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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “… at a position higher than an upper surface of the chassis frame”. Such limitation is not supported by the original disclosure, and is therefore considered new matter. No upper surface is described in the specification, and the drawings do not show a chassis frame.
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.
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (CN 212604543 U) in view of Krause et al. (US 20210213980 A1) and German (US 20070144805 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an automobile (Liang, abstract) including a space (Liang, 102 in Fig. 1) for accommodating a person or an object, and a maintenance target (Liang, hydrogen tank 4 in Fig. 1) installed outside a constituent portion (Liang, wall 11 in Fig. 1) of the space, the automobile comprising: an opening portion (Liang, 12 in Fig. 1) in the constituent portion of the space, the opening portion being formed at a position corresponding to an installation position (Liang, Fig. 2, opening 12 leads to the space where tanks 4 is installed) of the maintenance target; a cargo compartment (Liang, 102 in Fig. 1) as the space are disposed on a chassis frame (Liang, second paragraph on page 4 of machine translation, disposed on vehicle frame), the maintenance target is a tank for storing fuel (Liang, Fig. 1 and abstract, hydrogen tank for a fuel cell system) used for generating electric power in a fuel cell system or a tank for storing cooling water for cooling various apparatuses, the maintenance target being installed outside a front side wall portion (Liang, wall 11 in Fig. 1, install out in front of wall 11) of the cargo compartment, the opening portion is formed in the front side wall portion of the cargo compartment at a position corresponding to an installation position (Liang, Fig. 2, opening 12 leads to the space where tanks 4 is installed) of the maintenance target.
Liang fails to disclose a door portion allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed; the door portion is provided in the front side wall portion to open and close the opening portion, and the door portion allows maintenance of the maintenance target from the inside of the cargo compartment through the opening portion; the automobile is a truck having a cab; fixedly disposed on the chassis frame; and the door is openable from an inside of the cargo compartment.
Krause teaches a door portion (Krause, paragraph 15, door or flap that is closeable and openable) allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed; the door portion is provided in the front side wall portion to open and close (after combination, since Liang already teaches a door opening at the front side wall) the opening portion, and the door portion allows maintenance of the maintenance target from the inside of the cargo compartment through the opening portion (by providing access to the maintenance target from the cargo compartment).
Krause is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle with maintenance targets and access to maintenance targets as Liang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Liang to incorporate the teachings of Krause with a reasonable expectation of success and have a door. Doing so allows for an easy accessibility to vehicle components arranged in such a device container, for example, for maintenance purposes (Krause, paragraph 15); also provides protection to the different components located inside the vehicle.
German teaches a truck with a cab (German, abstract); and fixedly disposed on the chassis frame (German, abstract, both cab and cargo portion fixed to the frame).
German is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle with a cargo compartment as Liang in view of Krause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Liang in view of Krause to incorporate the teachings of German with a reasonable expectation of success and have a cab and fixed to the chassis frame. Doing so allows driver/passenger to be protected from potential movement of the cargo and increases structural integrity of the vehicle.
The combination of Liang in view of Krause and German teaches the claimed invention except for the door is openable from an inside of the cargo compartment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the door (Krause, paragraph 15, pivotable door will be openable from one side) in a way that is openable from the inside, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows access to the maintenance target from the inside of the vehicle without the need to occupy outside spaces.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liang in view of Krause and German teaches the automobile according to claim 1, wherein the maintenance target is installed outside the front side wall portion (Liang, Fig. 1-2) of the cargo compartment at a position higher than an upper surface of the chassis frame (German, Fig. 1, above upper surface of chassis frame 16).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liang in view of Krause and German teaches the automobile according to claim 1, but fails to teach the door portion is an inward-opening type that opens toward the inside of the cargo compartment or a sliding door type that slides along the front side wall portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the door (Krause, paragraph 15, pivotable door will be openable inward or outward) in a way that is openable inward, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so allows access to the maintenance target from the inside of the vehicle without having the door occupying the tank chamber space, therefore achieving more efficient space utilization.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liang in view of Krause and German as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGraw et al. (US 20220134934 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liang in view of Krause and German teaches the automobile according to claim 1, wherein the maintenance target is accommodated inside a tank chamber that is a housing (Liang, 101 in Fig. 2) disposed outside the front side wall portion.
The combination of Liang in view of Krause and German fails to teach the tank chamber is provided with a second opening portion at a position facing the door portion.
McGraw teaches a second opening portion (McGraw, 110 in Fig. 7; after combination this second opening will at the front side of the tank chamber opposite to the first opening 12 of Liang, therefore facing the door at the first opening) at a position facing the door portion.
McGraw is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle with a cargo compartment as Liang in view of Krause and German.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Liang in view of Krause and German to incorporate the teachings of McGraw with a reasonable expectation of success and have second opening at the opposite to the first opening and the door such that the second opening faces the door portion. Doing so allows access to the maintenance target from the front side or the cab, making it more convenient for front cab occupant to access the maintenance when required.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claim 1 filed 4/21/2026 adds sufficient structure to the limitation “maintenance targe.” As such, the limitation is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the last paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Liang contemplates an operator standing outside the vehicle to perform maintenance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the last paragraph on page 5 of Liang, Liang described “worker to enter the rear compartment 102 for maintenance.” Therefore, it is clear that Liang intended to have maintenance performed from the inside of the cargo compartment, where there is provided with a door opening 12 for accessing the front tank chamber space.
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 Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights