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 . The examiner highly recommends applicant discusses the issues noted in this Final Rejection with a patent attorney.
Specification
A substitute specification was received on 06/10/24. However, the examiner notes that the current application appears to have a large number of filed specifications and claims sets. The examiner additionally notes that applications are limited to what is originally filed at the time said application is filed. At best, this would be the content present in one of the specifications as filed on either 03/29/17 or 06/15/17 as the specification filed on 06/15/17 is a double-spaced version of what was filed on 03/29/17; in addition to the content of the claims as filed on 03/29/17. This means that new matter beyond what is shown in the specification as filed on 06/15/17 and the claims as filed on 03/29/17 cannot be added to the specification and/or claims of the current application. A review of the specification on 06/17/24 shows all of the following elements which appear to raise new matter issues and evidence must be shown to show where these elements are described in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17 (the examiner notes that additional new matter issues may be present within the specification as filed on 06/10/24, but the examiner has only identified the obvious new matter issues; applicant should compare the specifications as filed on both 06/15/17 and 06/10/24 to identify additional new matter issues):
The “vanes” on page 3. The “vanes” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “coolant” on page 5. The “coolant” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “radiator” on page 5. The “radiator” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “an adjustable front portion” on page 6. The “front portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “an adjustable back portion” on page 6. The “back portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “an adjustable roof portion” on pages 5 and 6. The “roof” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all OR as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “van” and “wagon” on pages 3 and 7. The “van” and “wagon” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “vehicle modules” on page 14. The “vehicle modules” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “adjustable screw” on page 14. The “adjustable screw” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The description of the “sheets” on page 14. The “sheets” of a mobile vehicle appear to be described vaguely in the specification filed on 06/15/17 and not in detail AND not at all in the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “a pair of side portions” on page 15. The “a pair of side portions” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all OR described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “hydroelectric” on page 16. The “hydroelectric” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “stick and shift” on page 19. The “stick and shift” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, this new matter issue also appears to be present within the abstract:
Applicant should review all of the above noted new matter elements present within the specification, and see which of these also appear to be within the abstract itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The examiner notes that the current application appears to have a large number of filed specifications and claims sets. The examiner additionally notes that applications are limited to what is originally filed at the time said application is filed. At best, this would be the content present in one of the specifications as filed on either 03/29/17 or 06/15/17 as the specification filed on 06/15/17 is a double-spaced version of what was filed on 03/29/17; in addition to the content of the claims as filed on 03/29/17. This means that new matter beyond what is shown in the specification as filed on 06/15/17 and the claims as filed on 03/29/17 cannot be added to the claims of the current application. A review of the claims on 06/17/24 shows all of the following claim elements which appear to raise new matter issues and evidence must be shown to show where these elements are described in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17:
The limitation “an adjustable a front portion” in claim 1. The “front portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “an adjustable a back portion” in claim 1. The “back portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “an adjustable a roof portion” in claim 1. The “roof” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all OR as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “vehicle modules” in claim 1. The “modules” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “coolant system” in claim 1. The “coolant system” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The limitation “radiator unit” in claim 1. The “radiator unit” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “concentric system” in claim 1. The “concentric system” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “power substation” in claim 1. The “power substation” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “high voltage machine” in claim 1. The “high voltage machine” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “man hole” in claim 1. The “man hole” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The “electric vehicle charging USB cord” in claim 1. The “electric vehicle charging USB cord” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “alternative means”. The “alternative means” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “shell command vehicle”. The “shell command vehicle” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “minivan”, “van”, “bus”, “trailer” and “wagon”. The terms “minivan”, “van”, “bus”, “trailer” and “wagon” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a plurality of batteries adjustably positioned inside the electric vehicle shell”. The “a plurality of batteries adjustably positioned inside the electric vehicle shell” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “mini-van”, “van”, “bus”, and “wagon”. The “mini-van”, “van”, “bus”, and “wagon” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein specific portions of the electric vehicle body are screwed. or welded at adjustable mounting portions” in claim 9. The “wherein specific portions of the electric vehicle body are screwed. or welded at adjustable mounting portions” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “digital signal processors protocol” in claim 9. The “digital signal processors protocol” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “telescopic command”. The “telescopic command” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “cellular signal”. The “cellular signal” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a modifiable roof”. The “a modifiable roof” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “vehicle kneeling”. The “vehicle kneeling” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “trunk”. The “trunk” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “tool and shell command”. The “tool and shell command” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “radio signal command”. The “radio signal command” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “mirrors”. The “mirrors” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “a photovoltaic tracking sunlight electric equipment” and “lens”, “glass”, and “beam”. The “a photovoltaic tracking sunlight electric equipment” and “lens” and “glass” and “beam” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wings”. The “wings” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “radio wave”. The “radio wave” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “a plurality of accessories… to entertain”. The “a plurality of accessories… to entertain” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “natural gas and equipment” in claim 22. The “natural gas and equipment” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “ethanol and equipment” in claim 22. The “ethanol and equipment” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “electric station and equipment, wherein one or all the power source is configured for underground, underwater, on the pole, man hole, and all surface connection to an electric vehicle charging station” in claim 22. The “electric station and equipment, wherein one or all the power source is configured for underground, underwater, on the pole, man hole, and all surface connection to an electric vehicle charging station” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
Claim 24 recites the limitations “mini-van”, “bus”, “trailer” and “wagon”. The “mini-van”, “bus”, “trailer” and “wagon” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an adjustable a front portion.” The “front portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “an adjustable front portion.” I.e., what is meant by the term “adjustable”? Explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an adjustable a back portion.” The “back portion” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “an adjustable back portion.” I.e., what is meant by the term “adjustable”? Explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an adjustable a roof portion.” The “roof” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all OR as “adjustable” in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “roof.” I.e., what is meant by the term “adjustable”? Explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “vehicle modules.” The “modules” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “vehicle modules.”
Claim 1 has been amended to include a “concentric system” which includes a plurality of elements. However, several of those elements appear to be new matter as described above. Additionally, the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17 never mention the term “concentric system” or as to how all of the elements which are listed in claim 1 as being part of the “concentric system” actually operate with one another to form the “concentric system”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises the term “concentric system”?
Claim 1 appears to recite the “man hole”. The “man hole” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is being reference with the term “man hole”?
Claim 2 recite “a self-driving or autonomous vehicle” in line 1 of claim 2. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a self-driving or autonomous vehicle” as recited in claim 2 relates to the “An electric vehicle” as previously recited in claim 1? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the “a self-driving or autonomous vehicle” in claim 2 is meant to refer to the “An electric vehicle” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "may use" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To fix this rejection, applicant may replace the phrase “may use” with “configured to use”.
Claim 3 appears to recite “alternative means.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “alternative means”. Additionally, applicant should be aware that the “means” has a specific meaning in claim language as intending to invoke 112(f) claim language. For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the applicant does not mean to induce 112(f) as there appears to be no corresponding explanation as to what constitute “alternative means”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “shell command vehicle”. The “shell command vehicle” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “shell command vehicle.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a plurality of batteries adjustably positioned inside the electric vehicle shell.” The “a plurality of batteries adjustably positioned inside the electric vehicle shell” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the batteries are actually “adjustable positioned” within the electric vehicle body.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein specific portions of the electric vehicle body are screwed. or welded at adjustable mounting portions.” The “wherein specific portions of the electric vehicle body are screwed. or welded at adjustable mounting portions” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the specific portions are actually “screwed at adjustable mounting portions” within the electric vehicle body. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to what actually comprises the limitation “specific portions”?
Claim 9 recites the limitation “digital signal processors protocol” in claim 9. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises this “protocol” as it does not appear to be described anywhere within the original disclosure.
Claim 10 recites “()the electrical vehicle of claim (12)…” However, the examiner notes that phrase within parentheses are NOT considered to be part of the actual claim. Therefore, claim 10 does not appear to actually be depend upon any other claim. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as what claim, claim 10 is meant to depend upon. As such, it has not been further treated upon the merits.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “telescopic command”. The “telescopic command” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what actually comprises the limitation “telescopic command”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a modifiable roof”. The “a modifiable roof” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the roof is actually “modifiable”?
Claim 13 recites the limitation “vehicle kneeling”. The “vehicle kneeling” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the vehicle is actually “kneeling”?
Claim 16 recites “the established inner shell…” However, this limitation appears to lack proper antecedent basis. Specifically, the examiner notes that it is indefinite and unclear as to how “the established inner shell” of claim 16 relates to any of the previously recited elements of claims 1 and 4, upon which claim 16 depends.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wings.” The “wings” of a mobile vehicle never appears to be described at all in the specification filed on 06/15/17 OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises “wings.”
Claim 20 recites “modify an industrial vehicle to a personal vehicle.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises either one of “a personal vehicle” or “an industrial vehicle” as almost any vehicle is capable of qualifying as either one of a “a personal vehicle” or “an industrial vehicle”.
Claim 22 recites several elements such as “an electric vehicle”, “a motor”, “a battery”, etc.… However, the examiner notes that it is indefinite and unclear as to how any of these elements refer to the “an electric vehicle”, “a motor”, “a battery” as previously recited in claim 1? I.e., are the elements of claim 22 referencing the elements of claim 1 or are they additional new elements being claimed?
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "maybe adjustably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To fix this rejection, applicant may replace the phrase “maybe adjustably” with “configured to be adjustably”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed between 04/07/25 and 08/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant has not actually provided any arguments to counteract the rejections noted in the previous rejection. I.e. why is the material which has been identified as “new matter” NOT new matter based upon the originally filed disclosures. Additionally, the examiner notes that applicant has not removed any of the new matter language from either one of the specification and/or claims. Applicant should:
Explain should provide/file a written explanation as to why each instance of “new matter” is not “new matter.” This should be provided as specific portions of the originally filed disclosure including: the specification as filed on 06/15/17, OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17, OR the drawings as filed on 03/29/17.
Any actual new matter which cannot be found in the specification as filed on 06/15/17, OR the claims as filed on 03/29/17, OR the drawings as filed on 03/29/17, should be removed from BOTH the claims and the specification (through a proper substitute specification).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642