> obvious to the average automotive engineer trying to solve the problem That isn't the criteria by which non-obviousness is evaluated. In addition to that, a

> obvious to the average automotive engineer trying to solve the problem That isn't the criteria by which non-obviousness is evaluated. In addition to that, a lot of patents that seem obvious to those not experienced in reading and evaluating patents have subtle differentiation in the claims that narrow their scope in a manner sufficient enough to gain admission. IANAL, yet, I have read and analyzed thousands of patents, filed dozens (with the help of patent attorneys) and have taken a couple of courses on patent prosecution from the USPTO and other sources. Having said that, as an engineers, I do think that a huge body of patents ought to be summarily thrown out. I feel that a massive number of patents don't have one iota of real invention in them. This Rivian patent might very well be one of them. In a lot of cases patents such as this one are filed and just to get to the freedom-to-operate threshold. In other words, to defend against being told that you can't do what you are doing because someone else has a patent that might cover it. This is how we end-up with millions of bullshit patents for things that just don't look like true invention to anyone in the field who has more than two functioning neurons in their head. There's invention and then there are patents. The mistake I made as a young engineer was thinking that the two were equivalent. They are not. At all.