chasDETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/6/2024, 7/18/2025, and 1/8/2026 have been fully considered.
Priority
The foreign priority claim to CN202110963517.0 filed on 8/20/2021 is acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Claims 3-4, and 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/17/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “quick-replacement manner” of claim 1, and the fuel tank of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, and 5-7 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the “quick-replacement manner” is not enabled. The figures do not depict the “quick-replacement manner,” and the only structure the specification teaches regarding this limitation is “a quick-replacement bolt, a quick-replacement pin, etc” in paragraph 41. This is not sufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the art to create this invention. Which structural elements do the bolt or pin connect to? How many bolts or pins should be used? These are essential questions not answered by the specification or drawings. Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claims 2, and 5-7, these claims depend upon claim 1 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
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 1-2, and 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitations “a range extension module provided on the vehicle in a quick-replacement manner . . . the battery module is provided on the vehicle in the quick-replacement manner.” These limitations are indefinite because it is not clear if the quick-replacement manner is a structural element connected to both the range extension module and the battery module, or if it is a method of connection separately used to connect the range extension module and the battery module to the vehicle.
Regarding claims 2, and 5-7, these claims depend upon claim 1 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Further regarding claim 5, this claim includes the limitation “the range extension module is modularly provided.” It is not clear what “modularly provided” means, and how that is distinct from claim 1 which include several modules including the range extension module.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Subramanian (US 11987306 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Subramanian teaches a quick-replacement hybrid vehicle, comprising:
an electric drive module (taught by the abstract “The rear modules may include a battery or a combustion engine that may supplement the standard battery and electric motor of the vehicle”);
a range extension module provided on the vehicle in a quick-replacement manner (20 “rear module” taught in figures 1-3); wherein the range extension module comprises an engine (32 “engine” taught in figure 1 and column 6 lines 47-52 “For example, different battery sizes could be included in the rear module 20, providing for a wide range of additional vehicle range based on the size of the battery. Alternatively, both a battery for providing additional power to the e-motor and an engine for driving the rear axle could be included”); and
a battery module electrically connected to the range extension module and the electric drive module (30 “additional battery” taught in figure 1 and column 6 lines 21-24 “The battery rear module 20b includes various wire harness components that are connected to the additional battery 30 and connectable to an electrical interface that is operatively connected to the PSM e-motor of the vehicle 12”);
wherein the battery module is provided on the vehicle in the quick-replacement manner (taught by figures 1-3 and by column 6 lines 47-52 “For example, different battery sizes could be included in the rear module 20, providing for a wide range of additional vehicle range based on the size of the battery. Alternatively, both a battery for providing additional power to the e-motor and an engine for driving the rear axle could be included”).
Regarding claim 2, Subramanian teaches the quick-replacement hybrid vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Subramanian also teaches wherein the range extension module comprises a first quick-replacement connector (56 and 60 taught in figures 4F-4G) and a first electrical connector (taught by column 6 lines 21-24 “The battery rear module 20b includes various wire harness components that are connected to the additional battery 30 and connectable to an electrical interface that is operatively connected to the PSM e-motor of the vehicle 12”),
the range extension module is provided on the vehicle in the quick-replacement manner through the first quick-replacement connector, and the first electrical connector is electrically connected to a circuit of the vehicle in a quick manner (taught by figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Subramanian teaches the quick-replacement hybrid vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Subramanian also teaches wherein the engine (32 “the engine” taught by figures 1-3), a generator (taught by column 6 liens 36-37 “The engine 32 may be capable of operating as a generator”), and a fuel tank (taught by column 9 line 48-51 “The swapping of the rear modules 20 allows for easy conversion of a simple BEV to an extended range BEV or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that utilizes a combustion engine for the rear axle 18.”) are integrated in the range extension module.
Subramanian does not explicitly teach that an air intake system, and an exhaust system are integrated in the range extension module, but it does do so inherently by having an engine integrated in the range extension module. An engine must have air intake and exhaust in order to function because the combustion reaction cannot occur without new air, nor without exhausting air that has already been used in a combustion reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Subramanian teaches the quick-replacement hybrid vehicle of claim 5, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Subramanian also teaches wherein the range extension module is provided at a rear end of the vehicle (taught by figure 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, 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian (US 11987306 B2) in view of Chen (CN 213779431 U).
Regarding claim 7, Subramanian teaches the quick-replacement hybrid vehicle of claim 6, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Subramanian does not teach wherein the electric drive module is a three-in-one electric drive system, and is provided at the rear end of the vehicle and close to the range extension module.
Chen teaches wherein the electric drive module is a three-in-one electric drive system (taught by paragraph 5“At present in the field of new energy automobile, the electric drive system mainly adopts three-in-one system assembly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the three-in-one electric drive system of Chen into the back of Subramanian, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a three-in-one electric drive replaces bulky standalone components, saving on space, and positioning the drive module near the back places it near the range extension module which will be supplying the drive module with power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights