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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 has grammatical error in “releasably inserted into the cavity that the energy storage system automatically separates.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a temperature regulation system in claim 12 and a temperature regulation system of the sleeper cab in claim 13.
Applicant’s specification described the structure in paragraphs 65 and 67.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 13 and 19-20 are 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 13 recites the limitation "the temperature regulation system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “energy storage system receptacle box is a firewall.” It is unclear how can a box be a wall. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as “energy storage system receptacle box wall is a firewall.”
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear how can the separation wall defines an exterior surface of the sleeper cab. Claim 16 claims that the driving space inside the sleeper cab has the separation wall, which borders the sleep compartment. The separation wall therefore cannot form an exterior surface of the sleeper cab and simultaneously be inside the cab to form a border of the driving space and the sleeper compartment. Additionally, it is unclear how can the separation wall, or the exterior surface defined by the separation wall, be a firewall between the cavity and the sleeper cab. The cavity is inside the sleeper cab, and to be between, the separation wall would also be inside the sleeper cab and unreasonable to be an exterior surface of the sleeper cab. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “wherein the separation wall defines an exterior surface of the sleeper compartment, wherein the exterior surface is a firewall between the cavity and the sleeper cab.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, 16, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stutz (US 20150028628 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stutz discloses a sleeper cab (7 in Fig. 1) for a heavy truck (1 in Fig. 1, and paragraph 8 described to have tractor and trailer), the sleeper cab comprising: a sleeper compartment (Fig. 4) with side walls (paragraph 28, side walls), a floor (19 in Fig. 4), and a bunk space configured to provide a sleeping space (34 in Fig. 4) for a driver, the bunk space provided with: an energy storage system receptacle box (31 in Fig. 4, under the bed 34) provided with a receptacle box wall (see annotated Fig. 4) that extends inward into the sleeper compartment from at least one of the side walls or the floor (see annotated Fig. 4, receptacle box wall is inward of the omitted side wall since the side walls would be on the outermost side of the cab, and also shown to be above and inward from the floor) and that includes a sleeper compartment facing side (see annotated Fig. 4, outer side of the receptacle box wall as shown in the figure) and cavity defining side (see annotated Fig. 4, inner side not visible from the outside) opposite the sleeper compartment facing side, the cavity defining side defining a cavity (paragraph 24, 31 is a chamber therefore it has a cavity inside) that extends into the sleeper compartment (Fig. 4) from at least one of the side walls or the floor (Fig. 4, above the floor) and that is isolated from the sleeper compartment by the receptacle box wall (see annotated Fig. 4, the wall separates the chamber/cavity under the bed from the outside); wherein, at least a portion of an energy storage system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries) is inserted into the cavity so that at least a portion of the energy storage system is located above the floor (since the chamber/cavity 31 is above the floor, the energy storage system stored inside will also at least have a portion above the floor).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 4 from Stutz
Regarding claim 2, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, wherein the cavity is accessible from an exterior of the heavy truck (paragraph 31, accessible from the outside engine 1, which Stutz described in paragraph 21 that the truck tractor is called engine 1).
Regarding claim 3, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, wherein a vehicle body floor (Fig. 4, floor of 19) includes the floor of the sleeper compartment.
Regarding claim 4, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, wherein the energy storage system is located within the receptacle box and supported by the floor (Fig. 4, 31 is supported by the floor as it sits on the floor, which therefore also supports the energy storage system inside the box 31).
Regarding claim 9, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, wherein the energy storage system is an electric battery system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries).
Regarding claim 10, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, wherein the energy storage system is a fuel storage system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries).
Regarding claim 16, Stutz discloses a sleeper cab (7 in Fig. 1) for a heavy truck (1 in Fig. 1, and paragraph 8 described to have tractor and trailer), the sleeper cab comprising: a sleeper compartment (Fig. 4) with side walls (paragraph 28, side walls), a floor (19 in Fig. 4), and a bunk space configured to provide a sleeping space (34 in Fig. 4) for a driver, the bunk space provided with: an energy storage system receptacle box (31 in Fig. 4, under the bed 34) provided with a receptacle box wall (see annotated Fig. 4) that extends inward into the sleeper compartment from at least one of the side walls or the floor (see annotated Fig. 4, receptacle box wall is inward of the omitted side wall since the side walls would be on the outermost side of the cab, and also shown to be above and inward from the floor) and that includes a sleeper compartment facing side (see annotated Fig. 4, outer side of the receptacle box wall as shown in the figure) and cavity defining side (see annotated Fig. 4, inner side not visible from the outside) opposite the sleeper compartment facing side, the cavity defining side defining a cavity (paragraph 24, 31 is a chamber therefore it has a cavity inside) that extends into the sleeper compartment space (Fig. 4) from at least one of the side walls or the floor (Fig. 4, above the floor) and that is isolated from the sleeper compartment by the receptacle box wall (see annotated Fig. 4, the wall separates the chamber/cavity under the bed from the outside); a driving space (Fig. 1, where driver seat 27 is located) configured to provide space for the driver to operate the heavy truck, the driving space having a driving floor (Fig. 7, the driver seat is support above a floor), and a separation wall (25 in Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4, separating the driving space above from the sleeper compartment below) forming a border with the sleeper compartment; and an energy storage system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries), wherein at least a portion of the energy storage system is inserted into the cavity so that at least a portion of the energy storage system is located above the floor of the sleeper compartment (since the chamber/cavity 31 is above the floor, the energy storage system stored inside will also at least have a portion above the floor).
Regarding claim 21, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, wherein the energy storage system is an electric battery system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries).
Regarding claim 22, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, wherein the energy storage system is a fuel storage system (paragraph 24, fuel tanks or batteries).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 10559793 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose the floor within the cavity is at least partially cut out and the energy storage system is located on an energy storage system support that is in the cavity.
Smith teaches the floor within the cavity is at least partially cut out and the energy storage system is located on an energy storage system support that is in the cavity (Smith, Fig. 3 and Col. 3 lines 47-49, battery supported on energy storage system support 50a/50b, which is bolted to the floor; bolt fastening means there are cut outs in the floor for the bolts to go through).
Smith is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success and have a support bolted to the floor such that the floor within the cavity is at least partially cut out. Doing so secures the energy storage device in place during vehicle operation and enhances safety.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 17, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Jang (US 20210284027 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose the energy storage system is releasably inserted into the cavity so that the energy storage system automatically separates from the heavy truck in an emergency event.
Jang teaches the energy storage system is releasably inserted into the cavity (Jang, abstract) so that the energy storage system automatically separates from the heavy truck in an emergency event (Jang, abstract, controller automatically releases battery in response to a fire detecting signal).
Jang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success and have battery release mechanism. Doing so enhances occupant and vehicle safety in the event of a fire.
Regarding claim 14, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose the energy storage system is removable from a chassis of the heavy truck without removing the sleeper cab from the chassis of the heavy truck.
Jang teaches the energy storage system is removable from a chassis of the heavy truck without removing the sleeper cab from the chassis of the heavy truck (Jang, abstract, battery can release from the vehicle, which means removed from the vehicle chassis, no cab removal required).
Jang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success and have battery release mechanism. Doing so enhances occupant and vehicle safety in the event of a fire.
Regarding claim 17, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, but fails to disclose the energy storage system is releasably inserted into the cavity the energy storage system automatically separates from the heavy truck in an emergency event.
Jang teaches the energy storage system is releasably inserted into the cavity (Jang, abstract) so that the energy storage system automatically separates from the heavy truck in an emergency event (Jang, abstract, controller automatically releases battery in response to a fire detecting signal).
Jang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success and have battery release mechanism. Doing so enhances occupant and vehicle safety in the event of a fire.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Stutz in view of Jang teaches the sleeper cab of claim 17, wherein the energy storage system is removable from a chassis of the heavy truck without removing the sleeper cab (Jang, abstract, battery can release from the vehicle, which means removed from the vehicle chassis, no cab removal required).
Jang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success and have battery release mechanism. Doing so enhances occupant and vehicle safety in the event of a fire.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (US 20200185671 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose a vent is provided that is selectively opened to release gasses generated by the energy storage system from the cavity.
Ng teaches a vent is provided that is selectively opened to release gasses generated by the energy storage system from the cavity (Ng, paragraph 117, vent on battery case to selectively vent gas).
Ng is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Ng with a reasonable expectation of success and have vent. Doing so prevents undesired buildup of gas inside the battery casing/box and enhances safety.
Regarding claim 18, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, but fails to disclose a vent is provided that is selectively opened to release gasses generated by the energy storage system from the cavity.
Ng teaches a vent is provided that is selectively opened to release gasses generated by the energy storage system from the cavity (Ng, paragraph 117, vent on battery case to selectively vent gas).
Ng is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Ng with a reasonable expectation of success and have vent. Doing so prevents undesired buildup of gas inside the battery casing/box and enhances safety.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Kelso et al. (US 20210188184 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose the energy storage system receptacle box wall is a firewall between the cavity and the sleeper cab.
Kelso teaches a firewall (Kelso, paragraph 45, firewall 98 separating electrical compartment from occupant area; obvious to do the same with the box wall of Stutz).
Kelso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Kelso with a reasonable expectation of success and have a firewall. Doing so enhances the safety of the vehicle occupants and prevents damages in case of fire.
Regarding claim 19, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, but fails to disclose the energy storage system receptacle box wall is a firewall between the cavity and the sleeper cab.
Kelso teaches a firewall (Kelso, paragraph 45, firewall 98 separating electrical compartment from occupant area; obvious to do the same with the box wall of Stutz).
Kelso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Kelso with a reasonable expectation of success and have a firewall. Doing so enhances the safety of the vehicle occupants and prevents damages in case of fire.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephens et al. (US 4121684 A).
Regarding claim 11, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose the cavity is at least partially located underneath a mattress located in the bunk space.
Stephens teaches the cavity is at least partially located underneath a mattress (Stephens, 77 in Fig. 2; obvious to have a mattress on the bed such that the cavity underneath the bed is also under the mattress) located in the bunk space.
Kelso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle truck with sleeper cab and battery as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Kelso with a reasonable expectation of success and have a mattress such that the cavity is below the mattress. Doing so provides additional comfort to an occupant resting on the bed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cardoso (US 20130337296 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose a temperature regulation system that regulates a temperature of at least one of the cavity and the energy storage system.
Cardoso teaches a temperature regulation system (Cardoso, 18, 50, 46, and 48 in Fig. 1, the fan and tubes allow air to flow through the battery in order to regulate temperature; also a heat exchanger 36) that regulates a temperature of at least one of the cavity and the energy storage system.
Cardoso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Cardoso with a reasonable expectation of success and have a temperature regulation system. Doing so prevents battery from overheating.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stutz in view of Kelso as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cardoso (US 20130337296 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stutz in view of Kelso teaches the sleeper cab of claim 8, but fails to teach the temperature regulation system of the energy storage system is thermally connected to a temperature regulation system of the sleeper cab.
Cardoso teaches the temperature regulation system of the energy storage system is thermally connected to a temperature regulation system of the sleeper cab (Cardoso, temperature regulation system form by 18, 50, 46, and 48 of the energy storage system is thermally connected to 20, 40, 42 of the cab temperature regulation system; there’s also a heat exchanger 36).
Cardoso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Cardoso with a reasonable expectation of success and have the two temperature regulation systems thermally connected. Doing so saves vehicle space and reduce unnecessary parts.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haslberger et al. (US 20110068309 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 1, but fails to disclose a support structure that is configured to receive forks of a forklift to remove the energy storage system from a chassis.
Haslberger teaches a support structure (Haslberger, 55 in Fig. 3) that is configured to receive forks (Haslberger, 17 in Fig. 3) of a forklift (Haslberger, 15 in Fig. 3) to remove the energy storage system from a chassis (Haslberger, paragraph 39, remove the battery from the vehicle means it can be removed from the vehicle chassis).
Haslberger is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage in a vehicle cab as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Haslberger with a reasonable expectation of success and have the battery removable by a forklift. Doing so allows easy and efficient battery removal and replacement.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stutz as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Nash (US 20160101719 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Stutz discloses the sleeper cab of claim 16, wherein the separation wall defines an exterior surface of the sleeper compartment (Stutz, Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4, separation wall defines a boundary of the sleeper compartment, side facing away from the sleeper compartment is the exterior surface), wherein the exterior surface is between the cavity and the sleeper cab (Stutz, Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4, between cavity in the sleeper compartment and the rest of the cab which includes the driving space).
Stutz fails to disclose the exterior surface is a firewall.
Nash teaches a firewall (Nash, paragraph 10, wall made from fire retardant).
Nash is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle walls as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Nash with a reasonable expectation of success and use fire retardant such that the separation wall exterior surface is a fire wall. Doing so enhances the safety of the vehicle occupants and prevents damages in case of fire.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stutz in view of Jang as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Cardoso (US 20130337296 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Stutz in view of Jang teaches the the sleeper cab of claim 17, but fails to disclose a temperature regulation system that regulates a temperature of at least one of the cavity and the energy storage system.
Cardoso teaches a temperature regulation system (Cardoso, 18, 50, 46, and 48 in Fig. 1, the fan and tubes allow air to flow through the battery in order to regulate temperature) that regulates a temperature of at least one of the cavity and the energy storage system.
Cardoso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery as Stutz in view Jang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz in view Jang to incorporate the teachings of Cardoso with a reasonable expectation of success and have a temperature regulation system. Doing so prevents battery from overheating.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Stutz in view of Jang and Cardoso teaches the sleeper cab of claim 23, wherein the temperature regulation system of the energy storage system is thermally connected to a temperature regulation system of the sleeper cab (Cardoso, temperature regulation system form by 18, 50, 46, and 48 of the energy storage system is thermally connected to 20, 40, 42 of the cab temperature regulation system).
Cardoso is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery as Stutz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz to incorporate the teachings of Cardoso with a reasonable expectation of success and have the two temperature regulation systems thermally connected. Doing so saves vehicle space and reduce unnecessary parts.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stutz in view of Jang as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Haslberger et al. (US 20110068309 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Stutz in view of Jang teaches the sleeper cab of claim 24, but fails to disclose a support structure that is configured to receive forks of a forklift to remove the energy storage system from a chassis.
Haslberger teaches a support structure (Haslberger, 55 in Fig. 3) that is configured to receive forks (Haslberger, 17 in Fig. 3) of a forklift (Haslberger, 15 in Fig. 3) to remove the energy storage system from a chassis (Haslberger, paragraph 39, remove the battery from the vehicle means it can be removed from the vehicle chassis).
Haslberger is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle battery storage in a vehicle cab as Stutz in view of Jang .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab as taught by Stutz in view of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Haslberger with a reasonable expectation of success and have the battery removable by a forklift. Doing so allows easy and efficient battery removal and replacement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PFEIFER et al. (DE 102022110750 A1) discloses truck sleeper cab having an energy storage system; Rigel (US 20050184558 A1) discloses a truck cab sleeping compartment above an energy storage system; and HENDRIKS et al. (US 20230415563 A1) discloses a truck cab above an energy storage system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights