DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abbreviation “PE” is used for “power electronics,” even though this is not immediately clear from reading through the abstract. In the interest of clarity, “PE” should be left as “power electronics” at least once in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skaloud et al. (US 11001443 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Skaloud teaches “A lower vehicle body having a drainage structure for protecting a power electronics (PE) system, comprising:
a rear floor panel (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1);
a bed floor coupled to an upper end of the rear floor panel to form a bed floor lower space (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1); and
a PE convex part forming a periphery of the PE system located under the rear floor panel as a drainage protection area using a water blocking wall (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1), wherein the water blocking wall is configured to direct water of the PE convex part to a drainage area of the rear floor panel at a protruding height higher than the drainage area (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
748
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 2, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 1, wherein the water blocking wall is an edge forming a height of the PE convex part (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1), wherein three surfaces of four surfaces of the edge are a convex part edge inclined surface and directed to a front of the PE system (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1), and wherein a remaining one surface of the four surfaces is a convex part rear inclined surface and directed to a rear of the PE system (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image2.png
457
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 3, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 2, wherein the rear floor panel has a drainage hole in the drainage area configured so that water drains to an outside of the rear floor panel (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image3.png
429
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 4, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 3, wherein the rear floor panel divides the drainage area into a front drainage area on a PE mounting part and a rear drainage area on a rear portion with respect to the PE convex part (see Skaloud, Figure 9, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image4.png
480
805
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 9, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 5, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 4, wherein the rear floor panel forms a connection part with an extension surface connected to the PE mounting part (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3), and wherein the extension surface has a downward inclined structure connected to the PE mounting part configured to direct the water (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3).”
PNG
media_image5.png
429
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3
Regarding claim 6, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 5, wherein the rear floor panel forms the extension surface and the rear portion together with a surrounding section of the PE convex part as a drainage guide area (see Skaloud, col. 5, ln. 6).”
Regarding claim 7, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 6, wherein front inclined structures and a rear inclined structure are applied to the drainage guide area and configured so that the water flows to the drainage guide area through downward inclination (see Skaloud, col. 9, ln. 9).”
Regarding claim 8, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 7, wherein the front inclined structures are the extension surface of the connection part connected to the PE mounting part and the convex part edge inclined surface of the PE convex part (see Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3).”
Regarding claim 9, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 7, wherein the rear inclined structure is part the convex part edge inclined surface of the PE convex part connected to a third drainage hole in the rear portion of the drainage hole (see Skaloud, Figure, Annotation Set 4).”
PNG
media_image6.png
460
517
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 4, Annotation Set 4
Regarding claim 10, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 1, wherein the rear floor panel is coupled to a rear floor member surrounding side portions of the rear floor panel under the rear floor panel,
wherein an upper member is located at an upper end of the rear floor panel, and
wherein a quarter panel is connected to a side portion of the rear floor member on a side surface of the rear floor panel.”
PNG
media_image7.png
748
945
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 11, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 10, wherein intersections at which the rear floor member, the upper member, and the quarter panel meet form an inclined surface at a higher location than the rear floor panel (upper member comprises an inclined surface, see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 2), and
wherein the inclined surface forms a water movement path configured so that through which the water is collected to the drainage area (see Skaloud, Figure, Annotation Set 4).”
Regarding claim 12, Skaloud teaches “The body of claim 11, wherein the water movement path is connected to a sidewall upper extension extending from a side flange of the rear floor panel added to a longitudinal member of the rear floor member (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 3), and
wherein the sidewall upper extension is located on a longitudinal member side upper end surface of the rear floor member and a transverse member side upper member lower extension of the upper member (see Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 3).”
PNG
media_image8.png
832
935
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Skaloud, Figure 19, Annotation Set 3
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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaloud et al. (US 11001443 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Skaloud teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, except “the rear floor panel is configured to change the drainage area using any one of a location and shape of a drainage hole and a number of drainage holes through which the water is discharged to an outside of the body.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a method of adjusting the drainage area by adjusting the location, shape, and number of drainage holes, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 14, Skaloud teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, except “due to an increase in the number of drainage holes, an entire section of the drainage area is filled with the drainage hole.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a method of adjusting the drainage area by adjusting the location, shape, and number of drainage holes, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 15, Skaloud teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, except “due to a modification of a shape of the drainage hole, an entire section of the drainage area is removed and formed as the drainage hole.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a method of adjusting the drainage area by adjusting the location, shape, and number of drainage holes, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, (CCPA 1954).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 16 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to “A pickup vehicle comprising: a lower vehicle body having a drainage structure for protecting a power electronics (PE) system.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Skaloud teaches a draining system designed to protect electronics within a vehicle, however said vehicle is a small-scale delivery robot, not a pickup truck. Prior art concerning pickup truck chassis with drainage ports fails to mention any motivation to protect electronic components. The office sees no obvious relation between a chassis of a delivery robot and a pickup truck without resorting to hindsight reasoning, thus claim 16 is rendered allowable. Claims 17-19 are allowable by virtue of dependency on claim 16.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 20 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to “a PE cover part of the PE system located under the rear floor panel.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Prior art concerning pickup truck chassis with drainage ports fails to mention any motivation to protect electronic components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose vehicle chassis with drainage channels or holes.
Takahashi (US 20030122402 A1)
Sugisaki et al. (CN 217320535 U)
Hanson et al. (US 20070257519 A1)
Kim et al. (KR 20250175882 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. 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, 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.
/JRC/
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
