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 § 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) 1-2, 9-10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coupal-Sikes (US 20240149657 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coupal-Sikes discloses a side-impact protection device (step assembly 260) for a battery system (battery assembly 100 with housing 200) supported under a chassis (frame 54, fig.1) of a vehicle (vehicle 50), the device comprising: a plurality of pieces (bracket assembly 600, enclosure 616, crumple member 618, figs.12-12C) configured to be assembled together to form an impact-absorbing structure shaped to at least partially enclose a lateral side of the battery system and form: an outer-facing side (crumple member 618) that supports a fairing (outer enclosure member 616 as seen in figure 12A), and an inner-facing side (inner enclosure member 616 and bracket assembly 600 as seen in figure 12A) that attaches to at least the lateral side of the battery system.
Regarding claim 2, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the plurality of pieces include: a plurality of brackets (bracket assembly 600, fig.12A) configured to be attached to the lateral side of the battery system; and a panel (inner enclosure member 616 and crumple member 618, figs.12A) configured to be attached to the plurality of brackets such that the panel extends between the plurality of brackets, and can be maintained in spaced-relation with the lateral side of the battery system (fig.12-12C).
Regarding claim 9, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the fairing is distinctly formed and attached to the outer-facing side (outer enclosure member 616, fig.12A).
Regarding claim 10, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the impact-absorbing structure comprises at least one panel (crumple member 618, fig.12A) that is configured to be supported in spaced-relation with the lateral side of the battery system (spaced from the side of battery housing 200 by the inner enclosure member 616, fig.12A).
Regarding claim 13, Coupal-Sikes discloses a vehicle (vehicle 50) with an electric powertrain (electric motors), the vehicle comprising: a chassis (frame assembly 54); a battery system (battery assembly 100 with housing 200) attached to, and supported at least partially under, the chassis (fig.3), the battery system comprising a first lateral side and a second lateral side opposite to the first lateral side (fig.3 shows housing have two lateral sides); and a side-impact protection system (step assembly 260), comprising: a first side-impact protection device (step assembly 260, fig.3) that includes a first impact-absorbing structure (bracket assembly 600, enclosure 616, crumple member 618, figs.12-12C) shaped to at least partially enclose the first lateral side of the battery system, and a second side-impact protection device that includes a second impact-absorbing structure (step assembly 260, fig.3) shaped to at least partially enclose the second lateral side of the battery system, the first and second side-impact protection devices each comprising: an outer-facing side (crumple member 618) that supports a corresponding fairing (outer enclosure member 616 as seen in figure 12A), and an inner-facing side (inner enclosure member 616 and bracket assembly 600 as seen in figure 12A) that attaches to the corresponding first lateral side or second lateral side of the battery system.
Regarding claim 14, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the first and second side-impact protection devices are each attached directly to the corresponding first lateral side or second lateral side of the battery system without being attached directly to the chassis (step assemblies 260 are attached directly to the housing 200 of the battery assembly 100 and not to the frame 54, fig.3).
Regarding claim 16, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the fairing is distinctly formed and attached to the outer-facing side (outer enclosure member 616, fig.12A).
Regarding claim 17, Coupal-Sikes disclose wherein the first and second side-impact protection devices are each formed from a plurality of pieces (bracket assembly 600, enclosure 616, crumple member 618, figs.12-12C) that couple together with integrally-formed attachment structures.
Regarding claim 18, Coupal-Sikes discloses a method of integrating a side-impact protection system (step assembly 260) into a vehicle (vehicle 50) that includes a chassis (frame 54) and a battery system (battery assembly 100 with housing 200) supported at least partially under the chassis, the battery system comprising a first lateral side and a second lateral side (lateral sides of housing 200 of battery assembly 100 as seen in figure 3), the method comprising: attaching a first side-impact protection device (step assembly 260, fig.3) to the first lateral side of the battery system; attaching a first fairing (outer enclosure member 616 as seen in figure 12A) to the first side-impact protection device such that the first fairing at least partially encloses the first side-impact protection device; attaching a second side-impact protection device (step assembly 260, fig.3) to the second lateral side of the battery system; and attaching a second fairing (outer enclosure member 616 as seen in figure 12A) to the second side-impact protection device such that the second fairing at least partially encloses the second side-impact protection device.
Regarding claim 19, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the first and second side-impact protection devices are each attached directly to the corresponding first lateral side or second lateral side of the battery system without being attached directly to the chassis (step assemblies 260 are attached directly to the housing 200 of the battery assembly 100 and not to the frame 54, fig.3).
Regarding claim 21, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein attaching the first and second side-impact protection devices to the corresponding first and second lateral sides of the battery system (fig.3) comprises: attaching a plurality of brackets (bracket assembly 600, figs.12-12C) to the corresponding first or second lateral side of the battery system; and attaching a panel (inner enclosure member 616 and crumple member 618, figs.12A) to the plurality of brackets such that the panel is maintained in spaced relation with the battery system (figs.12-12C).
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.
Claim(s) 3-7, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupal-Sikes (US 20240149657 A1) in view of Hirota (US 20210078638 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein the plurality of pieces include: a plurality of brackets (bracket assembly 600, fig.12A) configured to be attached to the lateral side of the battery system, and a crumple structure (crumple member 618) configured to be attached to the plurality of brackets such that the compartmented structure extends between the plurality of brackets (figs.12-12C), and can be maintained in spaced-relation with the lateral side of the battery system (figs.12-12C), but fails to discloses the crumple structure has a compartmented structure.
However, Hirota discloses the crumple structure has a compartmented structure (first and second energy absorbing members 20/120 and 30/130, fig.2-5).
Coupal-Sikes and Hirota are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Hirota with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Coupal-Sikes discloses the side-impact protection device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the crumple structure has compartmented structure.
However, Hirota discloses wherein the plurality of pieces include: a compartmented structure (first and second energy absorbing members 20/120 and 30/130, fig.2-5) that comprises the inner-facing side and the outer-facing side and that is configured to be attached directly against the lateral side of the battery system (power supply package 40, figs.1-5), or a plurality of compartmented structures that together comprise the inner-facing side and the outer-facing side and that are configured to be attached directly against the lateral side of the battery system.
Coupal-Sikes and Hirota are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Hirota with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Coupal-Sikes discloses the side-impact protection device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the crumple structure has a compartmented structure.
However, Hirota discloses wherein the plurality of pieces include: a first compartmented structure (first energy absorbing member 20/120, figs.2-5) that forms a lower portion of the side-impact protection device upon assembly (fisg.2-5), and that comprises a first integrally-formed attachment structure (first protrusion 24/124, figs.2-5); and a second compartmented structure (second energy absorbing member 30/130, figs.2-5) that forms an upper portion of the side-impact protection device upon assembly (figs.2-5), and that comprises a second integrally-formed attachment structure (second protrusion 34/134, figs.2-5), wherein the first integrally-formed attachment structure and the second integrally-formed attachment structure are configured to be reversibly coupled to each other (fisg.2-5).
Coupal-Sikes and Hirota are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Hirota with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Regarding claims 6-7, Coupal-Sikes in combination with Hirota discloses protrusions (24/124 and 34/134 with bolt 28) for attaching the first and second compartmented structures (20/120 and 30/130). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that male-female attachment and interlocking attachment are obvious variants and would be a simple substitution of one known element for another.
Regarding claim 22, Coupal-Sikes discloses wherein attaching the first and second side-impact protection devices to the corresponding first and second lateral sides of the battery system (fig.3) comprises: attaching a plurality of brackets (bracket assembly 600, figs.12-12C) to the corresponding first or second lateral side of the battery system; and attaching a crumple structure (inner enclosure member 616 and crumple member 618, figs.12A) to the plurality of brackets such that the compartmented structure is maintained in spaced relation with the battery system, but fails to discloses the crumple structure has a compartmented structure.
However, Hirota discloses the crumple structure has a compartmented structure (first and second energy absorbing members 20/120 and 30/130, fig.2-5).
Coupal-Sikes and Hirota are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Hirota with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupal-Sikes (US 20240149657 A1) in view of In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Coupal-Sikes discloses fairing (outer enclosure member 616, fig.12A) attached to the crumple member (618, fig.12A) and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the fairing be integrally formed with the outer-facing side as disclosed by In re Larson. In re Larson discloses that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art as separate pieces would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coupal-Sikes (US 20240149657 A1) in view of Kaimai (US 20260097813 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Coupal-Sikes discloses the side-impact protection device of claim 10 but fails to disclose wherein the panel comprises a corrugated panel and the panel comprises a plurality of sheets of material coupled together.
However, Kaimai discloses impact abosprtion structure (members 12 having energy absorption portions 401 and 402, fig.6) having the panel comprises a corrugated panel (energy absorption portion 402 has corrugated structure with lateral plate portions 57 between vertical plates 55 and wall 52, fig.6) and a plurality of sheets of material coupled together (walls 51, 52, and vertical plate 55 are coupled together, fig.6).
Coupal-Sikes and Kaimai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Kaimai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Coupal-Sikes discloses the method of claim 18 but fails to disclose the side-impact protection device formed by extruding a plurality of metal pieces and connected them.
However, Kaimai discloses further comprising forming each side-impact protection device (members 12 having energy absorption portions 401 and 402, fig.6) by: extruding (extruded material, paragraph [0033-0035]) a plurality of metal pieces (members 12 having energy absorption portions 401 and 402, fig.6); and connecting the plurality of extruded metal pieces together by coupling together integrally formed attachment structures formed on the plurality of extruded metal pieces (fig.6).
Coupal-Sikes and Kaimai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery protection structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Coupal-Sikes with the energy absorption structure of Kaimai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing high-impact resistance, dissipates energy, and structural efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
