DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on March 3rd, 2026 for application no. 18/521,608 filed on November 28th, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 7-9 and 13-20 are amended.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 7 (line 2), please change the recitation of “wherein a proximal end of the electric cable” to - - wherein a proximal end of [[the]] an electric cable - - to establish antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 114 919 430), in view of Pantazelos (US 11,154,765). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches a heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (Figs. 1 and 4, “forced separation mechanism” 2) for releasably holding a rechargeable traction battery (“battery pack” 3) in an electric heavy-duty vehicle (not shown; [0001] – “invention relates to the field of vehicle design and manufacturing technology, and specifically to a battery pack separation system”), wherein:
the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) comprises a pyrotechnical fastener (“explosive bolt” 201);
the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) is configured to release the traction battery (3) if the pyrotechnical fastener (201) is triggered ([0027] – “Explosive Bolt 201 resembles an ordinary bolt, but contains explosives and an igniter. When the separation control signal (i.e. ignition signal) of the ACU module is received, the explosive in the explosive bolt 201 is detonated and disconnected along the bolt weakening groove, thereby unlocking the mounting ends of the two battery packs 3 from the mounting ends 401 of the vehicle body”).
Feng does not teach “the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system is configured such that the pyrotechnical fastener may be manually triggered by an operator”.
Pantazelos teaches a pyrotechnical fastener (Fig. 1, “explosive bolt(s)” 132) may be manually triggered by an operator (col. 5, line 17 – “In some embodiments, the activation circuit 195 can be activated manually in addition to automatically (e.g., based on sensor data). For example, the skier can press a manual activation button that is electrically coupled (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection) to the controller 180 to manually detonate the explosive bolt(s) 132”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system taught by Feng with the manual activation button taught by Pantazelos, such that “the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system is configured such that the pyrotechnical fastener may be manually triggered by an operator”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing an operator with a manual release of the traction battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches further comprising a trigger device (“ACU module” not shown in Fig. 4) for triggering the pyrotechnical fastener (201; [0027] – “Explosive Bolt 201 resembles an ordinary bolt, but contains explosives and an igniter. When the separation control signal (i.e. ignition signal) of the ACU module is received, the explosive in the explosive bolt 201 is detonated and disconnected along the bolt weakening groove, thereby unlocking the mounting ends of the two battery packs 3 from the mounting ends 401 of the vehicle body”).
Regarding Claim 3, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 2.
Feng teaches wherein the trigger device ([0027] – “ACU module”) is configured to trigger the pyrotechnical fastener (201) by a signal by the operator (taught in combination with Pantazelos) connecting a cable of the trigger device (see Fig. 4 and [0027]) to the trigger device ([0027] – “ACU module”).
Feng does not explicitly teach “wherein the trigger device is configured to trigger the pyrotechnical fastener by an electric potential by the operator connecting an electric cable of the trigger device to an electric energy source”. In other words, Feng teaches a generic signal instead of an electrical signal.
Pantazelos teaches a trigger device (Fig. 1, “controller” 180) is configured to trigger a pyrotechnical fastener (132) by an electric potential by an operator connecting an electric cable (“electrical circuit” 150) of the trigger device (180) to an electric energy source (“battery” 160; col. 4, line 25 – “explosive bolt(s) (in general, explosive bolt) 132 is electrically coupled to an electrical circuit 150 that can provide power to ignite, activate, and/or explode an explosive material in the explosive bolt 132” and col. 4, line 33 – “power to activate the explosive bolt 132 can be provided by a battery 160 or another energy-storage device. In a specific example, the battery 160 can be a 12V or a 9V battery”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic signal taught by Feng with the electric signal taught by Pantazelos, such that “wherein the trigger device is configured to trigger the pyrotechnical fastener by an electric potential by the operator connecting an electric cable of the trigger device to an electric energy source”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably detonating the pyrotechnical fastener taught by Feng.
Regarding Claim 5, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 2,
Feng teaches wherein the trigger device ([0027] – “ACU module”) comprises a cable (see Fig. 4) that is connected to the pyrotechnical fastener (201).
Feng does not explicitly teach “wherein the trigger device comprises an electric cable that is electrically connected to the pyrotechnical fastener”. In other words, Feng teaches a generic signal instead of an electric signal.
Pantazelos teaches a trigger device (Fig. 1, 180) comprises an electric cable (150) that is electrically connected to a pyrotechnical fastener (132; see col. 4, line 25 and col. 4, line 33 passages above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic signal taught by Feng with the electric signal taught by Pantazelos, such that “wherein the trigger device comprises an electric cable that is electrically connected to the pyrotechnical fastener”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably detonating the pyrotechnical fastener taught by Feng.
Regarding Claim 10, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng, in combination with Pantazelos, teach further comprising at least two separate trigger devices (Feng teaches an “ACU module” and Pantazelos teaches a “manual activation button”), each configured to independently trigger the pyrotechnical fastener (Fig. 4, 201; see relevant passages above).
Regarding Claim 11, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches wherein the pyrotechnical fastener (Figs. 1 and 4, 201) mechanically connects the rechargeable traction battery (3) to the electric heavy-duty vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 11,
Feng teaches wherein the pyrotechnical fastener (Figs. 1 and 4, 201) extends through a vehicle fixation bracket (“mounting end” 401) of the electric heavy-duty vehicle and through a battery bracket (“mounting end” 301) of the rechargeable traction battery (3; [0027] – “As shown in Figure 4, the forced separation mechanism 2 includes an explosive bolt 201, which is disposed on the mounting end 302 of the battery pack and the mounting end 401 of the vehicle body, and is used to fix the battery pack 3 to the vehicle body 4”).
Regarding Claim 13, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches wherein the traction battery (Figs. 1 and 4, 3) is held to the electric heavy-duty vehicle at a number of suspension points (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the pyrotechnical fastener (201) is one of a plurality of pyrotechnical fasteners arranged at each suspension point ([0027] – “All structural connection points between the battery pack 3 and the vehicle body 4 are connected by explosion bolts 201”).
Regarding Claim 14, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches wherein a central suspension point (central suspension point seen in Fig. 1) is arranged for holding the traction battery (3) to the electric heavy-duty vehicle, and
wherein the pyrotechnical fastener (201) is arranged in connection with the central suspension point (see Fig. 1; [0027] – “All structural connection points between the battery pack 3 and the vehicle body 4 are connected by explosion bolts 201”).
Regarding Claim 15, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches wherein the pvrotechnical fastener is a front pyrotechnical fastener (Fig. 1; front 201) and further comprising a rear pyrotechnical fastener (rear 201; [0027] – “All structural connection points between the battery pack 3 and the vehicle body 4 are connected by explosion bolts 201”).
Regarding Claim 16, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Pantazelos teaches wherein a trigger device (180; taught in combination with Feng) comprises a transmitter configured to be activated by the operator for wirelessly communicating with a receiver arranged in connection with the pyrotechnical fastener (132) for triggering the pyrotechnical fastener (132; col. 4, line 54 – “Though the activation circuit 195 is illustrated in FIG. 1 as being disposed on the boot 110, it is noted that any of the activation circuit 195 components (e.g., the electrical circuit 150 (or a portion thereof), battery 160, switch 170, controller 180, and/or the sensor(s) 190) can be disposed in another location, such as on the user's body, on the binding 100, and/or on the skis 120. In one example, the controller 180 and/or the sensor(s) 190 can comprise components of a smartphone or other electronic device held by or disposed on the user (e.g., in the user's pocket). In an example, a smart watch or similar wrist or arm-worn device having a user interface, optionally coupled to a mobile communication device or capable of its own wireless communication, is employed to achieve this purpose”).
Regarding Claim 17, Feng and Pantazelos teach the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system of claim 1,
Feng teaches wherein the pyrotechnical fastener is one of a front left, a front right, a rear left, and a rear right pyrotechnical fastener (201; see Fig. 1; [0027] – “All structural connection points between the battery pack 3 and the vehicle body 4 are connected by explosion bolts 201”).
Regarding Claim 18, Feng and Pantazelos teach an electric heavy-duty vehicle energy supply system (Figs. 1 and 4 of Feng; 2, 3) comprising the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) of claim 1 and the rechargeable traction battery (3).
Regarding Claim 19, Feng teaches an electric heavy-duty vehicle (not shown; [0001] – “invention relates to the field of vehicle design and manufacturing technology, and specifically to a battery pack separation system”) comprising:
a heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (Figs. 1 and 4, 2) for releasably holding a rechargeable traction battery (3) in an electric heavy-duty vehicle (see [0027]), wherein: the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) comprises a pyrotechnical fastener (201);
the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) is configured to release the traction battery (3) if the pyrotechnical fastener (201) is triggered (see [0027]); and
an electric heavy-duty vehicle energy supply system (2) comprising the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) and the rechargeable traction battery (3).
Feng does not teach “the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system is configured such that the pyrotechnical fastener may be manually triggered by an operator”.
Pantazelos teaches a pyrotechnical fastener (Fig. 1, 132) may be manually triggered by an operator (col. 5, line 17 – “In some embodiments, the activation circuit 195 can be activated manually in addition to automatically (e.g., based on sensor data). For example, the skier can press a manual activation button that is electrically coupled (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection) to the controller 180 to manually detonate the explosive bolt(s) 132”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system taught by Feng with the manual activation button taught by Pantazelos, such that “the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system is configured such that the pyrotechnical fastener may be manually triggered by an operator”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing an operator with a manual release of the traction battery.
Regarding Claim 20, Feng and Pantazelos teach a method for releasing the rechargeable traction battery (Figs. 1 and 4 of Feng, 3) from the electric heavy-duty vehicle (see [0001]), comprising:
providing the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2) of claim 1;
arranging the pyrotechnical fastener (201) in the heavy-duty vehicle battery suspension system (2); and
triggering the pyrotechnical fastener (201) manually for releasing the traction battery (3) from the electric heavy-duty vehicle (taught in combination with Pantazelos; see relevant passages above).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed March 3rd, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed January 8th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 7, 16 and 18-19, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities previously indicated in the latest Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn. However, claim 7 still requires further clarification. See Claim Objections above.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 8-9, 13-15, 17 and 19-20, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the relevant 112(b) rejections previously indicated in the latest Office Action are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “Feng and Pantazelos disclose systems with fundamentally different and incompatible design philosophies. The teachings of Feng actively discourage consideration of the manual system of Pantazelos. Feng is directed to a proactive, fully automatic, high-speed safety system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enhance this specific functionality - for example, by developing faster predictive algorithms or more rapid pyrotechnics - to further reduce the time between prediction and separation. Feng is directed to removing the slow and unreliable element of human reaction time from the safety equation” (p. 8) is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the disclosure of an automated triggering system as inherently discouraging against the addition of a manual triggering system. Pantazelos clearly teaches an automated triggering system in combination with a manual triggering system (col. 5, line 17 – “the activation circuit 195 can be activated manually in addition to automatically (e.g., based on sensor data). For example, the skier can press a manual activation button that is electrically coupled (e.g., via a wired or wireless connection) to the controller 180 to manually detonate the explosive bolt(s) 132”), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to combine the automated triggering system taught by Feng with the manual triggering system taught by Pantazelos, and have the obvious advantage of providing an operator with a manual release of the traction battery taught by Feng.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “Any such modification of Feng in view of Pantazelos would require substantial and nonobvious modifications to integrate the disparate systems of Feng and Pantazelos into a safe and functional device. Control system redesign: The proposed combination is not a simple matter of "wiring in" a manual button. Feng's "ACU module" is a complex controller designed to interpret high-speed collision prediction data. Pantazelos's trigger is a simple manual switch” (p. 8) is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “The Examiner's rejection relies on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the invention. There is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the philosophically opposed systems of Feng and Pantazelos. Even if such motivation existed, the combination would require nonobvious and substantial modifications to the control, physical, and power systems, for which the references provide no teaching or suggestion” (p. 9) is not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized 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. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In conclusion, amended claims 1-3, 5 and 10-20 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above. Amended claims 4 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1. See allowable subject matter set forth below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655