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 .
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sura et al. (US 2015/0251539 A1) in view of Kerspe (EP 3 330 115 A2).
Sura et al. disclose a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis; a body (12) coupled to the chassis, the body defining a refuse compartment (bed 32); a tailgate (16f) detachably coupled to the body; and an electrical energy system, wherein a first portion (60) of the electrical energy system is coupled to the tailgate, and wherein a second portion (52) of the electrical energy system is coupled to the body, a detachable electrical connection between the first portion and the second portion of the electrical energy system (paragraph [0026]). Sura et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention, but are silent with respect to control hardware or drive source (i.e., motor or combustion engine).
Kerspe discloses control hardware for managing charging of an electrical energy system on a vehicle (see “data acquisition unit”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Sura et al. to include the control hardware of Kerspe in order to distribute stored power as desired. It would have been obvious to arrange at least part of the control hardware to be detachable for maintenance or repair.
As for claims 2 and 3, Sura et al. further disclose the first portion of the electrical energy system including a battery cell (62). The first portion of the electrical energy system is replaceable by swapping the battery cell of the first portion of the electrical energy system with a different battery cell (or different power pack 60).
As for claim 4, Kerspe discloses control hardware for managing charging of an electrical energy system on a vehicle (see “data acquisition unit”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Sura et al. to include the control hardware of Kerspe in order to distribute stored power as desired.
As for claims 5 – 8, Kerspe discloses an “electric vehicle” having a motor (10 and 12) which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to refer to a vehicle fully powered by an electrical energy system, and not including a combustion engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tailgate assembly of Sura et al. on a purely electric vehicle which does not have an internal combustion engine, as such a combination is suggested by Sura et al. (see paragraph [0017]: “the energy storage device 52 is representative of a primary source of electrical power used to support the general operation of the vehicle”). As for claim 7, Sura et al. disclose batteries located on a first portion (tailgate). Based on the teachings of Kerspe, it would have been obvious to arrange control hardware on the vehicle body, distinct from the tailgate.
Claim(s) 9 – 10 and 12 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sura et al. (US 2015/0251539 A1) in view of Galgoci et al. (US 7,901,215 B1) and Kerspe (EP 3 330 115 A2).
As for claim 9, Sura et al. disclose an electrical energy system for powering a refuse vehicle, the electrical energy system comprising: a tailgate (16f); one or more battery cells (62) coupled to the tailgate. Sura et al. do not explicitly disclose control hardware or an attachment assembly configured to removably couple the tailgate to a body of the vehicle.
Galgoci et al. disclose an attachment assembly configured to removably couple a tailgate to a body of a vehicle (see “a mounting assembly that enables the tailgate to be removed from the main body 102 and the truck 100 entirely”, column 3, lines 4 – 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tailgate of Sura et al. to have the removable attachment assembly of Galgoci et al. so that the tailgate may be removed as desired (for example, to improve fuel economy; see Galgoci et al., column 1, lines 33 – 34).
Kerspe discloses control hardware for managing charging of an electrical energy system on a vehicle (see “data acquisition unit”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Sura et al. to include the control hardware of Kerspe in order to distribute stored power as desired. It would have been obvious to arrange at least part of the control hardware to be detachable for maintenance or repair.
As for claim 10, Galgoci et al. further disclose a detachable electrical connection (200). Note that Sura et al. disclose electrically coupling the one or more battery cells in the tailgate to a component coupled to the body of the vehicle (paragraph [0025]).
As for claim 12, Sura et al. disclose a first component (battery 62) removably coupled to a first portion of the vehicle (tailgate) and a second component (battery 52) coupled to a second portion of the vehicle (body). It is well known in the art to removably mount batteries for charging or replacement.
As for claims 13 and 17, Kerspe discloses portions of an electrical energy system comprising a motor mounted to a wheel or traction element (see hub motors 12).
As for claim 14, Sura et al. disclose removal of battery cells for charging (see Fig. 3).
As for claim 15, Sura et al. disclose a battery compartment in the tailgate (see paragraph [0027]).
As for claim 16, Sura et al. disclose a vehicle, comprising: a chassis; a body (12) coupled to the chassis; a door (16f); a battery (62) coupled the door; an electrical component (52) coupled to the body; and an electrical connector selectively electrically coupling the battery to the electrical component (paragraph [0025]). Sura et al. do not disclose removably coupling the door to the body. Galgoci et al. disclose removably coupling a door to a body (column 3, lines 4 – 6) and selectively electrically coupling components on said door to components on said body (see 200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tailgate of Sura et al. to have the removable attachment assembly of Galgoci et al. so that the tailgate may be removed as desired (for example, to improve fuel economy; see Galgoci et al., column 1, lines 33 – 34). Kerspe discloses control hardware for managing charging of an electrical energy system on a vehicle (see “data acquisition unit”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Sura et al. to include the control hardware of Kerspe in order to distribute stored power as desired. It would have been obvious to arrange at least part of the control hardware to be detachable for maintenance or repair.
As for claim 18, the vehicle of Kerspe does not include an engine (see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tailgate assembly of Sura et al. on a purely electric vehicle which does not have an internal combustion engine, such as that taught by Kerspe, as such a combination is suggested by Sura et al. (see paragraph [0017]: “the energy storage device 52 is representative of a primary source of electrical power used to support the general operation of the vehicle”).
As for claims 19 and 20, Sura et al. disclose said door being a tailgate (16f) and defining a battery compartment (paragraph [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art could envision a number of reasons for providing for the removability of the control hardware (e.g., maintenance, repair, replacement). The specification provides no details of the coupling of the control hardware to the vehicle – only that it is detachable or removable. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily predicted the results of providing a detachable coupling.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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 at (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 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.
/Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights