DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/532119 filed 12/7/2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/8/24 has been considered. Note: 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The examiner has considered the NPL citations due to them being US co-pending applications easily attainable via Patent system and not requiring copies of each at this time.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the isolation structure extending between an upper edge and a lower edge of the intermediate frame (as recited in claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breu et al 20200282846. As to claim 1, Breu discloses an electric work vehicle comprising: a chassis (abstract); a battery housing ([0040]) supported by the chassis; and a rear axle (via 14); wherein the chassis includes an intermediate frame (2) attached to a rear portion of the battery housing ([0040]; Figure 6 shows that 2 is attached to bottom of motor); the intermediate frame is located between the battery housing and the rear axle in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle (Figure 6 shows 2 between bottom of motor and axially disposed in front of rear wheel 14 in a front to rear direction (front 8 to rear 14) of vehicle); and the intermediate frame includes a plurality of wall portions (24, 26, 28, 30 and 36) that define an interior space.
As to claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is curved (46 and 48; see drawings below).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions includes an opening (31, 38, 40 and openings formed by curved recesses).
As to claim 4, further comprising a coolant line ([0048]) that passes through the opening (31).
As to claim 5, wherein the coolant line is connected to a pump or a hydraulic manifold (5; [0044]) located within the interior space of the intermediate frame.
As to claim 6, further comprising an electrical cable ([0059]) that passes through the opening (31).
As to claim 7, wherein the electrical cable is connected to an electrical converter (22; [0061]) located within the interior space of the intermediate frame.
As to claim 8, further comprising a pump (5; [0044]) located within the interior space.
As to claim 9, further comprising a hydraulic manifold located within the interior space ([0044], [0059] it is obvious that a manifold is located within frame based on description of pipes/hoses of cooling system being guided through opening 31 to connect to motor).
As to claim 12, further comprising an electrical converter (22) located within the interior space.
As to claim 13, wherein the electrical converter is a DC-DC converter ([0061]).
As to claim 14, further comprising an isolation structure (18a, 18b, 18c) located within the interior space.
As to claim 17, further comprising a bracket located within the interior space to fix the electrical converter within the intermediate frame (interior sides of 24, 26, 28 can be considered brackets).
As to claim 18, further comprising: an electric motor (62; Figure 6) located rearward of the intermediate frame in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle; and an inverter ([0043] describes that inverter can be interfaced with converter) connected to the battery housing, wherein at least one of the plurality wall portions includes an opening to permit passage of a cable connected to each of the inverter and the electric motor ([0059]).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 1020230060249 (with machine translation). As to claim 1, KR discloses an electric work vehicle comprising: a chassis (as shown in Figure 4); a battery housing (400) supported by the chassis; and a rear axle (120); wherein the chassis includes an intermediate frame (800, 900) attached to a rear portion of the battery housing (Figure 4 shows 800 and 900 attached to what can be considered rear of 400); the intermediate frame is located between the battery housing and the rear axle in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle (Figure 4 shows 800 and 900 between 400 and rear axle 120 from front to rear direction of vehicle); and the intermediate frame includes a plurality of wall portions (811 and 812, see drawing below) that define an interior space.
PNG
media_image2.png
354
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is curved (Figures 4 and 6 show 800 having curved corners).
As to claim 19, further comprising: a motor cover (via 300); wherein the electric motor is mounted to the intermediate frame (300 is described as disposed in 800 and 900); and the motor cover is located within the interior space to cover a mounting location of the electric motor (via 910; page 6, lines 16-22 in translation).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu in view of WO 2021110232. Breu discloses a hydraulic manifold ([0044], [0059] it is obvious that a manifold is located within frame based on description of pipes/hoses of cooling system being guided through opening 31 to connect to motor), but doesn’t disclose the manifold including a direction control valve.
WO discloses an electric vehicle having a motor (60) coupled to a hydraulic manifold (65) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the manifold with a direction control valve (62, 63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the manifold in Breu with a direction control valve in view of WO to allow precise management of fluid flow between electrical components which increases operating efficiency of vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu in view of EP 0705530 (with machine translation). Breu discloses a hydraulic manifold which is described in the form of a distribution type ([0059] it is obvious that a manifold is located within frame based on description of pipes/hoses of cooling system being guided through opening 31 to connect to motor), but doesn’t disclose the manifold including a return hydraulic manifold.
EP discloses an electric vehicle (page 2 in translation) having an electrical converter disposed within a housing (2) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the housing with a distribution (74) and return (82) manifold.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Breu manifold with both a distribution and return manifold in view of EP to allow precise management of fluid flow cooling between electrical components which reduces thermal wear of components during operation of vehicle.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu in view of Schaefer 20140152264. Breu discloses an isolation structure located within interior space, but doesn’t disclose the structure covering the converter.
Schaefer discloses a converter for use in a vehicle ([0001]-[0002]) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an isolation structure (7, 7a; [0144]-[0145], [0181]) to cover the converter.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the Breu converter with an isolation structure in view of Schaefer to reduce damaging influences against surrounding of converter which increase mechanical stability of converter during operation of vehicle.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu and KR in view of Lopez 20120181095. Breu and KR both disclose intermediate frames, but doesn’t disclose the frames made of metal as recited.
Lopez discloses an electric work vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the vehicle with a frame (17) made of metal ([0031]) for supporting electrical components of vehicle, i.e., motor and battery).
It would have been an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the frame in Breu and KR from metal material in view of Lopez to protect against mechanical impacts increasing durability during operation of vehicle.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12-14, 16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12358560. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention are encompassed in the claims of the patent (some claims from patent are disclosed and bolded below to show common scope with present invention):
1. An electric work vehicle comprising: a chassis; a battery housing supported by the chassis; a rear axle; and an isolation structure, wherein the chassis includes an intermediate frame attached to a rear portion of the battery housing; the intermediate frame is located between the battery housing and the rear axle in a front-rear direction of the electric work vehicle; the intermediate frame includes a plurality of wall portions that define an interior space; at least one of the plurality of wall portions includes a wall surface that faces the interior space; and the isolation structure is attached to the wall surface.
3. The electric work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: an electrical component located within the interior space, wherein the isolation structure and the electrical component overlap in the front-rear direction.
4. The electric work vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the electrical component includes a DC-DC converter.
5. The electric work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: an electric motor located rearward of the intermediate frame in the front-rear direction; and a DC-DC converter located within the interior space.
10. The electric work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the isolation structure extends between an upper edge and a lower edge of the intermediate frame.
11. The electric work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate frame is made of metal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 16 in combination with claims 1, 12 and 14 exactly as written)…… wherein the isolation structure extends between an upper edge and a lower edge of the intermediate frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The corresponding EP application 24207696.6 having an office action filed 3/18/25 has been reviewed by examiner (KR ‘249 prior art cited as novelty in office action was used in above rejections).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
November 19, 2025