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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed1/17/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-16, 20, and 76-78 are pending with claims 17-19 and 21-75 being currently cancelled (Preliminary Amendment) and claims 76-78 being currently added (Preliminary Amendment).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a single run-on sentence and thus, is not in narrative form.
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
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 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, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koormann et al. (US 20080252101).
Regarding claim 1: Koormann discloses a carrier 22 comprising a periphery (Fig. 4; [0037]). Koormann discloses a periphery having an outer face (illustrated but not numbered) configured to be oriented away from a frame enclosure of a vehicle (Figs. 4, 5). Koormann discloses an inner face (illustrated but not numbered) opposite and distanced from the outer face along a transverse axis (Figs. 4, 5). Koormann discloses that the inner face is configured to be oriented toward the frame enclosure of the vehicle (Figs. 4, 5). Koormann discloses a first end and a second end arranged opposite each other along a longitudinal axis of the carrier (Figs. 4-7). Koormann discloses one or more series of ribs 44 within the periphery (Figs. 4-7). Koormann discloses the one or more series of ribs having a cross-sectional pattern and an orientation along the longitudinal axis, the transverse axis, or both (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 2: Koormann discloses that the cross-sectional pattern is a biased pattern, a rectangular pattern, a honeycomb pattern, a hybrid pattern, or any combination thereof (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 3: Koormann discloses that the biased pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs angularly biased from the first end and the second ends, the periphery, or both (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 7: Koormann discloses that the hybrid pattern is an arrangement of one or more series of ribs according to a combination of the biased pattern, the rectangular pattern, the honeycomb pattern, or any combination thereof (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 9: Koormann discloses that the cross-sectional pattern spans a portion of a cross-section of the carrier or spans an entirety of the cross-section of the carrier (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claim 10: Koormann discloses that the carrier comprises one or more base materials, one or more reinforcing materials, one or more additives, or any combination thereof (Figs. 4-7; [0089]).
Regarding claim 11: Koormann discloses that the carrier comprises the one or more base materials which includes a polymer, a metal, or both (Figs. 4-7; [0089]).
Regarding claim 13: Koormann discloses that the metal includes aluminum, steel, brass, magnesium, zinc, titanium, or any combination thereof (Figs. 4-7; [0089]).
Regarding claim 15: Koormann discloses that the carrier is employed on a frame of the vehicle (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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koormann et al. (US 20080252101) in view of Buron et al. (US 20140042758).
Koormann discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4: Koormann does not explicitly disclose that the rectangular pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs parallel to the first end and second end, the periphery, or both. Buron discloses that the rectangular pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs parallel to the first end and second end, the periphery, or both (Fig. 5). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Koormann so that the rectangular pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs parallel to the first end and second end, the periphery, or both as taught by Buron. As both Koormann and Buron are directed to vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption, as Koormann is silent regarding a rectangular pattern but does not preclude such, as vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption structures are very well known in the art, and as Buron explicitly teaches that a rectangular pattern can be an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs parallel to the first end and second end, the periphery, or both, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired pattern shape from a finite selection of pattern shapes for vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption structures and shapes (i.e. round, angled, rectangular, or polygonal). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5: Koormann, as modified by Buron, discloses that a first of the one or more series of ribs is perpendicular to a second of the one or more series of ribs (Buron – Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12: Koormann, as modified by Buron, discloses that the polymer includes polyamide, polyvinyl chloride polyetherimide, polycarbonate, poly(methyl methacrylate), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyetherketoneketone, polyaryletherketone, polyether ether ketone, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, polyethylene, or any combination thereof (Buron – Fig. 5; abstr.; [0012], [0042], [0066]).
Regarding claim 14: Koormann, as modified by Buron, discloses that the carrier includes the one or more reinforcing materials which includes mineral reinforcement, glass reinforcement, carbon reinforcement, polymeric reinforcement, elastomeric reinforcement, core-shell polymer, or any combination thereof (Buron – Fig. 5; abstr.; [0012], [0042], [0066]).
Claims 6, 8, 16, 20, 76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koormann et al. (US 20080252101) in view of Cooper et al. (US 10370040).
Koormann discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: Koormann does not explicitly disclose that the honeycomb pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs comprising a first series of ribs having a symmetrical zigzag pattern, a second series of ribs having a symmetrical, zigzag pattern, the second series of ribs having reflection symmetry with respect to the first series of ribs, and a third series of ribs parallel to the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both and extending from peaks formed by the zigzag patterns of the first series of ribs and second series of ribs. Cooper discloses that the honeycomb pattern 40, 54, 60 is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs comprising a first series of ribs having a symmetrical zigzag pattern, a second series of ribs having a symmetrical, zigzag pattern, the second series of ribs having reflection symmetry with respect to the first series of ribs, and a third series of ribs parallel to the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both and extending from peaks formed by the zigzag patterns of the first series of ribs and second series of ribs (Figs. 4-6; col 3 lines 12-21; col. 3, lines 36-47; col. 3, line 59-col. 4, line 31). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Koormann so that the honeycomb pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs comprising a first series of ribs having a symmetrical zigzag pattern, a second series of ribs having a symmetrical, zigzag pattern, the second series of ribs having reflection symmetry with respect to the first series of ribs, and a third series of ribs parallel to the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both and extending from peaks formed by the zigzag patterns of the first series of ribs and second series of ribs as taught by Cooper. As both Koormann and Cooper are directed to vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption, as Koormann is silent regarding a honeycomb pattern but does not preclude such, as vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption structures are very well known in the art, and as Cooper explicitly teaches that a honeycomb pattern is an arrangement of the one or more series of ribs comprising a first series of ribs having a symmetrical zigzag pattern, a second series of ribs having a symmetrical, zigzag pattern, the second series of ribs having reflection symmetry with respect to the first series of ribs, and a third series of ribs parallel to the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both and extending from peaks formed by the zigzag patterns of the first series of ribs and second series of ribs, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired pattern shape from a finite selection of pattern shapes for vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption structures and shapes (i.e. round, angled, rectangular, or polygonal (honeycomb)). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the hybrid pattern includes a first series of ribs and a second series of ribs, each parallel to the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both, that the first series of ribs is perpendicular to the second series of ribs, and that a third series of ribs is angularly biased from the first end and the second end, the periphery, or both (Cooper – Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 16: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the carrier is employed in a rocker, a bumper bar, or both (Koormann – Figs. 2, 9 – the carrier is against the side sill (rocker and could be interpreted as “employed in” a rocker; Cooper – Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-46).
Regarding claim 20: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the carrier prevents damage to a battery of an electric drive system of the vehicle (Cooper –col.1, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 76: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the carrier is located between a rocker and a sill of a frame of the vehicle (Cooper – Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-46).
Regarding claim 78: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses a carrier (Koormann – 22) comprising a periphery (see above; Koormann - Fig. 4; [0037]). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses a periphery having an outer face (see above; Koormann - illustrated but not numbered) configured to be oriented away from a frame enclosure of a vehicle (see above; Koormann - Figs. 4, 5). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses an inner face (see above; Koormann - illustrated but not numbered) opposite and distanced from the outer face along a transverse axis vehicle (see above; Koormann - Figs. 4, 5). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the inner face is configured to be oriented toward the frame enclosure of the vehicle ( see above; Koormann - Figs. 4, 5). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses a first end and a second end arranged opposite each other along a longitudinal axis of the carrier (see above; Koormann - Figs. 4-7). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses one or more series of ribs (see above; Koormann – 44) within the periphery (see above; Koormann - Figs. 4-7). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses a cross-sectional pattern and an orientation along the longitudinal axis, the transverse axis, or both (see above; Koormann - Figs. 4-7). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the carrier is employed on a frame of the vehicle (see above; Koormann – Fig. 1). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the vehicle has an electric drive system (see above; Cooper –col.1, lines 6-15). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the carrier is configured to prevent damage to a battery of the electric drive system (see above; Cooper –col.1, lines 6-15).
Claims 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koormann et al. (US 20080252101) and Cooper et al. (US 10370040), as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of Tsubaki et al. (US 20220258802).
Koormann and Cooper disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 77: Koormann, as modified by Cooper, discloses that the sill extends adjacent to a floor pan of the frame and that the rocker is affixed to and spans the length of the sill (Cooper – Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-46). Koormann, as modified by Cooper, does not explicitly disclose that the sill extends adjacent to a battery tray. Tsubaki discloses that a sill 20 extends adjacent to a battery tray 103 (Figs. 1, 2; abstr.; [0050], [0052]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Koormann, as modified by Cooper, so that the sill extends adjacent to a battery tray as taught by Tsubaki. As Koormann, Cooper, and are directed to vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption, as Koormann, as modified by Cooper, is silent regarding that the sill extends adjacent to a battery tray, as vehicle reinforcement and impact/energy absorption structures are very well known in the art, as batteries and battery trays being positioned adjacent a vehicle sill is very well known in the art, and as Tsubaki explicitly teaches that that the sill extends adjacent to a battery tray, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired protective design for a vehicle battery from a finite selection of protective designs (i.e. a sill extending along a battery or battery tray or another battery protecting structure (if the battery is not placed along a vehicle sill). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(I)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 76-77 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2 and 5-12 of US Pat. No. 12012149. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 and 5-12 of US Pat. No. 12012149 fully encompass claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, and 76-77 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
9/21/2026
