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 with traverse of Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 09/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search and/or examination burden amongst the identified groups of claims exists. This is not found persuasive due to adaptation/method claims existing in a different subclass than product claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-4 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. (US 2021/0402861 A1), further in view of Seepersad et al. (US 2016/0032997 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Aitharaju teaches an energy-absorbing structure for an EV battery enclosure including a housing which includes a first wall and a second wall, the first wall and the second wall being spaced apart from one another to at least partially define an interior compartment, and a first plurality of discrete energy-absorbing elements each including a polymer and a plurality of reinforcing fibers, the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements being at least partially disposed within the interior compartment and fixed to the housing, each energy-absorbing element of the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements including an elongated hollow structure extending between a first end and a second end, the elongated hollow structure defining a longitudinal axis extending nonparallel to at least one of the first wall and the second wall (Paragraph [0014]) wherein the peripheral wall of the elongated hollow structure of each energy-absorbing element of the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements defines a thickness that varies along the longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0017]) which more specifically defines a first thickness at the first end, and the peripheral wall of the elongated hollow structure of each energy-absorbing element of the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements defines a second thickness at the second end, the second thickness being less than the first thickness (Paragraph [0018]).
Aitharaju teaches energy-absorbing elements may be fixed to at least one of the first wall and the second wall (Paragraph [0038]). Furthermore, Seepersad teaches top and bottom retaining walls that are joined with the sidewalls of an energy absorption structure (Paragraph [0028]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the energy-absorbing structure of Aitharaju with integrated parts and/or functionalities in view of the teachings of Seepersad to arrive at the claimed configuration of first and second portions joined to respective first and second members since the court held that "the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP §2144.04(V). In the instant case, an integrated first and second portion joined to respective first and second members as claimed does not result in a structural difference or expected functional difference from the prior art assembly as taught by Seepersad (Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, Aitharaju does not teach the second thickness to be about 5% to 50% less than the first thickness. Aitharaju teaches the peripheral wall of the elongated hollow structure of each energy-absorbing element of the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements defines a thickness that varies along the longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0017]) which more specifically defines a first thickness at the first end, and the peripheral wall of the elongated hollow structure of each energy-absorbing element of the first plurality of energy-absorbing elements defines a second thickness at the second end, the second thickness being less than the first thickness (Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aitharaju to optimize the lower thickness of the second portion to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of a second portion by the desire to facilitate crush or failure initiation at one of the ends over the other of the ends as taught by Aitharaju (Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Aitharaju does not teach the angles which the surfaces of the first and second portions make with each of the first and second members. Aitharaju teaches an internal angle formed by the polygonal energy-absorbing element (Fig. 8, Item 286).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aitharaju to optimize internal angles formed by energy-absorbing elements to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize internal angles formed by energy-absorbing elements by the desire to utilize alternate or additional geometries for transverse walls of energy-absorbing elements in order to facilitate crush or failure initiation as taught by Aitharaju (Paragraph [0040]). Furthermore, optimizing the internal angle necessarily optimizes its equivalent opposite angle as well as the external angle due to being inseparable variables.
Regarding Claim 9, Aitharaju teaches repeat units of polygonal energy-absorbing structures which may include an elongated hollow structure defining a longitudinal axis (Paragraph [0038]; Fig. 8, Item 274) which is substantially a channel.
Regarding Claim 10, Aitharaju does not teach metal foam or crushable plastic disposed in each channel. Seepersad teaches using lateral constraints, spacers, or shunts which may be incorporated into each unit cell in order to limit the amount of movement and compression that each cell is allowed to undergo (Paragraphs [0032], [0033]) wherein unit cells are fabricated using materials such as Nylon 11 powder (Paragraph [0042]) which is a plastic material.
Regarding Claim 11, Aitharaju teaches a housing including a first wall and a second wall spaced apart from one another to at least partially define an interior compartment (Paragraph [0014]) and the walls may be disposed such that there is locally an upper and lower wall (Fig. 3, Items 306 and 304; Fig. 4, Items 408 and 406) which may be rotated and configured with respect to the final assembly to be an inner and outer wall.
Regarding Claim 12, Aitharaju does not explicitly teach using an extrusion process to form the first and second walls or the energy-absorbing structures. Aitharaju does teach that the forming of the battery tray including these components may be formed via molding, infusions, or other suitable composite manufacturing methods (Paragraph [0041]). Extrusion processes, which significantly overlap in scope with molding and infusion applications, are well-known manufacturing methods in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Claim 12 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “formed by extrusion”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP §2113.
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Aitharaju teaches an array of polygonal tubes between a first and second wall as an embodiment of the energy-absorbing assembly (Paragraph [0039]; Fig. 8) wherein the energy-absorbing elements may be fixed to at least one of the first wall and the second wall (Paragraph [0038]) which are energy-absorbing components for impact resistance and meet the limitation threshold for configurations which deform to absorb impact energy. Furthermore, Seepersad teaches an energy absorption structure that deforms under load (Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deforming energy absorption structures as taught by Seepersad with the energy-absorbing assembly as taught by Aitharaju in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as a negative stiffness profile in which, if the force is increased beyond a sufficient threshold value, support members may “snap through” and deform to positions where the members are oriented in reverse concavity as taught by Seepersad (Paragraph [0025]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 14, Aitharaju teaches an array of polygonal tubes between a first and second wall as an embodiment of the energy-absorbing assembly (Paragraph [0039]; Fig. 8) with hexagonal cross-sections. Additionally, Seepersad teaches a honeycomb energy absorption structure (Paragraph [0022]; Figs. 1 and 2) with substantially hexagonal cross-sections.
Regarding Claim 16, Aitharaju teaches a housing including a first wall and a second wall spaced apart from one another to at least partially define an interior compartment (Paragraph [0014]) and the walls may be disposed such that there is locally an upper and lower wall (Fig. 3, Items 306 and 304; Fig. 4, Items 408 and 406) which may be rotated and configured with respect to the final assembly to be an inner and outer wall.
Regarding Claim 17, Aitharaju does not explicitly teach using an extrusion process to form the first and second walls or the energy-absorbing structures. Aitharaju does teach that the forming of the battery tray including these components may be formed via molding, infusions, or other suitable composite manufacturing methods (Paragraph [0041]). Extrusion processes, which significantly overlap in scope with molding and infusion applications, are well-known manufacturing methods in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Aitharaju does not teach metal foam or crushable plastic disposed in each channel. Seepersad teaches using lateral constraints, spacers, or shunts which may be incorporated into each unit cell in order to limit the amount of movement and compression that each cell is allowed to undergo (Paragraphs [0032], [0033]) wherein unit cells are fabricated using materials such as Nylon 11 powder (Paragraph [0042]) which is a plastic material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. (US 2021/0402861 A1) and Seepersad et al. (US 2016/0032997 A1) as in Claims 1-4 and 9-18 above, further in view of Baccouche et al. (US 2022/0134857 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Aitharaju does not teach a chevron shape. Baccouche teaches reinforcement beams for use in an EV battery enclosure (Paragraphs [0011], [0043]) wherein supporting beams can be arranged in a diamond shape (Paragraph [0045; Figs. 3 and 4, Items 48, 50, 56, and 58) which necessarily has outward opposite-facing chevron shapes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outward opposite-facing chevron-shaped supports as taught by Baccouche with the energy-absorbing structure as taught by Aitharaju in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as distributing loads from a vehicle-side impact to reduce the likelihood of buckling of the beams and/or deformation of the frame rails holding the battery enclosure as taught by Baccouche (Paragraph [0047]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. (US 2021/0402861 A1) and Seepersad et al. (US 2016/0032997 A1) as in Claims 1-4 and 9-18 above and Baccouche et al. (US 2022/0134857 A1) as in Claim 5 above, further in view of Saberi et al. ("Comparative Study of using Different Types of Bracing Systems in Mid-Rise Steel Structures", Advance Researches in Civil Engineering (ARCE), ISSN: 2645-7229, Vol. 5, No. 2, Pages 31-44).
Regarding Claims 6-8, Aitharaju does not teach the chevron orientation of first and second ribs which have top and bottom portions that create an angle where they meet. Baccouche teaches chevron-shaped support beams for an EV battery enclosure as in Claim 5 above. Saberi further teaches load-bearing bracing configurations having chevron shapes wherein adjacent supports are chevrons both facing a first direction (Page 34, Fig. d), both facing a second direction (Page 35, Fig. e), or facing opposite directions inwardly or outwardly (Page 35, Fig. f). Saberi also teaches the chevron configurations to the benefit of bracing for displacement reduction (Introduction, Pages 32-33; Conclusion, Page 43).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
1039
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saberi et al. Pages 34 and 35, Figures d-f: Various directional orientations of chevron support beams (dotted lines) against downward force (solid arrow) and side-to-side seismic force (not depicted).
PNG
media_image2.png
541
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baccouche et al. Fig. 4: Outward opposite-facing chevron-shaped support beams (dotted lines) against impact force originating from the right side of the vehicle (solid arrow). The front of the vehicle is topmost in the figure.
PNG
media_image3.png
231
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
496
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Instant application drawings, Fig. 4A overlaid with Fig. 3: Chevron-shaped ribs (dotted lines), with the vehicle in the same orientation as in Baccouche above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the orientations of chevron-shaped supports as taught by Saberi, the chevron-shaped support beams for an EV battery enclosure as taught by Baccouche, and the polygonal energy-absorbing structure as taught by Aitharaju in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as forming a supported battery enclosure which absorbs and distributes energy during a vehicle side impact to reduce the likelihood of damage to a battery supported by the battery enclosure as taught by Baccouche (Paragraph [0019]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Additionally, while Baccouche does not teach multiple chevron-shaped support beams spanning the width of the EV battery enclosure, Aitharaju teaches multiple repeat units of polygonal energy-absorbing structures for an EV battery enclosure (Fig. 8) and Saberi teaches multiple repeat units of chevron-shaped supports for bracing frames (Figs. d-f). Furthermore, increasing the number of chevron-shaped supports is merely a duplication of parts, and the court held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, multiple chevron-shaped support beams would not be expected to produce unexpected results from what is taught in the prior art. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights