DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 13th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the R.C.E. filed on April 24th, 2026 for application no. 18/287,070 filed on October 16th, 2023. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 13-23 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1 and 16 are amended, and claims 2, 4 and 11-12 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 13 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “wherein the front chassis module includes a front frame, wherein the rear chassis module includes a rear frame” to - - wherein the front chassis module includes [[a]] the front frame, wherein the rear chassis module includes [[a]] the rear frame - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16 (line 17), please change the recitation of “an autonomous driving module in communication with the propulsion assembly” to - - an autonomous driving module in communication with the first propulsion assembly - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 16 (line 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14, in the recitation of “wherein the front and rear frames are connectable to one another with at least one removeable pin” the difference between the pivot pins recited in claim 1 and the “at least one removeable pin” recited in claim 14 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the pivot pins are removeable pivot pins” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 15, it is generally unclear how the recitation of “wherein the front and rear chassis modules are coupled to one another in end-to-end relationship with one another in a front-to-rear direction of the autonomous vehicle assembly” narrows the scope of “wherein the front frame and the rear frame are removeably connectable to one another in end-to-end relationship with one another in a front-to-rear direction of the autonomous vehicle assembly” now recited in claim 1 as the term “coupled” is arguably broader than the term “removeably connectable”. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could cancel claim 15 to clarify the invention.
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.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay (US 2018/0134334), in view of Georgeson (US 11,414,002).
Regarding Claim 16, Kentley-Klay teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (Fig. 1C, “autonomous vehicle” 100), comprising:
a chassis assembly (front and rear “structural sections” 175) including a front chassis module (front 175) and a rear chassis module (rear 175) being selectively connectable to one another (see Fig. 1C);
wherein the front chassis module (front 175) has a rear end (see Fig. 1C),
wherein the rear chassis module (rear 175) has a front end (see Fig. 1C),
wherein the rear end of the front chassis module (front 175) is along a first plane (defined by “surfaces” 173),
wherein the front end of the rear chassis module (rear 175) is along a second plane (defined by 173), and
wherein the rear end of the front chassis module (front 175) directly contacts and is flush with the front end of the rear chassis module (rear 175) when the front and rear chassis modules (175) are connected to one another (see Fig. 1);
the front chassis module (front 175) including at least one front wheel (“wheel” 137) and the rear chassis module (rear 175) including at least one rear wheel (137);
a first propulsion assembly (front “propulsion unit” 132) located in at least one of the front chassis module (front 175) and the rear chassis module (rear 175) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel (137) and the at least one rear wheel (137);
an autonomous driving module (“controller” 138) in communication with the propulsion assembly (132) and configured to manage self-driving of the autonomous vehicle assembly (100; [0039] – “optionally an autonomous vehicle (AV) controller 138 in electrical communication with the sensor unit 136, the steering unit 134 and the propulsion unit 132”).
Kentley-Klay does not teach “a storage assembly selectively attachable to at least one of the front and rear chassis modules for storing items on the autonomous vehicle assembly”.
Georgeson teaches a storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, “transit pod” 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, “transit pod” 104) selectively attachable to at least one of a front and rear chassis modules (“transit carrier” 135A, 135B) for storing items on an autonomous vehicle assembly (see Figs. 1F-1M).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the front and rear chassis modules taught by Kentley-Klay with the storage assembly taught by Georgeson, such that “a storage assembly selectively attachable to at least one of the front and rear chassis modules for storing items on the autonomous vehicle assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing the autonomous vehicle assembly with storage space for transporting items.
Regarding Claim 17, Kentley-Klay and Georgeson teach the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 16,
Georgeson teaches wherein the storage assembly (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes a plurality of storage modules (102 or 104) being interchangeable (see Figs. 1F-1M).
Regarding Claim 18, Kentley-Klay and Georgeson teach the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 17,
Georgeson teaches wherein the plurality of storage modules (Figs. 1F-1I, 102 or Figs. 1J-1M, 104) includes a front storage module (102 or 104) connectable to the front chassis module (Fig. 7A, 135A) and a rear storage module (102 or 104) connectable to the rear chassis module (Fig. 7A, 135B; see Figs. 1F-1M).
Regarding Claim 19, Kentley-Klay and Georgeson teach the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 18,
Georgeson teaches wherein the front and rear storage modules (Figs. 1J-1M, 104) each include a cargo door (174) being moveable between open and closed positions (see Figs. 1J-1M).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentley-Klay (US 2018/0134334), in view of Georgeson (US 18/287,070), and in view of Forostovsky (WO 2017/144905).
Regarding Claim 10, Kentley-Klay teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (Fig. 1C, 100) comprising:
a chassis assembly (front and rear 175) including a front chassis module (front 175) and a rear chassis module (rear 175) being selectively connectable to one another (see Fig. 1C);
the front chassis module (front 175) including at least one front wheel (137) and the rear chassis module (rear 175) including at least one rear wheel (137);
an EBS assembly ([0044] – “As another example, the autonomous vehicle 100 may include three autonomous vehicle controllers 138 disposed in different structural sections 125 to implement triple redundancy in vehicle 100 control (e.g., control of the steering, propulsion, sensor, safety systems, and optionally, brake units of the vehicle 100)”) located in at least one of the front chassis module (front 175) and the rear chassis module (rear 175) for steering at least one of the at least one front wheel (137) and the at least one rear wheel (137; see Fig. 1C; see [0044]);
a first propulsion assembly (132) located in at least one of the front chassis module (front 175) and the rear chassis module (rear 175) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel (137) and the at least one rear wheel (137) to propel the front and rear chassis modules (front and rear 175) together.
Kentley-Kay does not teach “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module, wherein one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”. In other words, Kentley-Kay does not explicitly disclose chassis modules capable of replacement with other chassis modules; however, Kentley-Klay does suggest “Systems, apparatus and methods to implement sectional design (e.g., in quadrants) of an autonomous vehicle may include modular construction techniques to assemble an autonomous vehicle from multiple structural sections” (emphasis added; see Abstract).
Georgeson teaches at least one replacement front chassis module (at least Figs. 6A-7E; 135A) and replacement rear chassis module (135B) with a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the chassis modules taught by Kentley-Klay as suggested by Georgeson, such that “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of providing flexible arrangements of interchangeable chassis modules. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Kentley-Klay or Georgeson do not teach “wherein one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”.
Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (emphasis added; p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the chassis modules taught by Kentley-Klay and Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky, such that “wherein one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of meeting the individual power needs of different types of vehicles.
Regarding Claim 20, Kentley-Klay and Georgeson teach the autonomous vehicle assembly as set forth in claim 16.
Kentley-Klay does not explicitly teach “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module with a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module including the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”. In other words, Kentley-Kay does not explicitly disclose chassis modules capable of replacement with other chassis modules; however, Kentley-Klay does suggest “Systems, apparatus and methods to implement sectional design (e.g., in quadrants) of an autonomous vehicle may include modular construction techniques to assemble an autonomous vehicle from multiple structural sections” (emphasis added; see Abstract).
Georgeson teaches at least one replacement front chassis module (at least Figs. 6A-7E; 135A) and replacement rear chassis module (135B) with a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the chassis modules taught by Kentley-Klay as suggested by Georgeson, such that “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of providing flexible arrangements of interchangeable chassis modules. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Kentley-Klay or Georgeson do not teach “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module with a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module including the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”.
Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (emphasis added; p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the chassis modules taught by Kentley-Klay and Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky, such that “further including at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module with a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module including the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of meeting the individual power needs of different types of vehicles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgeson (US 18/287,070), in view of Forostovsky (WO 2017/144905).
Regarding Claim 10, Georgeson teaches an autonomous vehicle assembly (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A and 7A) comprising,
a chassis assembly (“transit carrier” 135A and 135B) including a front chassis module (135A) and a rear chassis module (135B) being selectively connectable to one another (via “magnetic couplers” 116, 118);
the front chassis module (135A) including at least one front wheel (see Fig. 7A) and the rear chassis module (135B) including at least one rear wheel (see Fig. 7A);
an EBS assembly (braking and steering portions of “powertrain” 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for steering at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel (col. 7, line 34 – “transit carrier 100 of the illustrated example of FIGS. 1A-1B includes an example powertrain 124 to facilitate movement of the transit carrier 100. In FIGS. 1A-1B, the powertrain 124 includes one or more motors (e.g., electric motors, internal-combustion based motors, etc., and/or a combination thereof to constitute a hybrid motor system), one or more transmissions, one or more drive shafts, one or more differentials, one or more axles, a final drive, etc., to steer and/or otherwise control the wheels 114A-D to facilitate movement of the transit carrier 100” emphasis added);
a first propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124) located in at least one of the front chassis module (135A) and the rear chassis module (135B) for driving at least one of the at least one front wheel and the at least one rear wheel to propel the front and rear chassis modules together (see relevant passages above; see relevant figures);
at least one replacement front chassis module (135A) and replacement rear chassis module (135B) with a propulsion assembly (propulsion portion of 124).
Georgeson does not teach “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module, wherein one the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”. In other words, Georgeson teaches interchangeable chassis modules comprising propulsion assemblies; however, Georgeson does not explicitly disclose propulsion assemblies with interchangeable electric motors of different power levels.
Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (emphasis added; p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky, such that “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module, wherein one the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis modules has a second propulsion assembly, wherein the at least one of the front chassis module and the rear chassis module having the first propulsion assembly can be interchanged with one of the replacement front chassis module and the replacement rear chassis module, wherein the second propulsion assembly includes a different power level from the first propulsion assembly”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of meeting the individual power needs of different types of vehicles.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed April 13th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of record. See allowable subject matter set forth below.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of independent claim 10 as being obvious over Georgeson in view of Forostovsky. Of note, the combination fails to teach or suggest the specific "replacement module swap" architecture required by claim 10…Georgeson is directed to temporarily coupling independent "transit carriers" together (e.g., in convoy arrangements using magnetic couplers) and mating/removing pods (Georgeson at 5:58-61), It does not describe maintaining spare or "replacement" front/rear chassis modules for the same autonomous vehicle assembly and selectively swapping one chassis module for another specifically to change propulsion power level, as recited” (p. 11-12) is not persuasive as there is no structural distinction between the transit carriers taught by Georgeson and the front and rear chassis modules recited by Applicant. Georgeson clearly teaches interchangeable chassis modules (135) in a variety of different positions (see at least Figs. 6A-6F, 7A-7E and 16A-16D). As such, Georgeson clearly teaches “at least one replacement front chassis module and replacement rear chassis module”. See detailed and relevant rejection above.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant’s argument that “Forostovsky's core teaching is to standardize drivetrain components around a single type of universal electric motor and scale performance by selecting an appropriate number of identical universal motors (and, optionally, one of a small set of gearboxes) (Forostovsky at 2: 17-27, 6:26-34), rather than providing different-power motors and swapping in different-power propulsion modules. This thrust of Forostovsky undermines-not supports-the Office Action's premise that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Georgeson into a system with replacement chassis modules having propulsion assemblies of different power levels that are selectively swapped on the vehicle. See, e.g., Forostovsky's teachings of "a single type of universal electric motor" and "choosing an appropriate number of universal motors necessary to drive the vehicle." (Forostovsky at 9:16-22.)” (p. 12) is not persuasive as the Applicant points to aspects of a different embodiment that was not relied upon in the previous Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026. As stated in the previous Office Action, Forostovsky teaches “According to current methods of manufacture, when a vehicle manufacturer develops a vehicle they often develop a brand new motor and gearbox suitable for driving the vehicle. Whilst sometimes this may involve entirely changing a motor, in some cases the changes are less notable. For example, in the case of combustion engines, the engine capacity may be changed in order to modify the engine's power output. Alternatively, in vehicles which are driven by electric motors, if more power is required to drive the vehicle, typically an electric motor with a higher power output is developed. Whilst the changes in both examples are sometimes small, the motor is nonetheless changed accordingly. Therefore, even among a fleet of different vehicles developed by a single manufacturer, each vehicle will likely have its own unique motor and gearbox, both of which have been designed for each particular type of vehicle” (p. 1, line 32 – p.2, line 8). As such, Examiner still believes it would have been obvious to provide the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson with interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels as suggested by Forostovsky. See detailed and relevant rejection above.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant’s argument that “Finally, the stated rationale of the Office Action that it would be obvious to provide "interchangeable electric motors of differential power levels...to meet the individual power needs of different types of vehicles" is not an articulated reason with rational underpinning for the claimed structural interchange paradigm of claim 10 (MPEP §§2141, 2143; KSR)” (p. 12) is not persuasive. Examiner would encourage Applicant to recite structural features that overcome the prior art of Georgeson or file an appeal to challenge the Examiner’s articulated reason for modifying the interchangeable chassis modules taught by Georgeson as suggested by Forostovsky. See detailed and relevant rejection above.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of Georgeson (US 18/287,070); however, the claimed invention is still obvious in view of the prior art of record. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims ---1, 3, 5-9, 13 and 21-23 are allowed.
Regarding Claims 14-15, a determination of allowability will be considered after Applicant’s response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights