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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2025, January 13, 2026, March 2, 2026, April 10, 2026, May 4, 2026, and August 11, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez et al. (US 2023/0130254 A1), hereinafter "Gonzalez".
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez discloses an electrified refuse vehicle (electric vehicle 100, fig. 1, ¶[0035]), comprising: a chassis (chassis 110 of an electric vehicle 100, fig. 1) including a first frame rail (first frame rail 122, fig. 1) and a second frame rail (second frame rail 124, fig. 1); a body supported on the chassis (examples of electric vehicle 100 recited as “a shuttle van, an electric bus, a limousine” include a body supported on the chassis, ¶[0030]); a battery pack supported on the chassis (battery pack 175 “secured to the chassis 110”, ¶[0037], fig. 1); and a power cable (any one of the plurality of high-voltage power cables corresponding to the first interconnect 126, ¶[0036], fig. 1) extending along the first frame rail (“a first interconnect 126 is positioned within a channel 127 of the first frame rail 122”, ¶[0036], fig. 1), wherein the power cable is enclosed by a combination of the first frame rail and the battery pack (fig. 1 shows first interconnect 126 enclosed by channel 127 of the first frame rail 122 and battery pack 175).
Regarding claim 2, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first frame rail defines a C-shape in cross section (C-shape profile of the first frame rail 122 best visible proximate designation 127 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 2, wherein the power cable is enclosed on three sides by the first frame rail and a fourth side by a battery wall of the battery pack (first interconnect 126 enclosed by the three surfaces of channel 127 of the first frame rail 122 and a side wall of battery pack 175, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first frame rail includes a first wall (upper surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1), a second wall extending substantially perpendicularly from the first wall (side surface of first frame rail 122 shown in vertical disposition in fig. 1), and a third wall extending substantially perpendicularly from the second wall and substantially parallel to the first wall (lower surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 6, wherein the power cable is enclosed on three sides by the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall (first interconnect 126 enclosed by the upper, side, and lower surfaces of the first frame rail 122, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 7, wherein the power cable is enclosed on a fourth side by a battery wall of the battery pack (first interconnect 126 enclosed by a side wall of battery pack 175, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the power cable is a first power cable, and the electrified refuse vehicle further includes a plurality of additional power cables routed through the first frame rail and enclosed by the combination of the first frame rail and the battery pack (“first interconnect 126 corresponds to a plurality of high-voltage (HV) power cables that propagates HV power”, ¶[0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the battery pack is a first battery pack (battery pack 175, fig. 1), further comprising a second battery pack (battery pack 170, fig. 1) extending longitudinally forward of the first battery pack (battery pack 170 positioned closer to a front end 130 of the electric vehicle 100 than battery pack 175, as shown in fig. 1), and wherein the power cable is enclosed by a combination of the first frame rail and the second battery pack (first interconnect 126 enclosed by channel 127 of the first frame rail 122 and battery pack 170, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Gonzalez discloses a vehicle (electric vehicle 100, fig. 1, ¶[0035]), comprising: a chassis (chassis 110 of an electric vehicle 100, fig. 1) including a first frame rail (first frame rail 122, fig. 1) and a second frame rail (second frame rail 124, fig. 1) extending longitudinally along the vehicle (frame rail defined by Gonzalez as “a component of the electric vehicle frame that extends longitudinally along the length of the frame”, ¶[0031]), the first frame rail including: a first wall (upper surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); a second wall offset below the first wall (lower surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); and a third wall extending between the first wall and the second wall (side surface of first frame rail 122, connecting upper and lower surfaces, and shown in vertical disposition in fig. 1), wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall define a frame volume facing toward the second frame rail (frame volume defined by channel 127, shown facing toward second frame rail 124 in fig. 1); a body coupled to the chassis (examples of electric vehicle 100 recited as “a shuttle van, an electric bus, a limousine” include a body coupled to the chassis, ¶[0030]); at least one of a hose or a cable extending longitudinally along the chassis within the frame volume (a power cable of “a first interconnect 126 is positioned within a channel 127”, ¶[0036], fig. 1); and a battery pack coupled to the chassis and extending between (a) the at least one of the hose or the cable and (b) the second frame rail (battery pack 175 coupled to the chassis 110 and extending between first interconnect 126 and second frame rail 124, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Gonzalez discloses an electrified vehicle (electric vehicle 100, fig. 1, ¶[0035]) comprising: a first frame rail (first frame rail 122, fig. 1) including: a first top wall (upper surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); a first bottom wall offset below the first top wall (lower surface of first frame rail 122 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); and a first side wall extending between the first top wall and the first bottom wall (side surface of first frame rail 122, connecting upper and lower surfaces, and shown in vertical disposition in fig. 1), wherein the first top wall, the first bottom wall, and the first side wall define a first frame volume facing laterally inward (frame volume defined by channel 127, shown facing laterally inward in fig. 1); a second frame rail fixedly coupled to the first frame rail and laterally offset from the first frame rail (second frame rail 124 coupled to first frame rail 122 by “a first cross member 145 being one of a plurality of cross members”, ¶[0038], fig. 1), the second frame rail including: a second top wall (upper surface of second frame rail 124 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); a second bottom wall offset below the second top wall (lower surface of second frame rail 124 shown in horizontal disposition in fig. 1); and a second side wall extending between the second top wall and the second bottom wall (side surface of second frame rail 124, connecting upper and lower surfaces, and shown in vertical disposition in fig. 1), wherein the second top wall, the second bottom wall, and the second side wall define a second frame volume facing laterally inward (frame volume defined by channel 129, shown facing laterally inward in fig. 1); a body coupled to the first frame rail and the second frame rail (examples of electric vehicle 100 recited as “a shuttle van, an electric bus, a limousine” include a body coupled to both frame rails, ¶[0030]); a cable extending along the first frame rail within the first frame volume (a power cable of “a first interconnect 126 is positioned within a channel 127”, ¶[0036], fig. 1); a conduit extending along the second frame rail within the second frame volume (the conduit formed by the upper, lower, and side surfaces of the second frame rail 124 and a side of battery packs 165, 170, 175, and 180, fig. 1); and a battery pack coupled to the first frame rail and the second frame rail and extending between the first frame volume and the second frame volume (battery pack 175 coupled to frame rails 122 and 124, and extending between frame channels 127 and 129, fig. 1).
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 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 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 116552223 A), hereinafter "Zhu".
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claims 3 and 8 respectively, wherein the battery pack is a first battery pack, but Gonzalez does not recite a second battery pack stacked upon the first battery pack. Zhu teaches a battery-swapping electric truck (fig. 1, p. 4, lines 23-30) comprising a battery box (numeral 30, fig. 6, p. 4, lines 49-56) positioned between the frame rails (frame longitudinal beams 21, fig. 6) and including a second battery pack stacked upon the first battery pack (see annotated figure 6 below, with a second battery pack, labeled BP2, stacked upon a first battery pack, labeled BP1, wherein the three sides of longitudinal beam 21 and a side of the first battery pack BP1 form an enclosure). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the second battery pack from Zhu stacked upon a first battery pack as recited, with the electric vehicle disclosed by Gonzalez. A skilled artisan may be motivated to configure a battery pack that is “convenient for battery exchange, does not occupy the layout space of the cargo compartment, and the battery exchange battery box is easily fixed” (Zhu, p. 2, lines 57-59). The combination would predictably achieve the desired results.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the combination discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claims 4 and 9 respectively, wherein the battery wall is formed along a side of both the first battery pack and the second battery pack (wall of battery box 30 of Zhu formed along a side of the two middle battery packs, best visible in fig. 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Menon et al. (US 11,465,482 B), hereinafter "Menon".
Regarding claim 17, Gonzalez discloses the vehicle of claim 16 but does not recite the battery pack extending below the second wall. Menon teaches an electric vehicle (numeral 1, fig. 1, col. 3, lines 41-47) wherein the battery pack (second battery accommodating portion 64 of plurality of batteries 61, figs. 4-5) extends below the second wall (lower flange 13 of side rails 11R and 11L, figs. 4-5). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to modify, based on Menon’s teachings and with a reasonable expectation of success, the electric vehicle of Gonzalez by extending the battery pack below the second wall. The motivation would have been to “provide an increased battery on-board capacity” (Menon, col. 2, line 13). The modification would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez and Menon as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Collignon (US 2023/0302889 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Gonzalez discloses the vehicle of claim 17 wherein the battery pack is a first battery pack, but does not recite a second battery pack coupled to the chassis, wherein a top surface of the first battery pack and a bottom surface of the second battery pack are positioned between the first wall and the second wall. Collignon teaches an electric battery mounting structure for use in electric vehicles (¶¶[0008]-[0012], fig. 1A-1F), further comprising a second battery pack coupled to the chassis (upper battery pack 21A of battery mounting structure 21, coupled to frame rails 11, figs. 1C and 2), wherein a top surface of the first battery pack (lower battery pack 21B of battery mounting structure 21, figs. 1C and 2) and a bottom surface of the second battery pack are positioned between the first wall and the second wall (contact surface of two battery packs 21A and 21B positioned between upper and lower horizontal sections of frame rails 11). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the battery mounting structure of Collignon with the modified electric vehicle of Gonzalez. The motivation would have been “enabling the installation of the battery packs by sliding them between the chassis rails from the forward-or rear-facing side of the longitudinal frame rails” (Collignon, ¶[0010]). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of “Routing Your Air Suspension Lines”, AccuAir Suspension, 2021, retrieved from the Internet on 2026-09-04: <URL: https://accuair.com/blogs/shop-talk/routing-your-air-suspension-lines>, hereinafter “AccuAir”.
Regarding claim 19, Gonzalez discloses the vehicle of claim 16 but does not recite a hose. AccuAir teaches routing air suspension lines wherein the at least one of the hose or the cable includes the hose (“a nylon reinforced DOT airline” run in the frame rail, first and second paragraphs of second page). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the teachings of AccuAir with the electric vehicle of Gonzalez and run an air hose through the frame rail in order to keep the hose “protected from road hazards” (AccuAir, second page, first paragraph). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Gonzalez discloses the electrified refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the power cable (a power cable of first interconnect 126) is a first power cable, but neither Gonzalez nor any other prior art reference recite a second power cable routed through the second frame rail and enclosed by a combination of the second frame rail and the battery pack in combination with all other limitations recited in claim 12. The closest reference, McKibben et al. (WO 2023/027961 A1), teaches a power cable through a frame rail (high voltage cable HV2 through frame rail 88A, fig. 7), but McKibben is silent regarding a second power cable routed through the second frame rail. Claims 13 and 14 depend on claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art of record relates to electric vehicles having features relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights