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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (7/28/23) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant numbered consecutive claims as 4. Appropriate correction is required.
2. Renumbered Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant should make sure it depends from the renumbered claim 5 which introduces welding in the forthcoming amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Renumbered Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recite “the bracket” but should recite one of “the first sub-bracket” or “the second sub-bracket”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(f) which requires that if there are several claims, they shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals. The claims as filed include two claims both numbered as claim “4”. Misnumbered claims “4” (the second claim 4) through 19 have been renumbered as claims 5-20. The applicant's next response must reflect the claims as renumbered, with the claim dependencies changed accordingly.
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Renumbered Claims 1, 9, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 18, 16, 16 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,745,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the claims of the present application are included in the claims of the reference application.
Renumbered Claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,745,574.
Regarding renumbered claim 16, the only limitation not disclosed in claim 15 of the ‘574 patent is that there is an electric-vehicle battery supported by the battery tray. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electric-vehicle battery tray of claim 15 of the ‘574 patent to support an electric-vehicle battery.
Regarding renumbered claim 17, the only limitation not disclosed in claim 15 of the ‘574 patent is a wheel supported by the subframe vehicle-forward of the bracket (see the above claim objection to claim 17). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electric-vehicle battery of claim 15 of the ‘574 patent to include a wheel supported by the subframe vehicle-forward of the bracket.
Regarding renumbered claim 20, see the above nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting rejections of renumbered claims 16 and 17.
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.
Renumbered Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bryer (US 9,937,781).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Bryer discloses a vehicle, comprising:
an electric-vehicle battery tray (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); a rocker rail (Bryer, annotated FIG 1) elongated along a vehicle-longitudinal axis; a subframe (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); and a first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1) and a second sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1) fixed to the first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1), the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket both being fixed to the battery tray, the rocker rail, and the subframe (Bryer, annotated FIG 1, each enumerated component in the claim is ultimately connected at assembly).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second sub-bracket is stacked on the first sub-bracket above the first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the second sub-bracket is between the subframe and the first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
757
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the first sub-bracket is fixed to the second sub-bracket about an outer surface of the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1, each enumerated component in the claim is ultimately connected at assembly).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 4, further comprising a weld between the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket (Bryer, see Column 7, lines 15-20 disclose welding and can be selected from the known group of mechanical fastening techniques).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the weld extends along the vehicle-longitudinal axis and a vehicle-lateral axis (Bryer, see Column 7, lines 15-20 disclose welding and can be selected from the known group of mechanical fastening techniques and have any desired weld length).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a weld between the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket (Bryer, see Column 7, lines 15-20 disclose welding and can be selected from the known group of mechanical fastening techniques).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second sub-bracket is between the subframe and the first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 2).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first sub-bracket is fixed to the second sub-bracket about an outer surface of the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1, each enumerated component in the claim is ultimately connected at assembly).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket are both fixed to the subframe with a fastener that extends through both the first sub-bracket and the second sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
756
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first sub-bracket includes a flange extending downward away from the battery tray (Bryer, annotated FIG 2 below which can extend the downward portion of the first sub bracket to any desired depth to protect the battery).
PNG
media_image4.png
720
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the flange extends downward away from the battery tray to a distal edge, the distal edge being lower than the battery tray (Bryer, annotated FIG 2 above which can extend the downward portion of the first sub bracket to any desired depth to protect the battery).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the flange is elongated along a vehicle-lateral axis (Bryer, annotated FIG 2 above which can extend the downward portion of the first sub bracket to any desired depth to protect the battery).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising an electric-vehicle battery supported by the battery tray (Bryer, vehicle 10 includes battery modules 24 in FIG 2).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a wheel supported by the subframe vehicle-forward of the bracket (See claim objection above regarding “the bracket”. The front wheels of Bryer are forward of the first and second sub-brackets).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Bryer discloses a vehicle, comprising: an electric-vehicle battery tray (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); a rocker rail (Bryer, annotated FIG 1) elongated along a vehicle-longitudinal axis (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); a subframe (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); and a bracket (First and Second sub brackets in annotated FIG 1) fixed to the battery tray, the rocker rail, and the subframe (Bryer, annotated FIG 1); the bracket including a flange extending downward to a distal end lower than the battery tray (Bryer, annotated FIG 2 above which can extend the downward portion of the first sub bracket to any desired depth to protect the battery).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 18, wherein the bracket includes a first sub-bracket and a second sub-bracket stacked on and fixed to the first sub-bracket (Bryer, annotated FIG 1), the first sub-bracket including flange (Bryer, annotated FIG 2 above which can extend the downward portion of the first sub bracket to any desired depth to protect the battery).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 18, further comprising: an electric-vehicle battery supported by the battery tray (Bryer, vehicle 10 includes battery modules 24 in FIG 2); and a wheel supported by the subframe vehicle-forward of the bracket (Bryer, the front wheel wells (which house the wheels) are forward of the first and second sub-brackets which are near the vehicle bulkhead/cabin).
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. Renumbered Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryer (US 9,937,781) in view of Desourdy et al. (US 11,673,443).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Bryer discloses the vehicle of claim 11.
-However, it fails to illustrate the control arm and a control arm bracket supported by the subframe, the control arm bracket having a second flange extending downward away from the battery tray.
-Nevertheless, Desourdy discloses a suspension structure in annotated FIG 3 including subframe, control arm and flanged bracketry.
-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 Bryer to have a front suspension structure including control arms and attachment means as taught by Desourdy with a reasonable expectation of success in order to integrate the suspension with the traction battery.
PNG
media_image5.png
721
795
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Bryer/Desourdy disclose the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the flange and the second flange are elongated along a vehicle-lateral axis (Each flange of Bryer and Desourdy extend down and laterally).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (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 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 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614