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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/06/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, and 14-22 remain pending for consideration.
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 21-22 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter is attached to a bottom surface of the second housing” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 1. Claim 1 from which claim 21 depends previously discloses that “the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter is mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing”. Therefore, it is unclear if the disclosed “Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter” is attached/mounted to the “bottom surface of the second housing” or the “bottom of the chassis”. More clarity is requested.
Claim 22 is also rejected due to dependency.
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 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead et al. (US 6443253 b1, herein after referred to as Whitehead), in view of Coupal-Sikes et al. (US 20240149657 A1, herein after referred to as Sikes), in view of Pezzati (US 20240190296 A1), in view of Kim (US 20240066947 A1), and in further view of Salunkhe et al. (DE102022003827A1, herein after referred to as Salunkhe).
Regarding claim 1, Whitehead teaches a vehicle (vehicle 10 Fig. 1) comprising: a chassis (rear and side frame rails 24, 74 Fig. 1); a roof (roof panel 120 Fig. 6) supported by the chassis (Figs. 1 and 6); a liquid cooling system (thermal management system 110 Fig. 6); wherein the liquid cooling system includes: a radiator (radiator 118 Fig. 6) to cool a coolant (disclosed “coolant” in Col. 5 lines 30-33) when the coolant flows through the radiator (Col. 5 lines 30-33); and one coolant pump (coolant pump 116 Fig. 6) connected to the radiator to circulate the coolant (Fig. 6); the radiator is mounted on the roof (Figs. 6-7).
Whitehead teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a first housing supported by the chassis; and a first side housing and a second side housing arranged on opposing lateral sides of the first housing; each of the first housing, the first side housing, and the second side housing houses one or more battery modules”.
However, Sikes teaches a first housing (central component 212C Fig. 3C and paragraph [0122]) supported by a chassis (Fig. 3C and paragraph [0116] where frame assembly 54 corresponds to the chassis of Whitehead); and a first side housing (first lateral component 204B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) and a second side housing (second lateral component 208B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) arranged on opposing lateral sides of the first housing (Fig. 3C); each of the first housing, the first side housing, and the second side housing houses one or more battery modules (battery units 220 paragraphs [0119] and [0122]) to provide a modular battery assembly (paragraph [0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Whitehead to include “a first housing supported by the chassis; and a first side housing and a second side housing arranged on opposing lateral sides of the first housing; each of the first housing, the first side housing, and the second side housing houses one or more battery modules” in view of the teachings of Sikes to provide a modular battery assembly.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “a heat exchanger through which the coolant and another liquid can circulate; an Onboard Battery Charger to be cooled by the coolant; and a secondary DC-to-DC converter to be cooled by the coolant”.
However, Pezzati teaches a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 31 Fig. 2) through which a coolant (the disclosed “thermoregulation liquid” in paragraph [0038] corresponds to the coolant of Whitehead) and another liquid (disclosed “pressurized oil” in paragraph [0038]) can circulate (paragraph [0038]); an Onboard Battery Charger (component 18 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0028]) to be cooled by the coolant (paragraph [0032]); and a secondary DC-to-DC converter (component 19 Fig. 2 and paragraph [0029]) to be cooled by the coolant (paragraph [0032]) to provide cooling for the hydraulic system of the vehicle (paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “a heat exchanger through which the coolant and another liquid can circulate; an Onboard Battery Charger to be cooled by the coolant; and a secondary DC-to-DC converter to be cooled by the coolant” in view of the teachings of Pezzati to provide cooling for the hydraulic system of the vehicle.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the Onboard Battery Charger with a DC-to-DC converter”.
However, Kim teaches an Onboard Battery Charger (integrated power conversion component 52c Fig. 2 corresponds to the Onboard Battery Charger of Pezzati) with a DC-to-DC converter (paragraph [0039]) to provide an integrated power conversion component (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the Onboard Battery Charger with a DC-to-DC converter” in view of the teachings of Kim to provide an integrated power conversion component.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the Onboard Battery Charger is mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing”.
However, Salunkhe teaches an Onboard Battery Charger (OBL 402 Fig. 4 corresponds to the Onboard charger of Pezzati) is mounted to a bottom of a chassis (Figs. 3A and 4 where floor panel 202 corresponds to the chassis of Whitehead) and under a first housing (Fig. 4 where the housing of battery 404 corresponds to the first housing of Sikes) to allow for the attachment of both horizontally and vertically positioned OBLs (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the Onboard Battery Charger is mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing” in view of the teachings of Salunkhe to allow for the attachment of both horizontally and vertically positioned OBLs.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a blower fan (fans 138 Fig. 7 of Whitehead) to direct air across the radiator (Col. 5 lines 17-20 of Whitehead); wherein the blower fan is mounted on the roof adjacent to the radiator (Fig. 7 of Whitehead).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the heat exchanger is attached to a side surface of a first housing (Fig. 1 of Pezzati where the rear portion of vehicle 1 corresponds to the first housing of Sikes).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swantek et al. (US 20250074256 A1, herein after referred to as Swantek) and Batt (US 5102376).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the one coolant pump includes a first coolant pump and a second coolant pump to circulate the coolant”.
However, Swantek teaches a coolant pump (first screw pump 102a and second screw pump 102b Fig. 1 correspond to the coolant pump of Whitehead) includes a first coolant pump (first screw pump 102a Fig. 1) and a second coolant pump (second screw pump 102b Fig. 1) to circulate a coolant (paragraph [0041]) to provide flexibility and precision in managing the thermal conditions of the system (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the one coolant pump includes a first coolant pump and a second coolant pump to circulate the coolant” in view of the teachings of Swantek to provide flexibility and precision in managing the thermal conditions of the system.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first coolant pump and the second coolant pump are both mounted on the second side housing”.
However, Batt teaches a first coolant pump (first pump 22 Figs. 1-2 corresponds to the first coolant pump of Swantek) and a second coolant pump (second pump 32 Figs. 1-2 corresponds to the second coolant pump of Swantek) are both mounted on a second side housing (Fig. 1 where fluid pan 160 corresponds to the second side housing) so that the coolant pumps are jointly accessible for servicing (Col. 3 lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first coolant pump and the second coolant pump are both mounted on the second side housing” in view of the teachings of Batt so that the coolant pumps are jointly accessible for servicing.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a cabin frame (Fig. 6 of Whitehead) that is connected to the chassis and supports the roof (Figs. 1 and 6 of Whitehead); wherein a fluid connection (Fluid line connecting first screw pump 102a to radiator 108 Fig. 2a of Swantek where radiator 108 corresponds to the radiator of Whitehead) between the radiator and the first coolant pump (Fig. 2a of Swantek) and a fluid connection (Fluid line connecting second screw pump 102b to radiator 108 Fig. 2d of Swantek) between the radiator and the second coolant pump (Fig. 2d of Swantek) extend through internal portions of the cabin frame (body pillars 144 Fig. 6 of Whitehead where radiator coolant lines 142 correspond to the fluid connections of Swantek).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein a first coolant pump and a second coolant pump are located adjacent to one another (Fig. 1 of Batt) on a front surface of a second side housing (Fig. 1 of Batt).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swantek et al. (US 20250074256 A1, herein after referred to as Swantek) and Hashimoto et al. (US 20230132970 A1, herein after referred to as Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the liquid cooling system further includes an electric motor (electric drive motor 50 Fig. 1 of Whitehead).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the liquid cooling system further includes: an inverter to be cooled by the coolant; and the electric motor to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter”.
However, Swantek teaches a liquid cooling system (AVA system 100 Fig. 1 corresponds to the liquid cooling system of Whitehead) further includes: an inverter (inverter 116 Fig. 1) to be cooled by a coolant (paragraph [0062]); and an electric motor (EDU 118 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] corresponds to the electric motor of Whitehead) to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0062]) to convert the DC current generated by the battery into AC current for the motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the liquid cooling system further includes: an inverter to be cooled by the coolant; and the electric motor to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter” in view of the teachings of Swantek to convert the DC current generated by the battery into AC current for the motor.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the inverter is located forward of the electric motor in a front-rear direction of the vehicle”.
However, Hashimoto teaches an inverter (inverter 19 Fig. 3 corresponds to the inverter of Swantek) is located forward of an electric motor (Figs. 2-4 where travel motor 41 corresponds to the electric motor of Whitehead) in a front-rear (Figs. 2-4) direction of a vehicle (electric tractor 1 Fig. 1 corresponds to the vehicle of Whitehead) to ease the manufacturing process of the vehicle (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the inverter is located forward of the electric motor in a front-rear direction of the vehicle” in view of the teachings of Hashimoto to ease the manufacturing process of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the inverter is mounted to a bottom of the chassis (Figs. 3-4 of Hashimoto where machine body chassis 20 corresponds to the chassis of Whitehead) and under the first housing (Figs. 3-4 of Hashimoto where support frame 64 and plate 61 correspond to the first housing of Sikes).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishioka (US 20240084552 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach a hydraulic pump (corresponds to the pump provided in hydraulic circuit 20 Fig. 2 of Pezzati) to circulate the another liquid (paragraph [0030] and Fig. 1 of Pezzati), wherein the hydraulic pump is fluidly connected to the heat exchanger (Fig. 2 of Pezzati).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the hydraulic pump is located rearward of the heat exchanger in a front-rear direction of the vehicle”.
However, Nishioka teaches a hydraulic pump (hydraulic pump 11 Fig. 2 corresponds to the hydraulic pump of Pezzati) is located rearward of a heat exchanger (Fig. 2 where heat exchanger unit 13 corresponds to the heat exchanger of Pezzati) in a front-rear direction of a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 where power shovel 1 corresponds to the vehicle of Whitehead) to easily access the heat exchanger (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the hydraulic pump is located rearward of the heat exchanger in a front-rear direction of the vehicle” in view of the teachings of Nishioka to easily access the heat exchanger.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swantek.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the liquid cooling system further includes an electric motor (electric drive motor 50 Fig. 1 of Whitehead).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the liquid cooling system further includes: an inverter to be cooled by the coolant; and the electric motor to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter; wherein the one coolant pump includes a first coolant pump and a second coolant pump to circulate the coolant”.
However, Swantek teaches wherein a liquid cooling system (AVA system 100 Fig. 1 corresponds to the liquid cooling system of Whitehead) further includes: an inverter (inverter 116 Fig. 1) to be cooled by a coolant (paragraph [0062]); and the electric motor (EDU 118 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] corresponds to the electric motor of Whitehead) to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0062]); wherein a coolant pump (first screw pump 102a and second screw pump 102b Fig. 1 correspond to the coolant pump of Whitehead) includes a first coolant pump (first screw pump 102a Fig. 1) and a second coolant pump (second screw pump 102b Fig. 1) to circulate the coolant (paragraph [0041]) to provide flexibility and precision in managing the thermal conditions of the system (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the liquid cooling system further includes: an inverter to be cooled by the coolant; and the electric motor to be cooled by the coolant and connected to the inverter; wherein the one coolant pump includes a first coolant pump and a second coolant pump to circulate the coolant” in view of the teachings of Swantek to provide flexibility and precision in managing the thermal conditions of the system.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first coolant pump, the inverter, and the electric motor are included in a first coolant path circuit; and the second coolant pump, the heat exchanger, the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter, and the secondary DC-to-DC converter are included in a second coolant path circuit; and the first coolant path circuit and the second coolant path circuit are parallel coolant path circuits”.
However, a different embodiment of Swantek teaches wherein the first coolant pump (first screw pump 102a Fig. 4), the inverter (inverter 116 Fig. 4), and an electric motor (EDU 118 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] corresponds to the electric motor of Whitehead) are included in a first coolant path circuit (drivetrain loop 122a Fig. 4); and the second coolant pump (second screw pump 102b Fig. 4), a heat exchanger (chiller 112 Fig. 4 corresponds to the heat exchanger of Pezzati), an Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter (PTC X12 Fig. 4 corresponds to the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter of Kim), and a secondary DC-to-DC converter (battery system 106 Fig. 4 corresponds to the secondary DC-to-DC converter of Pezzati) are included in a second coolant path circuit (battery loop 122b Fig. 4); and the first coolant path circuit and the second coolant path circuit are parallel coolant path circuits (Fig. 4) to reduce the cost and the complexity of the system (paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the first coolant pump, the inverter, and the electric motor are included in a first coolant path circuit; and the second coolant pump, the heat exchanger, the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter, and the secondary DC-to-DC converter are included in a second coolant path circuit; and the first coolant path circuit and the second coolant path circuit are parallel coolant path circuits” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Swantek to reduce the cost and the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a first coolant path coupling (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek); and a second coolant path coupling (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek); wherein the first coolant path coupling is located between the radiator and each of the first coolant pump and the second coolant pump(see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek); and the second coolant path coupling is located between the radiator and an end of the first coolant path circuit (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek) and between the radiator and an end of the second coolant path circuit (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
1402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein in the first coolant path circuit, the coolant flows from the first coolant pump to the inverter and from the inverter to the electric motor (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek which is the coolant flow direction in state 3 which a person skilled in the art would recognize referring to paragraph [0067] of Swantek).
PNG
media_image2.png
672
1367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein in the second coolant path circuit, the coolant flows from the second coolant pump to the heat exchanger, from the heat exchanger to the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC- to-DC converter, and from the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter to the secondary DC-to-DC converter (see below annotated Fig. 4 of Swantek which is the coolant flow direction in state 3 which a person skilled in the art would recognize referring to paragraph [0067] of Swantek).
PNG
media_image2.png
672
1367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 20190337355 A1, herein after referred to as Shah).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising: an electric motor; an air cooling system, the air cooling system including a condenser; wherein the radiator and the condenser are located adjacent to each other”.
However, a different embodiment of Whitehead teaches further comprising: an electric motor (electric drive motor 50 Fig. 1); an air cooling system (the air cooling system illustrated in Fig. 4), the air cooling system including a condenser (condenser 106 Fig. 3); wherein a radiator (auxiliary radiator 104 Fig. 3) and the condenser are located adjacent to each other (Fig. 3) to improve the overall efficiency of the cooling system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising: an electric motor; an air cooling system, the air cooling system including a condenser; wherein the radiator and the condenser are located adjacent to each other” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Whitehead to improve the overall efficiency of the cooling system.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the electric motor to receive electrical power from the one or more battery modules; and the air cooling system to cool the one or more battery modules, the air cooling system including: a compressor; the condenser; and one or more evaporator coils”.
However, Shah teaches an electric motor (electric motor 107 Fig. 1 corresponds to the electric motor of Whitehead) to receive electrical power (paragraph [0002]) from one or more battery modules (paragraph [0050]); and an air cooling system (compressor 13, condenser 27, first evaporator 12, and second evaporator 22 Fig. 2 correspond to the air cooling system of Whitehead) to cool the one or more battery modules (Fig. 2), the air cooling system including: a compressor (compressor 13 Fig. 2); a condenser (condenser 27 Fig. 2 corresponds to the condenser of Whitehead); and one or more evaporator coils (first evaporator 12 and second evaporator 22 Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the electric motor to receive electrical power from the one or more battery modules; and the air cooling system to cool the one or more battery modules, the air cooling system including: a compressor; the condenser; and one or more evaporator coils” in view of the teachings of Shah to improve the overall efficiency of the cooling system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, Salunkhe, and Shah as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN215921824U, herein after referred to as Huang).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the radiator and the condenser are both mounted on the roof”.
However, Huang teaches wherein a radiator (water radiator 33 Fig. 1 corresponds to the radiator of Whitehead) and a condenser (condenser 22 Fig. 1 corresponds to the condenser of Whitehead) are both mounted on a roof (the disclosed “vehicle roof” in paragraph [22] corresponds to the roof of Whitehead) to save interior vehicle space by providing components on the roof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the radiator and the condenser are both mounted on the roof” in view of the teachings of Huang to save interior vehicle space by providing components on the roof.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead, Sikes, Pezzati, Kim, and Salunkhe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Sujan et al. (US 20240092192 A1, herein after referred to as Sujan).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a second housing (housing 200B Fig. 3C of Sikes) attached to a bottom surface of the first housing (Fig. 3C and paragraph [0121] of Sikes); wherein the second housing houses one or more battery modules (battery units 220 in paragraph [0118] of Sikes).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter is attached to a bottom surface of the second housing”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter is attached to a bottom surface of the second housing” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing an arrangement where the Onboard Battery Charger is coupled to the bottom surface of the second housing.
Furthermore, Sujan teaches an Onboard Battery Charger with a DC-to-DC converter (charge system 34 Fig. 9 and paragraph [0132] corresponds to the Onboard Battery Charger with the DC-to-DC converter of Kim) provided below a bottom surface (bottom surface of bottom slot 502 Figs. 2 and 10) of a second housing (Figs. 2 and 10 where bottom slot 502 corresponds to the second housing of Sikes).
Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Sujan and meet the claimed limitations in order to produce the predictable results of providing an arrangement where the Onboard Battery Charger is coupled to the bottom surface of the second housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 that the OBL in Salunkhe is not “mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing" as recited by claim 1, Examiner disagrees.
Salunkhe teaches mounting OBL 402 to base plate 202 with a substantial portion of OBL 402 located below base plate 202 while battery 404 is mounted above base plate 202 (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0030] to [0031]).
Furthermore, the term “chassis” is not necessarily limited to a separate frame. In a vehicle having a structural body or unibody construction, the vehicle floor and associated structural floor members form part of the vehicle’s supporting structural framework. Thus, when view broadly, the floor panel constitutes a portion of the chassis.
Additionally, Salunkhe teaches in paragraph [0029] that 48V battery 404 is coupled to base plate 202 with “a series of stud bolts/screws 306”. Thus, a person skilled in the art would reasonably recognize that the battery of Salunkhe would be received by an attachment structure/housing that permits the disclosed bolted attachment (see also Fig. 4).
Therefore, since OBL 402 is mounted substantially below base plate 202 which forms part of the vehicle chassis and battery 404 is bolted on the top of base plate 202, then Salunkhe does teach that the OBL is mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 9 that Salunkhe does not teach or suggest “a first housing that has a first side housing and a second side housing arranged on opposing lateral sides" as required by claim 1, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case at hand, Whitehead teaches a vehicle (vehicle 10 Fig. 1) comprising a chassis (rear and side frame rails 24, 74 Fig. 1).
The vehicle of Whitehead is modified by the teachings of a Sikes to include a first housing (central component 212C Fig. 3C and paragraph [0122]) supported by a chassis (Fig. 3C and paragraph [0116] where frame assembly 54 corresponds to the chassis of Whitehead); and a first side housing (first lateral component 204B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) and a second side housing (second lateral component 208B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) arranged on opposing lateral sides of the first housing (Fig. 3C); each of the first housing, the first side housing, and the second side housing houses one or more battery modules (battery units 220 paragraphs [0119] and [0122]) to provide a modular battery assembly (paragraph [0118]).
The vehicle of Whitehead is further modified by the teachings of Salunkhe to include an Onboard Battery Charger (OBL 402 Fig. 4 corresponds to the Onboard charger) is mounted to a bottom of a chassis (Figs. 3A and 4 where floor panel 202 corresponds to the chassis) and under a first housing (Fig. 4 where the housing of battery 404 corresponds to the first housing) to allow for the attachment of both horizontally and vertically positioned OBLs (page 2).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 that there is no motivation to combine Salunkhe with the other cited prior references to provide an arrangement where “the Onboard Battery Charger is mounted to a bottom of the chassis and under the first housing”, Examiner disagrees.
In paragraph [0002], Salunkhe discloses that “on-board charger (OBL) is usually mounted at the rear of the vehicle above the rear floor, together with the 48 V battery, the DC-DC converter, the fuse boxes, and the 12 V batteries”, and such an arrangement would lead to obstruction issues (see paragraph [0003]). Therefore, to address those issues, Salunkhe teaches an arrangement where the OBL is mounted substantially below the floorboard with the battery mounted on the top of the floorboard (see Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0030] to [0031]). Accordingly, the OBL can be mounted either horizontally or vertically (paragraph [0032]) resulting in the lowest section of the OBL to be raised thereby preventing the obstruction issues (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 10 that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11, that Sikes does not teach or suggest “Applicant’s claimed arrangement of three distinct housings”, Examiner disagrees.
For clarity purposes, the above updated rejection of claim 1 is repeated below:
Sikes teaches a first housing (central component 212C Fig. 3C and paragraph [0122]) supported by a chassis (Fig. 3C and paragraph [0116] where frame assembly 54 corresponds to the chassis of Whitehead); and a first side housing (first lateral component 204B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) and a second side housing (second lateral component 208B Fig. 3C and paragraph [0119]) arranged on opposing lateral sides of the first housing (Fig. 3C); each of the first housing, the first side housing, and the second side housing houses one or more battery modules (battery units 220 paragraphs [0119] and [0122]) to provide a modular battery assembly (paragraph [0118]).
In response to Applicant's argument on pages 12 that a person of ordinary skill in the art without impermissible hindsight bias would not look at the teachings of Bat to teach or suggest “mounting coolant pumps on a battery side housing” as recited by claim 2, it is noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant' s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case: all factual findings required by Graham were supplied in the previous and present Actions; the references are related art, and Applicant has supplied no evidence that there is no reasonable expectation of success; all claim limitations were met in the previous and present Actions, and Applicant has merely made the allegation that the limitations are not met, and thus has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified elements in the first action fail to meet the claimed limitations or to how the identified elements are otherwise distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Neither has Applicant supplied any evidence or argument addressing any failure of Examiner's application of the TSM test, pursuant to current governing law (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).
Further, motivation was provided in all present and previous combinations of references. Although a specific motivation may not have been explicitly stated within one of the references, the motivation was not improper, and provided in accordance with the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test (TSM). As such, Examiner's use of these facts as a motivation statement is in compliance with the requirements of the TSM test, since the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test should be flexibly applied and the teaching, suggestion, or motivation need not be written within the reference. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007); Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Lab., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex Parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007).
In the case at hand, the teachings of Bat are used to provide an arrangement in which two pumps are coupled to the same housing.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights