DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, it appears that “actuate” should be “arcuate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites a “non-high voltage cable including at least one of a low voltage cable, a pneumatic line, or a hydraulic line”. This recitation is indefinite as it is not clear how a pneumatic line or a hydraulic line can be part of a non-high voltage cable. The disclosure is silent regarding any special cables that might be manufactured to include pneumatic or hydraulic lines within the cable strands.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rowe et al. (US 20060071466).
Regarding claim 13: Rowe discloses an electrified vehicle ([0002], [0025], [0036] – disclosed vehicle can be electric). Rowe discloses a chassis 100 including a first frame rail 102a and a second frame rail 102b (Fig. 1; [0016]). Rowe discloses the chassis defining a longitudinal length of the electrified vehicle (Figs. 1, 4). Rowe discloses a cable support coupled to the first frame rail, the cable support extending (a) along at least a portion of the longitudinal length and (b) beneath the first frame rail (Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]). Rowe discloses a high voltage cable providing power between a first location and a second location and that at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed along the cable support such that the portion of the high voltage cable is suspended underneath and routed along the first frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]).
Regarding claim 14: Rowe discloses that the cable support includes a bracket, and wherein a gap is defined between the bracket and a lower flange of the first frame rail (Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018] – Rowe’s various configurations are deemed to disclose the broadly recited limitations).
Regarding claim 17: Rowe discloses that the cable support is integrally formed with the chassis (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018]).
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 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 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 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) in view of Probert et al. (US 20210143377).
Rowe discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 1: Rowe discloses an electrified fire fighting vehicle ([0002], [0025], [0036] – disclosed vehicle can be electric and a fire fighting vehicle). Rowe discloses a chassis 100 including a first frame rail 102a and a second frame rail 102b (Fig. 1, [0016]). Rowe discloses the chassis defining a longitudinal length of the electrified fire fighting vehicle (Figs. 1, 4). Rowe discloses routing high voltage wiring ([0002], [0029], [0030]) but is silent regarding what is explicitly powered by the high voltage wiring and thus, does not explicitly disclose a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length. Probert discloses a chassis having a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length (Fig. 2; abstr.; [0005], [0006], [0033], [0039], [0041]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe so as to include a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length as taught by Probert. As Rowe and Probert are both directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses high voltage wiring but is silent regarding the wire connections, as high voltage components and wiring in electrified vehicles is very well known in the art, and as Probert explicitly discloses first and second high voltage components at different positions along a longitudinal length, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific use for high voltage wiring from a finite selection of high voltage wiring uses and configurations (i.e. to power specific high voltage components). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses a cable support coupled to the first frame rail, the cable support extending (a) along at least a portion of the longitudinal length and (b) beneath the first frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]). Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses a high voltage cable providing power between the first location and the second location and that at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed along the cable support such that the portion of the high voltage cable is suspended underneath and routed along the first frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]; Probert - Fig. 2; abstr.; [0005], [0006], [0033], [0039], [0041]).
Regarding claim 2: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses an elongated casing routed along the cable support and that the high voltage cable is disposed within the elongated casing (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses a plurality of high voltage cables disposed within the elongated casing, the plurality of high voltage cables including the high voltage cable (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]; Probert - Fig. 2; abstr.; [0005], [0006], [0033], [0039], [0041]).
Regarding claim 4: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses a non-high voltage cable disposed within the elongated casing, the non-high voltage cable including at least one of a low voltage cable, a pneumatic line, or a hydraulic line (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0018], [0022], [0030]).
Regarding claim 5: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses that the cable support includes a bracket and that a gap is defined between the bracket and a lower flange of the first frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018] – Rowe’s various configurations are deemed to disclose the broadly recited limitations).
Regarding claim 7: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses that the elongated casing cannot be removed through the gap (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018] – Rowe’s various configurations are deemed to disclose the broadly recited limitations).
Regarding claim 11: Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses that the cable support is integrally formed with or fixedly coupled to the first frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018]).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) and Probert et al. (US 20210143377), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Steffens et al. (US 20220072736).
Rowe and Probert disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: Rowe, as modified by Probert, does not explicitly disclose that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape. Steffens discloses that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape (Figs. 14, 15, 18; [0140]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe, as modified by Probert, so that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape as taught by Steffens. As Rowe, Probert, and Steffens are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Steffens explicitly teaches a bracket having an arcuate or curved shape, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration and shape from a finite selection of specific support configurations and shapes (i.e. arcuate or polygonal shaped). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12: Rowe, as modified by Probert and Steffens, discloses that the cable support has a curved shape (Steffens - Figs. 14, 15, 18; [0140]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) and Probert et al. (US 20210143377), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hendriks et al. (US 20220111717).
Rowe and Probert disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8: Rowe, as modified by Probert, does not explicitly disclose that the cable support includes a mounting interface detachably coupled to the first frame rail. Hendriks discloses that the cable support includes a mounting interface 108 detachably coupled to the first frame rail (Figs. 1a-3; [0040]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe, as modified by Probert, so that the cable support includes a mounting interface detachably coupled to the first frame rail as taught by Hendriks. As Rowe, Probert, and Hendriks are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Hendriks explicitly teaches a mounting interface detachably coupled to the first frame rail, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration from a finite selection of specific support configurations (i.e. separate mounting or integral). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9: Rowe, as modified by Probert and Hendriks, discloses that the mounting interface includes a plate detachably coupled to a webbing of the first frame rail with a fastener (Hendriks - Figs. 1a-3; [0040]).
Regarding claim 10: Rowe, as modified by Probert and Hendriks, discloses that the mounting interface includes a clamp detachably coupled to a lower flange of the first frame rail (Hendriks - Figs. 1a-3; [0040] – the bracket 108 is found to disclose the broadly recited clamp).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) in view of Steffens et al. (US 20220072736).
Rowe and Steffens disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15: Rowe does not explicitly disclose that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape. Steffens discloses that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape (Figs. 14, 15, 18; [0140]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe so that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape as taught by Steffens. As Rowe and Steffens are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Steffens explicitly teaches a bracket having an arcuate or curved shape, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration and shape from a finite selection of specific support configurations and shapes (i.e. arcuate or polygonal shaped). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) in view of Hendriks et al. (US 20220111717).
Rowe and Hendriks disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16: Rowe does not explicitly disclose that the cable support includes a mounting interface detachably coupled to at least one of a webbing or a lower flange of the first frame rail. Hendriks discloses that the cable support includes a mounting interface 108 detachably coupled to at least one of a webbing or a lower flange of the first frame rail (Figs. 1a-3; [0040]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe so that the cable support includes a mounting interface detachably coupled to at least one of a webbing or a lower flange of the first frame rail as taught by Hendriks. As Rowe and Hendriks are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Hendriks explicitly teaches a mounting interface detachably coupled to the first frame rail, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration from a finite selection of specific support configurations (i.e. separate mounting or integral). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe et al. (US 20060071466) in view of Probert et al. (US 20210143377) and in view of Hendriks et al. (US 20220111717) and in view of Steffens et al. (US 20220072736).
Rowe, Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18: Rowe discloses an electrified vehicle ([0002], [0025], [0036] – disclosed vehicle can be electric). Rowe discloses a frame rail 102 defining a longitudinal length of the electrified vehicle (Figs. 1, 4: [0016]). Rowe discloses the frame rail including an upper flange, a lower flange, and a webbing extending between the upper flange and the lower flange (Figs. 1, 4).
Rowe discloses routing high voltage wiring ([0002], [0029], [0030]) but is silent regarding what is explicitly powered by the high voltage wiring and thus, does not explicitly disclose a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length. Probert discloses a chassis having a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length (Fig. 2; abstr.; [0005], [0006], [0033], [0039], [0041]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe so as to include a first high voltage component positioned at a first location along the longitudinal length and a second high voltage component positioned at a second location along the longitudinal length as taught by Probert. As Rowe and Probert are both directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses high voltage wiring but is silent regarding the wire connections, as high voltage components and wiring in electrified vehicles is very well known in the art, and as Probert explicitly discloses first and second high voltage components at different positions along a longitudinal length, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific use for high voltage wiring from a finite selection of high voltage wiring uses and configurations (i.e. to power specific high voltage components). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Rowe, as modified by Probert, discloses a cable support (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]) but does not explicitly disclose that the cable support includes a mounting interface and a bracket extending downward from the mounting interface, and the mounting interface coupled to at least one of the webbing or the lower flange. Hendriks discloses that the cable support includes a mounting interface and a bracket extending downward from the mounting interface, and the mounting interface coupled to at least one of the webbing or the lower flange (Figs. 1a-3; [0040]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe, as modified by Probert, so that the cable support includes a mounting interface and a bracket extending downward from the mounting interface, and the mounting interface coupled to at least one of the webbing or the lower flange as taught by Hendriks. As Rowe, Probert, and Hendriks are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Hendriks explicitly teaches that the cable support includes a mounting interface and a bracket extending downward from the mounting interface, and the mounting interface coupled to at least one of the webbing or the lower flange, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration from a finite selection of specific support configurations (i.e. specific relationship between the mounting interface and the support). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Rowe, as modified by Probert and Hendriks, does not explicitly disclose the bracket having an arcuate or curved shape. Steffens discloses that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape (Figs. 14, 15, 18; [0140]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the vehicle of Rowe, as modified by Probert and Hendriks, so that the bracket has an arcuate or curved shape as taught by Steffens. As Rowe, Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens are directed to an electrified vehicle, as Rowe discloses various support configurations, as the art is replete with various cable supports, and as Steffens explicitly teaches a bracket having an arcuate or curved shape, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support configuration and shape from a finite selection of specific support configurations and shapes (i.e. arcuate or polygonal shaped). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Rowe, as modified by Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens, discloses that the cable support extending (a) along at least a portion of the longitudinal length and (b) beneath the lower flange of the frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]). Rowe, as modified by Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens, discloses a high voltage cable providing power between the first location and the second location, that at least a portion of the high voltage cable is routed along the bracket of the cable support such that the portion of the high voltage cable is suspended underneath the lower flange and routed along the frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0022], [0029], [0030]; Probert - Fig. 2; abstr.; [0005], [0006], [0033], [0039], [0041]).
Regarding claim 19: Rowe, as modified by Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens, discloses a conduit routed along the bracket, wherein the high voltage cable is disposed within the conduit (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0002], [0017], [0018], [0022], [0030]).
Regarding claim 20: Rowe, as modified by Probert, Hendriks, and Steffens, discloses that the cable support is positioned such that the high voltage cable is only removable from the bracket in a longitudinal direction along the frame rail (Rowe - Figs. 1-3; [0017], [0018] – Rowe’s various configurations are deemed to disclose the broadly recited limitations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
12/30/2025