaguchi (US PG Pub. No. 2004/0200571), and Drexler.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, and 7, as discussed above, Tenhouten and Hart teach or render obvious a vehicle frame including a tub comprising a composite structure comprising a 3D-printed shell including at least a portion of a carbon-fiber nylon filament, a first layer coupled to the shell, a honeycomb coupled to the shell, and a second layer coupled to the shell, as recited in claims 1, 3, and 5.
The teachings of Tenhouten further differ from the current invention in that his first and second layers are not explicitly taught to be “prepreg carbon fiber layers” and in that epoxy is not disclosed as being coupled to the shell, as instantly claimed. However, as noted above, Tenhouten teaches including a honeycomb structure between shell layers. Tenhouten also teaches that this structure, which is the sandwich structure in Figure 7, can include a monocoque structure with dual carbon sheets having a honeycomb structure therebetween, and can be produced by 3-D printing or by using conventional techniques (par. 100, 119). Being part of the overall frame (i.e. “tub”) the layer arrangement depicted in Figure 7 is necessarily coupled, at least indirectly, to the other portions of the tub that are discussed and rendered obvious above.
Yamaguchi further teaches a composite panel for motor vehicles comprising a Nomex honeycomb core that is sandwiched between and bonded to two epoxy layers that are further bonded to resin-impregnated carbon fiber fabric layers (i.e. a “first prepreg carbon fiber layer” and a “second prepreg carbon fiber layer”) positioned on opposite sides of the structure (Table 1, 20, 21). Yamaguchi’s panel is beneficial because it is low-cost and lightweight, has high stiffness, and demonstrates good strength (par. 2, 38, 39, 48). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Tenhouten’s monocoque honeycomb panel from a Nomex honeycomb core that is sandwiched between and bonded to two epoxy layers that are further bonded to two, resin-impregnated carbon fiber fabric layers (i.e. a “first prepreg carbon fiber layer” and a “second prepreg carbon fiber layer”) positioned on opposite sides of the honeycomb structure and epoxy layers, as taught by Yamaguchi, because Yamaguchi discloses that the structure is appropriate for motor vehicles and advantageously is low-cost and lightweight, has high stiffness, and demonstrates good strength.
As all of the layers are coupled either directly or indirectly to each other, the product of Tenhouten, Hart, and Yamaguchi includes a 3-D printed shell comprising carbon-fiber nylon filament, a first prepreg carbon layer (i.e. “carbon-fiber fabric impregnated with resin”) coupled with the shell, a second prepreg carbon layer (i.e. “carbon-fiber fabric impregnated with resin”) coupled with the shell, a Nomex honeycomb material coupled with the shell, and multiple layers of epoxy, including a first layer of epoxy disposed between the first carbon fiber prepreg and the honeycomb, and a second layer of epoxy disposed between the second carbon fiber prepreg and the honeycomb, coupled to the shell.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that none teaches a composite structure that includes carbon fiber prepregs bonded to two sides of a 3D-printed shell, as claimed. The cited prior art also do not explicitly refer to a “thermal management assembly” adjoined to the vehicle as claimed. However, as discussed above, Drexler teaches or renders obvious a honeycomb panel that includes all of the layers listed in claim 1 (i.e. with the exception of the 3D-printed shell), which Drexler teaches is beneficial because it is lightweight, lower-cost, and can be used to absorb, attenuate, and mitigate ambient sound in various types of vehicles (par. 26, 42, 46). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach (i.e. “couple”) a honeycomb panel of Drexler’s design, i.e. a honeycomb panel including a Nomex honeycomb sandwiched between and bound with layers of epoxy to two carbon fiber prepreg layers (i.e. a “first prepreg carbon layer” and a “second prepreg carbon layer”), to one or more of the rigid surfaces in Tenhouten, Hart, and Yamaguchi’s vehicle, including to one or more of the 3-D printed shell/tub components comprising at least a portion of carbon fiber nylon filament, as discussed above, because Tenhouten teaches that honeycomb panels may be included in/on his vehicle, including in/on the shell and “tub” parts, in order to provide the vehicle with good noise attenuation and mitigation, and because Drexler’s panel is lightweight, low-cost, and effective at mitigating ambient sounds on a variety of types of vehicles.
As shown in Tenhouten’s figures, the taught 3D printed frame (506, 614, 1200; i.e. “tub”) is itself three-dimensional, and includes areas corresponding to a roof, where passengers may be positioned below portions of the composite structure, body portions, where passengers may be positioned beside, partially below, or partially above portions of the composite structure, and wheel wells, where the composite structure is positioned above car wheels (Figs. 5-8, 12). Tenhouten’s vehicle also includes a floor (516), which is positioned under passengers (Fig. 5). Drexler teaches that noise-attenuation techniques, such as attaching sound-absorbing panels to surfaces, are typically incorporated into vehicles to reduce the transfer of sound and to improve passenger comfort and safety (par. 2). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach Drexler’s panels to any of the surfaces of Tenhouten, Hart, and Yamaguchi’s composite tub, including attaching one or more panels such that they are located below a portion of the tub (e.g. below the roof, an inwardly-tilting side frame piece, etc.) and attaching one or more panels such that they are located above a portion of the tub or composite vehicle (e.g. over the floor, a part of the wheel well, a part of the bumper, etc.) in order to absorb sound and mitigate noise in those directions and/or from those surfaces, and in order to improve the comfort and safety of passengers who are carried inside of the vehicle.
The product rendered obvious by Tenhouten, Hart, Yamaguchi, and Drexler, which includes Drexler’s noise mitigation panels coupled to the 3D-printed shell at various locations, including locations wherein a first sound mitigation panel of the structure discussed above is positioned below a portion of the shell (i.e. and below an “underside portion”) and wherein a second sound mitigation panel is positioned above a portion of the shell (i.e. and above a “top side portion of the shell”), includes a first prepreg from the first sound mitigation panel that is coupled to an underside portion of the shell and a second prepreg from the second sound mitigation panel that is coupled to a top side portion of the shell.
As just noted, although the cited prior art does not explicitly refer to a “thermal management assembly” coupled to the composite structure, it would have been obvious to couple panels of Drexel’s design to various locations on the prior art composite structure. At least one of Drexel’s panels, which is coupled to the composite structure such that there is at least some space between the panel and at least some other part of the composite structure, may be considered to correspond to the recited “thermal management assembly” because, as noted above, the panel includes two carbon fiber layers, each of which may be considered a “carbon-fiber shield” (i.e. a “first carbon-fiber shield” and a “second carbon-fiber shield”), with a honeycomb, which necessarily has at least some thermal conductivity and, therefore, qualifies as a “conductive layer”, disposed between the carbon fiber layers.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the prepregs on Drexler’s panels are not taught to be printed on the shell. However, Tenhouten does teach that the honeycomb panels and other layers included on/in his vehicle may be produced by 3D printing, including by being co-printed with other portions of the vehicle (par. 119). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to 3D-print one or more of the composite carbon fiber layers (i.e. “prepregs”) forming the noise mitigation panels on/in the prior art product, including printing the layers onto the shells to which they are to be attached because Tenhouten explicitly teaches that 3D-printing is an appropriate and effective means for making the parts of his vehicle, including by printing layers of honeycomb panels onto other portions (e.g. the 3D-printed shell) of his vehicle.
The requirement that the carbon fiber prepregs are printed onto portions of the shell is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Tenhouten, Hart, Yamaguchi, and Drexler’s product, even not considering the obviousness of 3D-printing the carbon fiber prepreg sheets onto the shells that was just discussed, meets the claim requirement because it has the structure that is implied.
The requirement that the claimed tub is for an electric vehicle is a statement of intended use. The product of the prior art, as discussed above, meets this limitation because it is capable of being used for an electric vehicle.
The requirement that the “thermal management assembly” is for “thermal management” and “to enclose a battery pack between the second carbon shield and the composite structure” are also statements of intended use. One of Drexel’s panels, which would have been obvious to couple to the composite structure for the reasons discussed above, meets these requirements because it is capable of being used to provide at least some thermal management (e.g. its presence alters how heat flows from one side of it to the other versus if no panel occupied the space) and of enclosing a battery pack between it (including its “second carbon-fiber shield”) and at least some other part of the composite structure.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that their Nomex honeycomb is not disclosed to have a thickness in the recited range. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited thickness range appears to be a prima facie obvious selection of size that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the prior art teaches or renders obvious a composite structure that is considered herein to meet the requirements of claim 7. To the extent that the recitation is intended to convey that the claimed product has an integral structure, it is noted that the decision to make integral components which are separable is a prima facie obvious engineering choice that does not distinguish the claimed product over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 V. Therefore, the requirement of a monocoque frame is prima facie obvious in view of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the inclusion of a “thermal management assembly” composed and placed as recited in amended claim 1 distinguishes the claimed invention over the cited prior art because none of the cited references teaches a “thermal management assembly”. However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to couple multiple panels of Drexel’s design to Tenhouten’s composite structure, including in a location where there is space between at least some of the panel (e.g. including a layer corresponding to the recited “second carbon-fiber shield”) and at least some other part (e.g. an opposite side or roof of the vehicle) of the composite structure. Drexel’s composite panels currently meet the claim requirements of being a “thermal management assembly” because no particular properties or features are recited to qualify a structure as a “thermal management assembly”, no actual structures are recited for “carbon-fiber shields”, no composition or level of conductivity is recited for the “conductive layer”, and no specific placement of the “thermal management assembly” with respect to the rest of the composite structure is claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784