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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 1, “modules” should be –subassemblies--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the 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 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) in view of Kumar (US 2020/0155386).
Letendre et al., in reference to claim 1, discloses a vehicle body formed of a rigid aluminum space frame comprising a load floor and underbody assembly (50,64), body walls (60,62), and a body roof (63,132), as shown in Figures 1-8 and disclosed in paragraph [0026]. The load floor and underbody assembly (50,64) comprises aluminum structural members (56,58), as disclosed in paragraph [0081]. The body walls (60,62) are formed of aluminum extrusions, as disclosed in paragraph [0070]. The body roof (63,132) is formed by aluminum extrusions, as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0081]. The load floor (50,64), wall subassemblies (60,62), and roof subassembly are attached to one another to form a rigid assembly, as shown in Figures 3 and 8.
In reference to claim 2, the load floor and underbody (50,64) further comprises an additional structural component (12,14) joined to the underbody for selected purposes, as shown in Figures 3-6 and 8.
In reference to claim 4, discloses the additional structural components (12,14) perform the functions of forming a wheel well, forming mounting brackets for interior components like the driver’s station, and forming attachment points for a battery, as shown in Figures 6 and 8 and disclosed in paragraphs [0064], [0083], [0088], and [0096].
In reference to claim 11, the frames defining the body walls (60,62) and the roof (63,132) comprise an outer covering of a selected material, as shown in Figure 3 and as standard practice in the art.
In reference to claim 12, the outer covering material is selected as opaque material, as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 14, the vehicle is a small bus, as broadly claimed, since the bus can be made of different lengths. Figure 1 shows a smaller variant.
In reference to claim 15, the method includes making a load floor and underbody subassembly (50,64) to form a rigid platform, making two or more wall subassemblies (60,62) comprising hollow aluminum extrusions joined together to form a generally planar structure, making at least one roof subassembly comprising hollow aluminum extrusions joined together to form a roof structure (63,132), and joining the wall subassemblies (60,62) to the load floor (50,64) and the roof subassembly (60,132) to form a rigid structural space frame, as shown in Figures 1-7.
In reference to claim 16, discloses attaching additional structural components (12,14) to perform the functions of forming a wheel well, forming mounting brackets for interior components like the driver’s station, and forming attachment points for a battery, as shown in Figures 6 and 8 and disclosed in paragraphs [0064], [0083], [0088], and [0096].
In reference to claim 18, the frames defining the body walls (60,62) and the roof (63,132) comprise an outer covering of a selected material, as shown in Figure 3 and as standard practice in the art.
In reference to claim 19, the outer covering material is selected as opaque material, as shown in Figure 3.
However, Letendre et al. does not explicitly disclose the load floor and underbody are structural extrusions oriented longitudinally and joined together along their length to form a rigid platform.
Kumar teaches forming a vehicle floor (115) by joining hollow aluminum structural extrusions (205) side by side, as shown in Figures 1-6 and disclosed in paragraph [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the floor of Letendre et al. by joining hollow aluminum structural extrusions side by side, as taught by Kumar, with a reasonable expectation for success to form a lightweight, yet strong floor that can be used to fit vehicles of different widths using a modular construction.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) and Kumar (US 2020/01555386), as applied to claim 2, in view of Moss et al. (US 2015/0021892).
Letendre et al., as modified, does not disclose how the additional structural components are formed.
Moss et al. teaches forming a vehicle structural component by a process consisting of casting and machining, as disclosed in the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the additional structural component of Letendre et al., as modified, from a process consisting of casting and machining, as taught by Moss et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to increase mass production and ease of assembly to reduce costs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) and Kumar (US 2020/01555386), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kumar (US 2022/0324521).
Letendre et al., as modified, does not disclose the load floor and underbody are formed by structural extrusions of at least two different cross sections.
Kumar teaches forming a load floor and underbody (115) from structural extrusions (405,410) of at least two different cross sections, as shown in Figure 6 and disclosed in the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structural extrusions of Letendre et al., as modified, with at least two different cross sections, as taught by Kumar, with a reasonable expectation for success to reduce the weight of the floor reduce fuel consumption.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) and Kumar (US 2020/01555386), as applied to claims 1 and 15, in view of Ferren et al. (US 2005/0022460).
Letendre et al., as modified, does not disclose pre-wiring any of the subassemblies.
Ferren et al. teaches pre-wiring a vehicle sub-assembly, as disclosed in paragraph [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-wire the subassemblies of Letendre et al., as modified, as taught by Ferren et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to allow for quick assembly of the subassemblies.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) and Kumar (US 2020/01555386), as applied to claim 1, in view of Lusk et al. (US 2008/0036240).
Letendre et al., as modified, discloses the use of mechanical fasteners to attach the subassemblies, as disclosed in paragraphs [0070] and [0078].
However, Letendre et al., as modified, does not disclose the use of polymer adhesive.
Lusk et al. teaches using the combination of mechanical fasteners and thermoplastic adhesives to connect subassemblies, as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0169]. Thermoplastic adhesives are a type of polymer adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic adhesive in combination with the mechanical fasteners of Letendre et al., as modified,, as taught by Lusk et al., to attach subassemblies of Letendre et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation for success to strengthen the joint, reduce vibrations, and provide a seal between subassemblies.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letendre et al. (US 2022/0097777) and Kumar (US 2020/01555386), as applied to claim 1.
Letendre et al., as modified, does not disclose the body wall is painted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to paint the wall subassemblies of Letendre et al., as modified, by painting them before attachment to the load floor as an obvious expedient so the paint booth only needs to be large enough to fit the wall subassembly instead of a fully assembled vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 February 6, 2026