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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelo et al. (US 10,493,837).
With respect to claim 1, a frame (200), an electric motor (electric vehicle claim 6), and an energy storage unit (106, 300, 320), the energy storage unit comprising at least two energy modules comprising: a first energy module (300) comprising a first fuel tank (1, Fig 8) and a first cuboid energy storage device (106) comprising a battery (1, Fig 8); and a second energy module (320) comprising a second fuel tank (2, Fig 8), the at least two energy modules connected to each other such that the first cuboid fuel tank and the second cuboid fuel tank are connected to opposite sides of the first cuboid energy storage device (as shown in Figs 3A-3B, the cuboid energy storage device comprising batteries 160 in housings 304 wrap under the frame of the vehicle, and each energy module 300 and 320 are connected to each other via the batteries and end links 330 and 332, so the fuel tanks 1 and 2 would be connected to each other via the first cuboid energy storage device 106 and the end links 330 and 332; also, column 10, lines 39-41 disclose that the components 830, 832, and 814 may be disposed above the battery 106, which implies that the first cuboid energy storage device may wrap under the frame like shown in Figs 3A-3B). Angelo et al., however, do not specifically disclose that the fuel tanks are cuboid. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to try forming them in a cuboid shape in order to match and stack nicely with the cuboid battery housings (304), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the frame comprises a wheelbase area between a first axle and a second axle (Fig 1), wherein the energy storage unit is suspended from the wheelbase area (Figs 3A-3C).
With respect to claim 3, further comprising a plurality of bushings (364, 366) between the energy storage unit and the frame to mechanically isolate the energy storage unit from the frame (Fig 3C).
With respect to claim 4, further comprising a rod (hanger 334) connected to the first energy module and the second energy module to rigidly connect the first energy module and the second energy module together (Fig 5A).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the second energy module comprises a second cuboid energy storage device comprising a battery (2, Fig 8), wherein the first cuboid energy storage device and the second cuboid energy storage device are connected to each other between the first cuboid fuel tank and the second cuboid fuel tank (as shown in Figs 3A-3B).
With respect to claims 6-9, Angelo et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above as well as the configuration being implemented on various types of vehicles such as serial hybrid, parallel hybrid, electric, or the like, but do not specifically disclose that the fuel tanks are hydrogen gas tanks for storing hydrogen gas fuel, natural gas tanks for storing natural gas primarily comprising at least one of methane and ethane, petroleum gas tanks for storing liquid petroleum gas primarily comprising at least one of propane and butane, or wherein the first cuboid fuel tank and the second cuboid fuel tank store liquified gaseous fuel at a working pressure of between 5 bar and 450 bar. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to implement the fuel tank configuration on vehicle types using the fuel discussed above, since it was old and well known in the art to use different types of vehicle fuel as desired and appropriate for the vehicle application, environmental impact, engine design, and infrastructure availability. It also would have been obvious to store liquified gaseous fuel at a working pressure of between 5 bar and 450 bar, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claims 10-13 and 15-18, the apparatus discussed above meets the method limitations.
With respect to claims 19-20, the apparatus discussed above meets the limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Angelo fails to disclose or teach “the at least two energy modules connected to each other such that the first cuboid fuel tank and the second cuboid fuel tank are connected to opposite sides of the first cuboid energy storage device.” The Examiner referenced Fig 3A to teach that batteries in housing (304) can wrap under the frame of the vehicle and connect to each other via end links (330 and 332); however, Applicant argues that Fig 3A shows batteries that wrap underneath the frame, but there are no fuel tanks disposed or connected to opposite sides of any of the battery housings (304). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because Fig 3A is not solely being relied upon to teach the claimed invention; it is the combination of Figs 3A and 8 that are relied upon. Depending on the type of vehicle design, the spaces 810 and 812 could be reserved for batteries in an all electric vehicle or fuel tanks if designed as a serial hybrid vehicle. Therefore, if the vehicle incorporating the design as in Fig 3A is a serial hybrid vehicle, fuel tanks could be located on the inner side of the top row of batteries such that the batteries are arranged outside the fuel tanks. As shown in the marked-up figure below, the at least two energy modules (300, 320) are connected to each other such that the first cuboid fuel tank and the second cuboid fuel tank (labeled in marked-up figure below) are connected to opposite sides of the first cuboid energy storage device (all of the battery housings 304 are connected in a series between the fuel tanks such that they the modules 300 and 320 are connected in the center of the vehicle via 330 and 332; therefore any one battery module would have one side connected to one of the fuel tanks and another side connected to the other fuel tank, either directly or indirectly via other batteries). The Examiner notes that the batteries and/or fuel tanks could be sized such that they are on the outside of the main frame rails like the embodiment in Fig 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
513
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues there is no reason to arrange or suspend the batteries between the fuel tanks, in part because the fuel tanks are not cuboid, and in order to suspend and arrange the batteries between the fuel tanks, the fuel tanks need to first be modified to have a cuboid shape for easier mounting and attachment of other cuboid structures. However, the Examiner argues that they are not required to be a cuboid shape, as the fuel tanks disclosed in Fig 8 are connected to the cuboid battery assemblies without being a cuboid structure. The Examiner notes that only the battery housings (304) are suspended underneath the frame as shown in Fig 3A.
On page 8 Applicant also argues that modifying fuel tanks require extensive design and safety considerations to store highly volatile and flammable substances, and therefore a person of ordinary skill would not have any reason to arbitrarily modify the proven cylindrical design of fuel cells without an explicit reason for doing so. Applicant argues that the proper question is whether a person of ordinary skill, without the hindsight benefit of using Applicant’s specification as a roadmap, would arbitrarily modify the cylindrical fuel cells of Angelo in the absence of any disclosed or recognized benefit to arrive at the specific arrangement of claim 1. However, the Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because there are reasons to arbitrarily modify the proven cylindrical design of fuel cells without the benefit of hindsight. In addition to stackability, cuboid shapes eliminate dead space in the vehicle by maximizing the area without leaving empty, wasted gaps, which would be beneficial for increasing the amount of fuel stored in the tanks. Also, most standard vehicle components such as battery packs, electronics, structural cross members, etc. are linear and boxy, so making the fuel cells cuboid allow engineers to easily integrate them into existing platform designs. The Examiner has also cited various prior art as evidence that cuboid fuel tanks are readily used as alternatives to cylindrical designs: Cederberg et al. (USPub 2022/0410700) disclose that fuel tanks may be of any size, capacity, shape and/or weight and may be made of any suitable material. They may have a flat shape that is substantially cylindrical, rectangular, spherical, or the like [0055]. Hyuck et al. (GB2593198A) disclose a fuel tank that may comprise a cylindrical or rectangular cross section (page 4, lines 8-9). Cunningham et al. (USPub 2021/0122235) disclose a fuel tank that may be D-shaped, square, or cylindrical in profile [0063]. Therefore, according to the reasons above and the prior art evidence provided, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to form the fuel tanks in a cuboid shape without requiring the benefit of hindsight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
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 DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
