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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference characters mentioned in the description: 898 and 888 (“openings”: Paragraph 0056, Lines 3-4). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Wording in Paragraph 0003, Lines 3-5. Replacing “Electric vehicles comprise an electrified powertrain that comprise may comprises individual components such as a motor, transmission and power electronics. In some vehicles, an electric drive module (EDM) is a system with the components housed together. The electric drive modules contain an electric motor, a transmission and power electronics coupled together and mounted together in the vehicle.” with “Electric vehicles comprise an electrified powertrain that may comprise individual components such as a motor, transmission, and power electronics. In some vehicles, an electric drive module (EDM) is a system with the components housed together. The electric drive modules contain an electric motor, a transmission, and power electronics coupled together and mounted together in the vehicle.” is suggested. (Emphasis added.)
Wording in Paragraph 0006, Line 8. Replacing “The brackets include” with “Each bracket includes” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 14. Replacing “extending therefrom” with “extending perpendicularly therefrom” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 1. Replacing “wherein the openings” with “wherein each opening of the plurality of openings” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 1. Replacing “wherein the plurality of ribs” with “wherein each rib of the plurality of ribs” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 1. Replacing “wherein the plurality of ribs” with “wherein each rib of the plurality of ribs” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: Punctuation in Lines 4-5. Replacing “the first housing mount, the second housing mount and a third housing mount” with “the first housing mount, the second housing mount, and a third housing mount” is suggested. (Emphasis added.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the plurality of housing mounts comprise a first housing mount” with “the plurality of housing mounts comprises a first housing mount” is suggested. (Emphasis added.)
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: Punctuation in Lines 1-2. Replacing “an angled rib extending” with “a first rib, angled and extending” is suggested. (Emphasis added.) Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-13 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 9 recites the limitations “the first mounting extension” and “the second mounting extension” in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, “the first mounting extension” and “the second mounting extension” will be construed as “the top mounting extension” and “the bottom mounting extension” respectively.
Claims 12 and 13 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 12 recites the limitation “an engine mount coupled to the top mounting extension” while Specification Paragraph 0033, Lines 5 and 6 indicate that “The present system is exclusively for a battery vehicle 10, but the engine 12 is not used”. Accordingly, the nature of the “engine mount” recited in Claim 12 cannot be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, based on the disclosure of the instant application (in particular Specification Paragraph 0036 and Figs. 2, 5A, 6A, and 7A, Reference Characters 36, 40, 42, and 16C), the term “engine mount” will be construed as “power electronics mount”.
Claims 19 and 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 19 recites the limitation “between the first housing mount.” The meaning of this limitation cannot be ascertained.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu (WO 2019048921 A1) in view of Liu (CN 114734846 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Breu teaches a bracket assembly for an electric drive module having a drive module housing [Breu Figs. 1-4; Breu Page 9, Lines 1-9: “The intermediate frame section 2 comprises left and right frame parts 24, 26, each connected at their ends by a front frame part 28 and a rear frame part 30, each of the left and right frame parts being provided with one of the rear support mountings 17, 18 adjacent the rear frame part 30, and a bottom frame part 36 located near and extending between a lower region of each of the left and right, front and rear frame parts 24, 26, 28, 30. The frame parts 24, 26, 28, 30, 36 may be secured together by any suitable means for example by welding or fasteners such as bolts.”; Breu Page 12, Lines 6-9: “The driveline may include a continuously variable transmission 60 of the hydrostatic- mechanical split type (Figures 6 & 7). The battery pack 4 may be used by way of the power electronics unit 22 to power an electric motor 62 for driving the continuous variable transmission of the vehicle.”] comprising: a first intermediate bracket coupled to a first side of the housing [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, below, Reference Character 24]; a second intermediate bracket disposed on a second side of the housing [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, below, Reference Character 24]; a first cross member coupling the first intermediate bracket and the second intermediate bracket [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, Reference Character 28]; and a second cross member coupling the first intermediate bracket and the second intermediate bracket [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, Reference Character 30], said first intermediate bracket and the second intermediate bracket, each comprising: a planar base [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, below]; a top mounting extension perpendicular to the base in a first direction, the top mounting extension comprising a cylindrical extension extending therefrom [Breu Fig. 1, Reference Characters 18a and 18b]; and a bottom mounting extension perpendicular to the base in the first direction [Annotated Breu Fig. 2, above]; but does not teach housing mounts or ribs.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Breu Fig. 2
Liu teaches a plurality of housing mounts extending perpendicular to the base, and a plurality of ribs coupling the plurality of housing mounts, the top mounting extension and the bottom mounting extension [Liu Figs. 4 and 5, Reference Characters 110, 111, and 112; Liu Paragraph 0048: “the first connecting part 110 comprises a plurality of spaced and through the first plate rib structure of the first connecting hole 111, the first connecting hole 111 is provided with a plurality of first reinforcing ribs 112”.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, housing mounts and ribs in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing weight of the bracket, increasing strength of the housing mount, and improving connection stability, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0048: “Around the first connecting hole 111 is provided with a plurality of first reinforcing ribs 112, which can reduce the weight of the whole first bracket 100, on the other hand, reinforcing the strength of the first connecting hole 111, which is beneficial to improve the first bracket 100 and the vehicle-mounted charger connection stability, so as to improve the first-order mode of the whole vehicle-mounted charger bracket structure”].
Regarding Claim 4, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a plurality of ribs. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the plurality of ribs extends outward from the base [Liu Figs. 1, 4, and 6, Reference Character 122]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, ribs in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing weight of the bracket, increasing strength of the housing mount, and improving connection stability, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0048: “Around the first connecting hole 111 is provided with a plurality of first reinforcing ribs 112, which can reduce the weight of the whole first bracket 100, on the other hand, reinforcing the strength of the first connecting hole 111, which is beneficial to improve the first bracket 100 and the vehicle-mounted charger connection stability, so as to improve the first-order mode of the whole vehicle-mounted charger bracket structure”].
Regarding Claim 5, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach ribs extending in the first direction. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the plurality of ribs extends in the first direction from the base [Liu Figs. 1, 4, and 6, Reference Character 122 (typ)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, ribs in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing weight of the bracket, increasing strength of the housing mount, and improving connection stability, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0048: “Around the first connecting hole 111 is provided with a plurality of first reinforcing ribs 112, which can reduce the weight of the whole first bracket 100, on the other hand, reinforcing the strength of the first connecting hole 111, which is beneficial to improve the first bracket 100 and the vehicle-mounted charger connection stability, so as to improve the first-order mode of the whole vehicle-mounted charger bracket structure”].
Regarding Claim 6, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a support. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 further comprising a support angularly disposed between the top mounting extension and the base [Liu Fig. 9, unnumbered support below top mounting extension 240]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a support in view of Liu. It should be noted that while Liu does not provide an explicit motivation for including a support, including a support would achieve the desirable results of increasing strength of the top mounting and stabilizing the connection between the base and the top mounting extension, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 9, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a plurality of housing mounts. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the plurality of housing mounts comprise a first housing mount disposed on a first side lateral side and a second housing mount disposed on a second lateral side, wherein the first lateral side and the second lateral side are defined by a line between the first mounting extension and the second mounting extension [Liu Figs. 1 and 4, wherein the “first mounting extension” i.e., the “top mounting extension” is indicated by Reference Character 130 near callout “C” and the “second mounting extension” i.e., the “bottom mounting extension” is represented by Reference Character 121, within the circle of callout “D”.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, lateral separation of a first housing mount and a second housing mount, as recognized by Liu. It should be noted that while Liu does not provide an explicit motivation for specifying lateral separation of the housing mounts, such arrangement would evenly distribute the load between the housing mounts and thereby reduce the likelihood of adverse bending moments being applied to the intermediate bracket, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that, as a reason for implementing lateral separation of housing mounts has not been provided in the instant application, a change in form or shape, as a matter of design choice without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a first housing mount. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 9 wherein the first housing mount comprises a cylindrical channel normal to the planar base [Liu Figs. 4 and 7, Reference Character 111]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a housing mount that comprises cylindrical channels, as recognized by Liu. It should be noted that while Liu does not provide an explicit motivation for specifying cylindrical channels, such arrangement would reduce stress concentrations in the mount and would facilitate the use of readily available conventional fasteners such as bolts, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 11, Breu teaches a vehicle comprising an electric drive module comprising a motor, a transmission, power electronics, a housing, and a bracket assembly but does not teach housing mounts. Liu teaches a vehicle comprising: an electric drive module comprising a motor, a transmission, power electronics and a housing, the housing having the motor and transmission therein, the bracket assembly of claim 9 coupling the first housing mount, the second housing mount and a third housing mount disposed on the second lateral side [Liu Figs. 1 and 4, wherein the “first mounting extension” i.e., the “top mounting extension” is indicated by Reference Character 130 near callout “C” and the “second mounting extension” i.e., the “bottom mounting extension” is represented by Reference Character 121, within the circle of callout “D”.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, lateral separation of a first housing mount and a second housing mount, as recognized by Liu. It should be noted that while Liu does not provide an explicit motivation for specifying lateral separation of the housing mounts, such arrangement would evenly distribute the load between the housing mounts and thereby reduce the likelihood of adverse bending moments being applied to the intermediate bracket, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that, as a reason for implementing lateral separation of housing mounts has not been provided in the instant application, a change in form or shape, as a matter of design choice without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 12, Breu teaches a vehicle comprising power electronics but teaches that a power electronics mount coupled to the top mounting extension. (See rejection of Claim 12 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, above.) Liu teaches the vehicle of claim 11 further comprising a power electronics mount coupled to the top mounting extension [Liu Figs. 1-4, Reference Characters 400, 100, and 130; Liu Paragraph 0080: “the high voltage power distribution box module 400 and the first mounting part 130 and the second mounting part 240 are connected through the bolt”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a power electronics mount coupled to the top mounting extension in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of saving space and improving installation convenience and efficiency, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0079: “In order to save the mounting space” and Liu Paragraph 0080: “convenient for modular assembly, improves the assembling efficiency and saves time.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Breu teaches the vehicle of claim 12 further comprising a cradle coupled to the bottom mounting extension [Breu Figs. 2 and 4, Reference Character 36].
Regarding Claim 14, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach an angled rib. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the plurality of ribs comprises an angled rib extending between the top mounting extension and the bottom mounting extension [Liu Figs. 4, 7, and 8, wherein the angled rib is the unnumbered outermost/rightmost rib that extends between the top mounting extension 130 and the bottom mounting extension 121.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an angled rib in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Regarding Claim 15, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a second rib. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 14 further comprising a second rib extending between the top mounting extension and a first housing mount of the plurality of housing mounts [Liu Figs. 4, 5, and 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second rib in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Regarding Claim 16, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a third rib. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 15 further comprising a third rib extending between the first housing mount of the plurality of housing mounts and a second housing mount of the plurality of housing mounts [Liu Figs. 4, 5, and 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a third rib in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Regarding Claim 17, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a fourth rib. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 16 further comprising a fourth rib extending between the bottom mounting extension and the third rib [Liu Figs. 4-6, Reference Character 122]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fourth rib in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Regarding Claim 18, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a first rib. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the plurality of ribs comprises a first rib extending between the top mounting extension and the bottom mounting extension [Liu Figs. 4, 7, and 8 wherein the angled rib is the unnumbered outermost/rightmost rib that extends between the top mounting extension 130 and the bottom mounting extension 121.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a first rib in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Regarding Claim 20, Breu teaches a bracket assembly but does not teach a plurality of ribs. Liu teaches the bracket assembly of claim 19 wherein the plurality of ribs comprises a third rib extending between the top mounting extension and a second housing mount, a fourth rib extending between the second housing mount and the bottom mounting extension and a fifth rib between the fourth rib and a third housing mount [Liu Figs. 4, 5, and 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of Breu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, third, fourth, and fifth ribs in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing structure strength and improving the first order mode of the whole bracket main body, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0070: “further increases the structure strength of the first supporting part 120 and/or the second supporting part 220, which is beneficial to improve the first order mode of the whole bracket main body.”].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu (WO 2019048921 A1) in view of Liu (CN 114734846 A) and further in view of Bai et al. (CN 220374221 U) (hereinafter “Bai”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Breu and Liu teaches a bracket assembly comprising a base but does not teach openings. Bai teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the base comprises a plurality of openings extending therethrough [Bai Fig. 1, Reference Characters 10-14; Bai Paragraph 0013: “As shown in FIG. 1, the hollow-out holes 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 on the mounting bracket reach the effect of reducing weight and reducing cost under the condition that the bracket strength is not changed”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of the combination of Breu and Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, openings in view of Bai. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu, Liu, and Bai because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing weight and cost while preserving strength, as recognized by Bai [Bai Paragraph 0013: “reach the effect of reducing weight and reducing cost under the condition that the bracket strength is not changed”].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Breu and Liu teaches a bracket assembly comprising a base but does not teach openings. Bai teaches the bracket assembly of claim 2 wherein the openings are disposed between at least two ribs of the plurality of ribs [Bai Fig. 1, Reference Characters 6-9; Bai Abstract: “the bracket main body is provided with a reinforcing rib structure (6, 7, 8, 9)”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of the combination of Breu and Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, openings in view of Bai. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu, Liu, and Bai because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing weight and cost while preserving strength, as recognized by Bai [Bai Paragraph 0013: “reach the effect of reducing weight and reducing cost under the condition that the bracket strength is not changed”].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu (WO 2019048921 A1) in view of Liu (CN 114734846 A) and further in view of Miyahara et al. (JP 2007302014 A) (hereinafter “Miyahara”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Breu and Liu teaches a first cylindrical extension but does not teach a second cylindrical extension. Miyahara teaches the bracket assembly of claim 1 wherein the top mounting extension comprises a first cylindrical extension and the bottom mounting extension comprises a second cylindrical extension [Miyahara Fig. 3, wherein the cylindrical extension on the top mounting extension is the unnumbered item upon which bushing 32 (typ) rests, wherein the cylindrical extension on the bottom mounting extension is the unnumbered item upon which bushing 32 (typ) rests, wherein Reference Characters 41R and 41L are the first intermediate bracket and the second intermediate bracket respectively, and Reference Characters 42 and 43 are the first cross member and second cross member respectively.; Miyahara Paragraph 0017: “As shown in FIGS. 1 to 3, the vehicle body 20 includes four front and rear left and right vibration-proof elastic bushes 32 on the front portions of the left and right front side frames 21L and 21R and the left and right brackets 24L and 24R. The front subframe 40 is suspended through.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of the combination of Breu and Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, cylindrical extensions in view of Miyahara. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Breu, Liu, and Miyahara because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing vibration by enabling the implementation of vibration-proof bushes, as recognized by Miyahara [Miyahara 0017: “the vehicle body 20 includes four front and rear left and right vibration-proof elastic bushes”].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Breu and Liu teaches a first cylindrical extension but does not teach a second cylindrical extension. Miyahara teaches the bracket assembly of claim 7 wherein the first cylindrical extension comprises a first longitudinal axis and the second cylindrical extension comprises a second longitudinal axis, not aligned with the first longitudinal axis [Miyahara Fig. 3, wherein the cylindrical extension on the top mounting extension is the unnumbered item upon which bushing 32 (typ) rests, wherein the cylindrical extension on the bottom mounting extension is the unnumbered item upon which bushing 32 (typ) rests, wherein Reference Characters 41R and 41L are the first intermediate bracket and the second intermediate bracket respectively, and Reference Characters 42 and 43 are the first cross member and second cross member respectively.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bracket assembly of the combination of Breu and Liu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, non-aligned axes in view of Miyahara. It should be noted that while Miyahara does not provide an explicit motivation for offsetting the vertical axes, the implementation of offset/non-aligned axes would longitudinally separate the bushes which would reduce rotation of the intermediate brackets about a point between the top mounting extension and the bottom extension, and would thereby reduce up/down movement of the electric drive module; this would improve stability of the bracket assembly, as would be recognized by person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Note further that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights