DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 1/12/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the abstract accordingly.
-The 112(b) rejection has been partly withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 10 and 12 accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-As to applicant’s argument that “This feature of the plurality of energy source modules, including the pressurized vessel, having a rectangular cross-section is not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record……… as DE'592 fails to disclose or suggest in combination with these other references that a pressurized vessel has a rectangular cross-section……..DE'592 describes a module system for a vehicle wherein the cross-sectional shape of the pressure vessel is specifically disclosed as having a round or at least approximately round design. The last sentence of paragraph [0011] of the original German text of DE'592,……… Nowhere in DE'592 is there any suggestion or teaching that the cross-section of the pressure vessel could be rectangular………One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the combination of DE'592 with the other reference to disclose a pressurized vessel having a rectangular cross-section without using the present application as improper hindsight analysis. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the pressurized vessel of DE'592 as having a rectangular cross-section as such an interpretation would go against the common perception that pressure vessels should have roundness to avoid material stress/strain due to the high gas pressure acting on the vessel wall. Thus, even if the skilled person would combine the documents as suggested by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would still not arrive at a pressurized vessel having a rectangular cross-section, as recited by Claim 1.”. While the examiner agrees with applicant’s argument pertaining to the rectangular cross-section of the vessel not being disclosed in DE’592; DE’490 and WO’448 both disclose fuel cells having the rectangular cross-section as recited. The examiner used the DE’592 prior art to show that it is well known in the art to provide the rectangular cross-section fuel cells described in the DE’490 and WO’448 as “pressurized vessels” as disclosed in the rejection (examiner explicitly disclosed that DE’490 and WO’448 doesn’t explicitly disclose the module is a pressurized vessel in rejection, examiner didn’t disclose anything pertaining to those prior art lacking the rectangular cross-section as argued by applicant). Therefore, although the examiner agrees that DE’592 lacks the rectangular cross-section, the prior art as combined in the rejection still meets the limitations as recited. Further, 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).
-As to applicant’s argument that “However, in DE'490, the smaller energy modules 50 and the batteries 14, to which the Office Action cites to, are provided as separate individual components which are fitted to the frame where appropriate. They do not form a pressure vessel that has a larger cuboid portion and a smaller portion projecting from the larger cuboid portion, as recited in Claim 6.”, has been acknowledged; however, portion 50 in DE’490 does project from cuboid portion 14 via structure (24) as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, DE’490 shows and discloses that 50 projects from 14 as recited albeit indirectly.
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 11 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 11 recites the limitation “A vehicle comprising the modular system according to claim 1 and claim 1 recites the limitation “A modular system for a vehicle….”. Based on the preamble limitation as recited in claim 1, it is unclear as to what applicant is further limiting (or what applicant considers the difference to be between the preambles) in scope in claim 11, please clarify.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102017007490 (IDS cited art with machine translation) and WO 2021091448 in view of DE 102019126592 (with machine translation and all previously cited). As to claims 1 and 11, DE’490 discloses a modular system for a vehicle (and a vehicle comprising a modular system), comprising: a plurality of energy source modules (14) configured to be connected to or included in a propulsion system of a vehicle, each one of the energy source modules having a rectangular cross-section (as shown in Figures 2 and 3), and a support structure (24) operatively connectable to a chassis (10) of the vehicle, the support structure defining a space (within 24) for receiving said energy source modules, wherein at least one of said energy source modules (page 2, lines 19-24 and page 5, lines 1-2 describe a fuel cell can be added to modules) contains a fluid. Although it is well known in the art to have a fuel cell module pressurized, DE doesn’t explicitly disclose that module is a pressurized vessel.
WO discloses a modular system for a vehicle, comprising: a plurality of energy source modules (14, 21) configured to be connected to or included in a propulsion system of a vehicle, each one of the energy source modules having a rectangular cross-section (as shown in Figure 2), and a support structure (20) operatively connectable to a chassis (26) of the vehicle, the support structure defining a space (within 20) for receiving said energy source modules, wherein at least one of said energy source modules (21; page 12, lines 5-8 and page 14, lines 5-7) contains a fluid. Although it is well known in the art to have a fuel tank module pressurized, WO doesn’t explicitly disclose that module is a pressurized vessel.
DE’592 discloses a module system for a vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a fuel module as a pressurized vessel (abstract).
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 fuel cell and fuel tank in DE and WO as a pressurized vessel in view of DE’592 to provide temperature maintenance of modules during operation of system to keep fuel at ambient temperatures appropriate for normal operating conditions of vehicle.
As to claim 2, DE’490 and WO discloses wherein at least one of said energy source modules is a traction battery pack (page 3, lines 5-13 in DE and page 13, lines 22-25 in WO).
As to claim 3, DE’490 and WO discloses wherein at least one of said energy source modules is cuboid (Figures 2 and 3 in DE shows 14 as a three-dimensional geometric shape with six rectangular faces, twelve edges and eight vertices which defines a cuboid and Figures 2 and 5 in WO shows 14 as a three-dimensional geometric shape with six rectangular faces, twelve edges and eight vertices which defines a cuboid).
As to claim 4, DE’490 and WO discloses wherein the at least one pressurized vessel is cuboid (in DE, based on description on page 5, lines 1-2, the fuel cell would have the same configuration as 14 and in WO, based on description on page 14, lines 5-7, 21 would have a similar configuration as 14).
As to claim 5, WO discloses wherein a cross-sectional area of one of said energy source modules is approximately a multiple of any cross-sectional area of any other one of said energy source modules (WO in Figure 2 shows that cross-section of 21 is larger than cross-section of 14).
As to claim 6, DE’490 discloses wherein at least one of said at least one pressurized vessel (page 2, lines 19-24 and page 5, lines 1-2) has a first larger cuboid portion (14) and a second smaller portion (50) projecting from the first cuboid portion (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 7, WO discloses further comprising bushings (56) for mounting said energy source modules to the support structure in order to allow a certain amount of relative motion between the support structure and the energy source modules when mounted (page 8, lines 23-32).
As to claim 8, WO discloses wherein said bushings comprises first bushings and second bushings (56 on both sides as shown in Figure 4) having a stiffness (via rubber material, page 8, lines 30-32), wherein said first bushings and second bushings are configured for mounting energy source modules in the form of pressurized vessels (21) and traction battery packs (page 13, lines 22-25). Based on WO using two bushings for supporting the vessel and module, it would be an obvious design choice to modify the stiffness of at least one of the bushings to compensate for the larger size of vessel when mounted to support structure.
As to claim 9, DE’490 discloses wherein said support structure is in the form of an open cage structure (as shown in Figure 1 via 24) provided with brackets (36) for connecting the support structure to the chassis.
As to claim 10, DE’490 and WO in view of DE’592 discloses wherein the fluid contained in said pressurized vessel is selected from the group consisting of: hydrogen, in gaseous state or liquid state (page 5, lines 1-5 in DE’592), petroleum gas (page 14, lines 5-7 in WO), natural gas (page 5, lines 1-5 in DE’592), and non-fuel gas (via cryogenic vessel; page 5, lines 7-14 in DE’592), such as air.
As to claim 12, WO discloses a method of installing, to a vehicle chassis (26), energy source modules (14, 21) for a modular system according to claim 1,comprising: providing the vehicle chassis on a main assembly line (current position as shown in Figures 3 and 5 can be considered main assembly line), connecting a support structure to the vehicle chassis (Figures 3-5 show how 20 is connected to chassis), the support structure defining a space (within 20) for receiving said energy source modules, providing, on a first sub-assembly line, a first energy source module of said energy source modules with connecting components for enabling said first energy source module of the energy source modules to be connected to or included in a propulsion system of a vehicle which includes said vehicle chassis (choosing of batteries 14 with parts to connect to 20), providing, on a second sub-assembly line, a second energy source module of said energy source modules with connecting components for enabling said second energy source module of the energy source modules to be connected to or included in said propulsion system of said vehicle, said second energy source module being a pressurized vessel containing a fluid (choosing of fuel tank 21 with parts to connect to 20), selecting a number of energy source modules of the first energy source module (more than one as shown at 14) and a number of energy source modules of the second energy source module (at least one as shown in 21), and mounting them to the support structure on the main assembly line.
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 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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 March 25, 2026