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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-21 and 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 8, “of Claim 7, further a powertrain” should be -- of Claim 7, further comprising a powertrain--, or similar language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 claims a power distribution system having a second mounting system comprising a rail interface, traction inverter, second upper tray, and a traction motor that is configured to be coupled to an electric motor. This inclusion of a traction motor as a part of the second mounting system appears to be a typographical error where “a traction motor” should be --the traction inverter--. The inclusion of a traction motor as part the second mounting (described in ¶¶s 0083 to 0086 and in Figs. 8-13) is not disclosed in the specification. Claims 11-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (9,887,570).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses power distribution assembly for a vehicle, comprising:
a power distribution unit (102) comprising:
a housing (see e.g., Fig. 7A showing an outer housing);
a cable junction (140, 154, see Fig. 7A) disposed on an exterior of the housing;
one or more fuses disposed in the housing configured to interrupt current flow through the power distribution unit and a contactor disposed in the housing and configured to interrupt a current flow from the power distribution unit to a load (see Col. 8, lines 33-46 describing how the unit includes both fuses and contactors to protect the circuit between the unit and a load having a “desired” amount of current); and
a charge circuit (100/154) disposed in the housing and configured to direct current from a DC power source to a vehicle battery assembly, the charge circuit comprising one or more fuses and one or more contactors configured to interrupt a current flow from the DC power source to the vehicle battery assembly (see Col. 15, lines 15-22 describing how a pre-charge circuit is used to protect the connection between the battery and the unit); and
a mounting system configured to couple and suspend the power distribution unit from frame rails of the vehicle (see e.g. Fig. 1D showing the unit 102 suspended from a trailer hitch which one skilled in the relevant art would readily appreciate being coupled to the vehicle frame).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson further discloses that the charge circuit is a first charge circuit and further comprising a second charge circuit (110/150) disposed in the housing configured to receive current from an AC power source and to direct the current flow to a vehicle battery.
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.
Claims 3-9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hebert et al. (11,498,435) and Sidders (12,208,655).
Regarding claims 3-5, Johnson further discloses that the power distribution unit (102) can be disposed within the body (100) of a vehicle (see e.g., Figs. 1C and 1E) and that the unit faces toward a vehicle battery; and that a connector cable (108, see Fig. 7A) is coupled to the power distribution unit (102), but does not specifically recite that the unit has a frame rail interface, an upper tray, or a cable strain relief module.
Hebert teaches another vehicle-mounted power distribution unit (see e.g., Figs. 10-13) including an external housing (1002/1102) protecting power electronics, the housing having a tiered arrangement with different stacked compartments/trays (1004, 1006, 1008) supporting controllers (1014), fuse boxes (1016), inverters (1124), high-voltage battery chargers (1128), DC converters (1134). The unit includes a frame rail interface disposed along its lateral sides (see e.g., Fig. 13 showing the hook-shaped brackets having a vertical portion that engages an inwardly facing portion of the rail and a transverse surface overhanging a horizontal portion of the vehicle’s C-shaped frame rails).
Sidders teaches the well-known expedient of using a connector-aligned strain-relief support at the interface of a vehicle’s high power cabling and its electronic equipment (see e.g., Figs. 7-9 and Col. 5, line 50 to Col. 6, line 35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the power distribution assembly of Johnson to use a tiered housing with a between-frame rail mounting brackets as taught by Hebert and to use strain-relieving cable connectors as taught by Sidders to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., -------mounting a power electronics unit upon a vehicle’s frame rails via suspension brackets; stacking vehicle electronics within a common housing; and using more robust/forgiving connectors in a vehicle) to known devices (e.g., a vehicle power distribution unit) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a unit that consolidates electronic elements to reduce the length of wiring and which protects relatively sensitive equipment with a single housing).
Regarding claims 6-7, Johnson further discloses a second charge circuit (110/150) disposed in the housing configured to receive current from an AC power source and to direct the current flow to a vehicle battery and further discloses that the entire supporting framework is enclosed by the housing panels (see e.g., Figs. 5A and 7A), including below the supporting internal framework, but does not disclose the relative positioning of the power electronics upon the framework within the housing.
As discussed above, Herbert, as applied in the above combination includes a housing having an external mounting bracket (see e.g., Figs. 11A and 11B showing a hook-shaped bracket above reference characters 1102 and 1130, respectively), these mounting brackets project laterally away from an upper tray (e.g., plate “1103” that defines the upper surface of slot 1104) and includes a charging circuit (charger 1128) disposed therein and is supported on the side that is below this plate and including a traction inverter (1124) disposed on the upper surface of the tray (on surface 1103).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the power distribution assembly of Johnson to dispose the electronic components vertically upon the tiers within the housing as taught by Hebert to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation being to mount the electronics in a relatively compact footprint within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Johnson further discloses a powertrain control module (110, see Fig. 9A and Col. 7, lines 51-58 and Col. 8, lines 48-66) configured to regulate the current flow through the traction inverter to an electric motor coupled with the power distribution assembly.
Regarding claim 9¸ Johnson further discloses a debris deflector (see e.g., the exterior panels around the unit 102 in Fig. 7A and panels 168, 192-196 in Fig. 5B) along at least one of the lateral sides of the power distribution assembly, the debris deflector enclosing a bottom side and lateral sides of the power distribution unit and leaving unobstructed access for power cables to the cable junction (see Fig. 7A showing the accessible cables). However, Johnson does not disclose that the debris deflector is coupled with the frame rail interface.
Herbert teaches that the housing includes external covers/panels (see e.g., Fig. 10) that are coupled with the frame rail interfaces/brackets (see e.g., laterally projecting mounting bracket between the leader lines for reference characters 1002 and 1004 in Fig. 10) via the supporting framework.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the power distribution assembly of the Johnson combination to mount the debris deflectors/panels and the supporting brackets together as taught by Hebert to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation being to protect and securely mount the electronics to the supporting internal framing in a relatively compact footprint within the vehicle.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed above Johnson discloses that the distribution unit includes protective panels substantially surrounding the power electronics. The mount of Hebert from the above combination having at least a portion of the component support trays/slots being below the mount (see e.g., Fig. 10). Johnson does not specifically disclose that a lower portion has an access panel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to make the outer panels, including the lower panels removable thereby granting access to the lower portion of the device, since separating parts that were once integral involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). The motivation for doing so would be to grant access to the sealed/protected electronic subcomponents for repair and installation/removal.
Regarding claim 23, the above Johnson/Hebert combination provides for a power distribution assembly having a stacked arrangement within the housing, but does not specifically provide for the unit’s AC charger above the power distribution unit.
The examiner takes the position that mounting the AC charger above the distribution unit in the combination’s stacked arrangement would be nothing more than a matter of design choice. The examiner separately notes that Applicant seeks to claim a patent on the arrangement of parts. To this point, the Applicant is informed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is further emphasized that Applicant has not advanced any novel or unexpected results or provided criticality for the arrangement. As noted by the courts, "it is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability." See Span-Deck, Inc., v. Fab-Con, Incorporated et al., 215 USPQ 835, 841. The particular configuration taught by the Applicant "appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance." Id. Here, the examiner sees no reason why the specific placement of the charger would modify the operation of the device nor have anything other than predictable results.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Hebert and Sidders as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Menon et al. (11,894,533).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Johnson does not disclose a second mounting that separates the inverter and powertrain control module from the first mounting.
Menon teaches another vehicle have a between-frame-rails mounted power distribution system including two longitudinally spaced mounting systems (90/80 and 60; see Fig. 1) supporting the vehicle’s power electronics. A first system (90/80) containing a power distribution unit (90) along with a tiered shelf (80) including a converter and charger (see Col. 6, lines 60-66 and Col. 7, lines 4-25). A second system (60) including a traction inverter (see Col. 6, lines 27-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the power distribution assembly of the Johnson combination to use a longitudinally separated distribution mounting system and a drive power system as taught by Menon to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., separating power equipment in a vehicle to fit a given size constraints by mounting components along the length of a vehicle’s frame) to known devices (e.g., electric vehicles having longitudinally running frame rails) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------vehicle that balances consolidating electronic power components with the need to fit these components within a given package/footprint while maintaining a secure interconnection of the power cabling through the use of strain relieving elements at its connections).
Regarding claims 11-13, Johnson does not disclose that the inverter and PCM are mounted together or that these drive power sub-components are mounted within a common mounting system/ protective housing.
Hebert teaches that the high voltage motor inverter (1124) and controllers (1114) are mounted upon a common mounting space (1103; see Fig. 11A) that is separate from the distribution unit (1120/1122) and charger (1128) with these power electronics mounted within a protective housing-covered framework (see e.g., Figs.10-12B)
As discussed above, Menon teaches that the power electronics of a vehicle can have its motor-specific power electronics, such as its inverter (60) be longitudinally separated from its charger and distribution boxes (80/90).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the power distribution assembly of the Johnson combination to mount the drive power supply-related devices, such as the inverter and controller, together in a protective housing at taught by Hebert to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to maintain the drive power supply subcomponents together to reduce the amount of high-power cabling, while still protecting shielding each of the separate power electronics modules by centrally mounting to the rail and using protecting coverings.
Regarding claim 14, while the separated power mounting system of Menon from the above combination provides for a vertically stacked distribution/charging mount (80), which intuitively would be larger dimensionally than the less-component laden spaced inverter mount (60), it does not specifically provide for one mount having a larger ground clearance than the other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to mount the rail-mounted power electronics having fewer/smaller sub-components within a smaller housing since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art -See In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The motivation for doing so would be reduce the overall size and weight of the separated power electronics mounts, while also further protecting the smaller unit by more of the unit being protected by the vehicle frame rails. The smaller unit being more tucked into the rails would cause them to have a greater ground clearance and would be a natural result that one skilled in the relevant art would see as a benefit to further protect these sub-components.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert in view of Johnson and Mountz (4,198,187).
Regarding claim 26, Hebert discloses a vehicle assembly, comprising:
a vehicle chassis comprising a longitudinal frame rail (1302) having a concave cross- section oriented toward a central vertical plane of the vehicle chassis such that a horizontal surface extends inwardly from a vertical surface of the longitudinal frame rail (see Fig. 13);
a battery pack (102) coupled with the vehicle chassis and disposed at least partially below the longitudinal frame rail (i.e., the battery extends down from the upper surface of the rails to form a substantially flat “skateboard” which reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of the pack being “below” the rail as none of the battery is above the rail); and
a power distribution assembly (see e.g., Fig. 11A), comprising:
a mounting system (see outwardly projecting mounting brackets) comprising a bracket having a vertical portion overlapping the vertical surface of the longitudinal frame rail and a horizontal portion resting on the horizontal surface of the longitudinal frame rail (see Fig. 13 showing the hook-shaped mounting bracket overlapping the top and side of the frame rail 1302), the vertical surface and the horizontal surface comprising a clearance opening (e.g., the open end of the hook-shape); and
a power distribution unit (150) coupled with the mounting system, comprising:
a cable junction disposed adjacent to a rear surface of the battery pack (see e.g., Figs. 11A-B showing the cable connectors and Fig. 13 showing the PDU rearward of the vehicle and its battery location), implicit to this arrangement is that the power supplying battery cable connectors face the battery; and
a charge circuit (1128) configured to direct current from a power source to the battery pack.
.
Hebert further discloses that the PDU includes power regulating elements, such as fuses (see e.g., Col. 14, lines 20-23), but does not specifically provide for current interrupting fuses and contactors that are provided with the distribution unit and charger; or that the mounts include a fastener that cooperates to surround the vehicle frame rail.
Johnson teaches another vehicle power distribution assembly comprising one or more fuses disposed in the housing configured to interrupt current flow through the power distribution unit and a contactor disposed in the housing and configured to interrupt a current flow from the power distribution unit to a load (see Col. 8, lines 33-46 describing how the unit includes both fuses and contactors to protect the circuit between the unit and a load having a “desired” amount of current); and a charge circuit (100/154) disposed in the housing and configured to direct current from a DC power source to a vehicle battery assembly, the charge circuit comprising one or more fuses and one or more contactors configured to interrupt a current flow from the DC power source to the vehicle battery assembly (see Col. 15, lines 15-22 describing how a pre-charge circuit is used to protect the connection between the battery and the unit)
Mountz teaches a truck underbody mounting system having inverted U-bolts (f; see Fig. 6) used to cooperate with a mounting bracket (h) to surround a vehicle’s longitudinally running frame rail (d) to secure a structure to the frame rail.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle assembly of Hebert to include the circuit protection fuses and connectors taught by Johnson and the U-bolt securing fasteners of Mountz to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., -------providing disconnects and fuses to an electrical circuit and using U-bolt connectors to surround a connection to provide a secure coupling) to known devices (e.g., a vehicle power distribution unit mounted to the frame rails) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a unit that has improved protection against electrical shorts and which is more securely held to the supporting vehicle frame).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
The prior art made of record in the attached Notice of References Cited and not relied
upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights