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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 9 – 13, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. (12,558,975) in view of Hurley (11,713,133). In regard to claims 1 – 3, 11 – 13, and 20, Karlsson discloses a vehicle defining a first axis, a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, and a third axis perpendicular to the first axis and the second axis, the vehicle comprising a battery assembly, comprising a casing assembly comprising a base and a wall extending upward from the base along the third axis (Figs. 3 and 4, external housing of item 9), a battery cell assembly and a support structure assembly disposed on the base (Figs. 3 and 4, item 9), a crash basin defined between the wall and the battery cell assembly or the support structure assembly (Figs. 7 and 9, space between items 35 and 45), a first pipe and a second pipe for coolant, each extending at least partially within the crash basin (Figs. 7 and 9, item 67, wherein including a second instance of item 67 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involved only routine skill in the art – St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.), and a pipe securing bracket, comprising a pipe securing structure comprising a first pipe enclosure defining a first pipe aperture configured to have the first pipe pass therethrough along the first axis to secure the first pipe within the first pipe enclosure, and a second pipe enclosure disposed above the first pipe enclosure along the third axis and defining a second pipe aperture configured to have a second pipe pass therethrough along the first axis to secure the second pipe within the second pipe enclosure (Figs. 7 and 9, central portion of item 43), and a bracket base attached to a component of the support structure assembly (Figs. 7 and 9, item 62).
Karlsson does not disclose a specifically deformable bracket. In regard to claims 1, 11, and 20, Hurley discloses a pipe bracket wherein a bracket base comprises a fragile structure that is weaker than portions of the bracket base adjacent thereto and that is configured to bend or break when a force in a direction along the second axis is received by the pipe securing structure (Figs. 5A – 5E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the deformable bracket of Hurley to the vehicle of Karlsson in order to increase pipe survivability in impact events. This would decrease the opportunity for liquid/coolant damage to the electronics which are supplied by the pipe.
Karlsson in view of Hurley does not disclose the use of a steel pipe with a plastic bracket. In regard to claims 9 – 10 and 18 – 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a steel pipe and a plastic bracket, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 8 and 14 – 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Karlsson et al. (12,558,975) discloses a pipe bracket similar to the instant invention; however Karlsson, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a pipe bracket comprising an arm extending upwards from the bracket base along the third axis, and an upper body extending from the arm to the pipe securing structure. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sedivy et al. (2008/0210830) disclose a device for fastening an object to a supporting part;
Bell (2025/0020243) discloses a flexible multi-tube retainer;
Langeloh (2026/0055828) discloses a clip-in fixation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights