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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is in response to the amendment filed 03/10/2026 for Application No. 18/463,442. By the amendment, claims 1-4 and 6-16 are pending and being amended and claim 5 is canceled.
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 - -the tractor is designed as a long cab and has a chassis front part which is at least 60 cm long in front of a windshield of the cab- - in claim 2 and - -an inverter is arranged within the axle spacing between the two axles and more proximate to the driven rear axle- - in claim 3 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 Objections
Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, the term “
Claim 10, line 4, please replace the term “batter” with - -battery- - for clarity;
Claim 10, a period is missing at the end of the claim; Claims 12-15 are objected to for the same reason; and
Claims 8, 10, 11 and 13, the limitation “characterized in that” should be avoided or amended with an equivalent language for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s note: Claims 1-4 and 6-15 appear to have repleted minor errors with limitations that are or not supposed to be underlined, for example, the term “at” in lines 4, 10, 12 and 14, only letter “a” is underlined. Please review the claims and make appropriate corrections for other similar instances that appear in the dependent claims for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worden et al. (U5,562,178).
Regarding claim 1, Worden discloses a battery electric tractor (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (i.e., chassis or frame of the vehicle shown in fig. 1) to which a front axle (abstract, col. 1, lines 16-30, lines 48-54, i.e., front axle connected to front wheel “FW”, see annotated fig. 1 below) and
a rear axle (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 17-32, i.e., rear axle 20) are fastened, the front axle at a front axle position in a longitudinal direction of the tractor and the rear axle at a rear axle position in the longitudinal direction of the tractor (annotated fig. 1),
at least one electric traction motor (50),
at least two battery modules (i.e., battery boxes 12 and 16), the at least two battery modules comprising
at least one rear battery module (16) and at least one front battery module (12),
wherein:
the at least one rear battery module (16) is arranged behind, the rear-axle position (20),
and at least one front battery module (12) is arranged in front,
of the rear axle position (20),
the at least one front battery module (12) is elongated in the longitudinal direction of the tractor and extends over the front axle (i.e., front axle connected to front wheel “FW”, see annotated fig. 1 below) position within the chassis (i.e., chassis or frame of the vehicle shown in fig. 1), and
the at least one front battery module (12) is arranged above an axis of rotation of the front axle (i.e., above the axis of front axle connected to wheels “FW”, annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1,
wherein the battery modules are cuboid with different extensions in their three edge directions (i.e., different sizes in length, height and width of battery 16 shown in fig. 1), and
the at least one rear battery module is arranged lying on edge or
standing on edge with a battery length or
battery width extending in a transverse direction of the tractor (i.e., width of battery 16 extends in transverse direction shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
the at least one front battery module above the front axle position is elongated in the longitudinal direction of the tractor at a deviation angle of a maximum of 30°,
a longitudinal axis of the tractor, or
the at least one front battery module (16), is elongated in the longitudinal direction such that, is at least 40%, the at least one front battery module, viewed in plan view, extends into a region between the front and rear axle positions (see annotated fig. 1 below, i.e., the battery module 12 is positioned about 40% towards the rear of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1,
wherein at least one of
(i) the at least one rear battery module,
(ii) the at least one front battery module,
(iii) a battery module holder, or
(iv) the electric traction motor is a modular component (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 17-32, i.e., first battery box 12 is one of a plurality of battery boxes or module component)
Regarding claim 14, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 12,
wherein the electric traction motor is the modular component, and
wherein the electric traction motor is configured modular with regard for at least one of:
a type of continuous power (i.e., motor 26 is an AC induction motor of the pair motors 26 and 28), or
a permissible axle load, or
wheel spacing
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 12, further comprising at least one of:
at least one chassis side part, or
at least one chassis cross member
PNG
media_image1.png
926
1365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising at least one of:
the tractor is designed as a long cab and has a chassis front part which is at least 60 cm long in front of a windshield of the cab, and/or
the battery modules are arranged such that an axle load distribution is between 30% and 50%, on the front axle and/or
between 50% and 70% on the rear axle.
The use of having a properly distributing weight of the battery modules across both axles to enhance overall tractive efficiency and reduce oversteer/understeer during cornering condition is well recognized to a skilled person in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill person in the art to contrive any number of a desirable range for the axle load distribution of the battery modules with a relative percentage to have “the battery modules are arranged such that an axle load distribution is between 30% and 50%, on the front axle” for stability and traction improvement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 10, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden et al. (US 5,562,178) and further in view of Monfette (US 2017/0320388 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, characterized in that,
the at least one front battery module is a first front battery module and arranged lying flat (fig. 1). However, Worden does not specifically teach a second front battery module and is located further to the rear relative to the first front battery module and is either arranged lying flat or is arranged on edge. Electric vehicles that have more than one battery module to provide more power and reduce frequency of deep charge cycles is well recognized to a skilled person in the art.
Monfette discloses an electric off-road wheeled vehicle includes at least two front battery modules 64E and 64F arranged lying flat above a front wheel axle 172 and the second battery module 64E is located further to the rear of the vehicle 10 and relative to the first front battery module 64E. See figures 14 and 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with expectation of success, for the at least one front battery module to have a second front battery module located further to the rear relative to the first front battery module and arranged lying flat, as taught by Monfette in order to provide longer driving range and more power in acceleration. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the at least one front battery module extends partially under the driver cab and in front of the front axle.
Monfette discloses an electric off-road wheeled vehicle includes at least one front battery module 64E disposed above a front wheel axle 172 and extends partially under the driver cab and in front of the front axle 172, shown in figures 10 and 17.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Worden, with reasonable expectation of success, to have the at least one front battery module extends partially under the driver cab and in front of the front axle, instead in front of the driver cab as taught by Monfette for compactness, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, the simple rearrangement of having the battery module in front extends partially under the driver cab of the vehicle, particular above the front axle and extends partially under the driver cap to reduce space is old and well recognized in the art. Thus, having the battery module positioned in either arrangement to power the vehicle would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 16, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, further comprising wheels on the front and rear axles (see annotated figure 1 above) but does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the wheels have an independent wheel suspension on the corresponding axle, or the corresponding axle is designed as a cranked rigid axle.
Monfette discloses an electric off-road wheeled vehicle includes one of the wheels (15) having an independent wheel suspension (13A and 13B) on the corresponding axle (172,156), or corresponding axle is designed as a cranked rigid axle (i.e., a rigid torsion bar (not shown) is operatively connected between both swing arms to increase the roll stiffness of the suspensions 13B, paras. [0060] – [0061]; figures 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of Worden, with expectation of success, for the at least one of the wheels have an independent wheel suspension on the corresponding axle, or the corresponding axle is designed as a cranked rigid axle as taught by Monfette in order to provide a more comfortable ride or increase roll stiffness of the suspension with a torsion bar.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Perlo et al. (US 2016/0347159 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 1, wherein one axle of the two axles is a driven rear axle (20) and the electric traction motor 26/28 located…behind the cab 30 and connected to transmission 32 (i.e., reducing active connection) to drive shaft 24 but does not specifically teach wherein: the electric traction motor is arranged above the driven rear axle, the electric traction motor projects a maximum of 40 cm rearward beyond the driven rear axle in plan view, a reducing active connection is arranged between a motor output shaft and the driven rear axle in the direction of travel in front of the driven rear axle, and
an inverter is arranged within axle spacing between the two axles and more proximate to the driven rear axle.
Perlo discloses an electric-propulsion vehicle (100) includes an electric traction motor (40) is arranged above the driven rear axle (162), a reducing active connection (i.e., connected via multi-speed transaxle 118 and also connected to differential gear 10) is arranged between a motor output shaft (para. [0041, i.e., output shaft of motor 40) and the driven rear axle (162) in the direction of travel in front of the driven rear axle (), and
a reducing active connection (i.e., differential transmission unit 55 with one or more gear or gear ratios) arranged between a motor output shaft (i.e., rotor shaft of motor 40) and the driven rear axle (20) in the direction of travel in front of the driven rear axle (i.e., the differential transmission unit 55 disposed in the travel direction of the traction motor 40 and axle of the rear axle assembly 20, shown in fig. 2) and further teaches an inverter (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Monfette, with reasonable expectation of success, to have wherein: the electric traction motor is arranged above the driven rear axle instead between the front and rear axles as taught by Perlo for the purpose of compactness, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The simple rearrangement of having the electric motor over the rear axle for reducing space is old and well recognized in the art. Thus, having the electric motor positioned in either arrangement to power the vehicle would perform equally well.
It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the modified electric vehicle of Worden and Perlo, with an expectation of success, to have the inverter arranged within axle spacing between the two axles and more proximate to the driven rear axle for the purpose of compactness, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In addition, the inverter is an inherent component in an electric vehicle for converting power between the battery and electric motor and have it positioned in any arrangement or such arrangement to power the vehicle would not change the way the electric vehicle functions.
Furthermore, the use of having properly distributing weight of the traction motor over the axle or axles to enhance overall tractive efficiency and reduce oversteer/understeer during cornering condition is well recognized to a skilled person in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill person in the art to contrive any number of a desirable position for the traction motor with a relative distance to the rear axle such that “the electric traction motor projects a maximum of 40 cm rearward beyond the driven rear axle in plan view” for stability and traction improvement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monfette et al. (US 2017/0320388 A1) in view of Albright (US 3,391,752).
Regarding claim 7, Monfette, discloses a battery electric tractor (10) comprising:
- a chassis (12) to which a front axle (172) and a rear axle (156) are fastened,
the front axle at a front axle position in a longitudinal direction of the tractor (10) and the rear axle (156) at a rear axle position (i.e., rear position of vehicle 10) in the longitudinal direction of the tractor,
- at least one electric traction motor (50),
- at least two battery modules (figs. 14 and 15, i.e., battery modules 64F and 64J/64I), the at least two battery modules comprising at least one rear battery module (64J) and at least one front battery module (64F), wherein:
- the at least one rear battery module (64J) is arranged behind the rear-axle position (156),
- the at least one front battery module (64F) is arranged in front of the rear axle position (156),
- the at least one front battery module is a first front battery module (64F) of at least two front battery modules (164F,164E).
However, Monfette does not specifically teach wherein the at least two front battery modules extend parallel next to one another, elongated in the longitudinal direction of the tractor over the front axle position within the chassis, the at least two front battery modules are arranged on edge, and the at least two front battery modules are arranged above the axis of rotation of the front axle. Electric vehicles that include more than one battery module, particularly arranged in an elongated direction over the vehicle front axle for reducing space is well recognized to a skilled person in the art.
Albright discloses a vehicle 10 includes at least two front battery modules 11-14 elongated over the front wheel axis or front axle within the chassis or frame of the vehicle 10 and arranged on edge of both sides in front of the vehicle and/or front of the cabin. See Figure 1; col. 1, lines 62 – col. 2, line 27.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Monfette, with reasonable expectation of success, to have the at least two front battery modules parallel next to one another, elongated in the longitudinal direction of the tractor over the front axle position within the chassis, the at least two front battery modules are arranged on edge, and the at least two front battery modules are arranged above the axis of rotation of the front axle instead of between the front and rear axles as taught by Albright for compactness, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, the simple rearrangement of having the front battery modules parallel extends over the front axle of the vehicle, particular over the front axle and on edge or edge of the vehicle cabin to reduce space is old and well recognized in the art. Thus, having the battery modules positioned in either arrangement to power the vehicle would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 8, the modified tractor according to claim 7, Monfette further discloses characterized in that:
the at least two battery modules (64F,64E) are arranged lying flat (see figs. 14 and 15).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden and further in view of Monfette, as indicated above.
Regarding claim 13, Worden discloses the tractor according to claim 12 includes the at least one battery modules lying flat but does not specifically teach a battery holder.
Monfette discloses an electric off-road wheeled vehicle includes a battery module holder (70) and fastening a battery module fastening a battery module (64E/64F) at least one of the at least two battery modules only lying flat to the chassis (figs. 9 and 10; para. [0068], i.e., batteries 64E and 674F are mounted…on a member 70 of the frame 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of Worden, with expectation of success, to have the battery module holder as a modular component and wherein the battery module holder is configured for fastening a battery module at least one of the at least two battery modules only lying flat to the chassis as taught by Monfette in order to safely securing the battery or battery modules to the vehicle.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC §112(b), claims 11-2, 4-6 and 11-15 under 35 USC §102 (a)(1) by Morgan and claims 1 and 7-10 by Bjorksten, and further claim 3 under §103 over Bjorksten in view of Bartz, set forth in the prior Office action. However, the amendment has raised new issues set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-8 and 10-15 under §102 and claim 3 under §103 mentioned above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, in response to applicant’s remarks on page 9 that the two front battery modules 64F and 64I of Morgan do not overlap over axle 172, it is noted that the claim limitation does not require the battery modules to overlap the axle when view from the top of the vehicle. However, these battery modules are arranged above the axle 172 which meet the claim limitation. See the new rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowed subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a battery electric tractor having a chassis to which a front axle and a rear axle are fastened, the front axle at a front axle position in a longitudinal direction of the tractor and the rear axle at a rear axle position in the longitudinal direction of the tractor, at least one rear battery module is arranged behind the rear-axle position, at least one front battery module is arranged in front of the rear axle position, the at least one front battery module is a first front battery module of at least two front battery modules, and in combination with the remaining features recited, particularly “wherein the at least two front battery modules are arranged parallel one above the other, extending over the front axle position within the chassis in the longitudinal direction of the tractor”. Neither Worden nor any of the references mentioned above discloses the particular features required by the claim. There is no motivation in the prior art for a skilled person to modify the above references to have the at least two front battery module arrangement as currently recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsutsui et al. (US 2015/0155534 A1) discloses impact resistant battery enclosure systems include front and rear battery modules, see figure 1;
Avganim (US 2015/0114736 A1) discloses a quick loading and unloading battery system for vehicles includes front and rear battery modules 40, see figure 1; and
Agnew (US 2015/0283889 A1) discloses a rear carriage structure of an electric vehicle includes an electric motor 114 disposed above and extends over rear axle 162, see figure 6.
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 Tinh T Dang whose telephone number is (571)270-1776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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 Mon-Friday from 8AM-4:30PM 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.
/TINH T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights