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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1, replace “module ,” with “module,”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, Line 31, replace “General structure of the vehicle” with “General structure of the vehicle”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “main cell module” in claim 1.
The “front anti-crash module” in claim 1.
The “rear frame module” in claim 1.
The “means of transmission members” in claim 1.
The “front frame module” in claim 4.
The “battery modules” in claims 13, 14, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 5, replace “module,” with “module;”
Claim 1, Line 9, replace “cross-section,” with “cross-section;”
Claim 1, Line 13, replace “module,” with “module, respectively;”
Claim 1, Line 16, before “second frame” add “respective”
Claim 1, Line 17, replace “axis,” with “axis;”
Claim 1, Line 18, replace “support,” with “support;”
Claim 1, Line 21, replace “hub, and” with “hub; and”
Claim 1, Page 4, Line 4, replace “unit,” with “unit;”
Claim 1, Page 4, Line 14, replace “axis, and” with “axis; and”
Claim 1, Page 4, Line 17, replace “together,” with “together;”
Claim 1, Page 4, Line 19, replace “support, and” with “support; and”
Claims 2-19, Line 1, replace “An electric vehicle” with “The electric vehicle”
Claim 3, Line 4, replace “other,” with “other;”
Claim 3, Line 7, replace “walls,” with “walls;”
Claim 3, Lines 9-10, replace “panels, and” with “panels; and”
Claim 4, Line 5, replace “edges, and” with “edges; and”
Claim 5, Line 5, replace “structure,” with “structure;”
Claim 5, Line 8, replace “cross-section,” with “cross-section;”
Claim 5, Line 11, replace “arm,” with “arm;”
Claim 5, Line 14, replace “frame, and” with “frame; and”
Claim 6, Line 7, replace “roof,” with “roof;”
Claim 6, Line 9, replace “superstructure, and” with “superstructure; and”
Claim 6, Lines 10-11, replace “superstructure, and” with “superstructure; and”
Claim 11, Line 4, replace “vehicle,” with “vehicle;”
Claim 11, Line 7, replace “modules,” with “modules;”
Claim 11, Line 11, replace “module, and” with “module; and”
Claim 14, Line 3, replace “output,” with “output;”
Claim 14, Line 5, replace “heads,” with “heads;”
Claim 14, Line 7, “module,” with “module;”
Claim 16, Line 3, replace “modules,” with “modules;”
Claim 16, Line 6, replace “position, and” with “position; and”
Claim 16, Line 12, replace “other,” with “other;”
Claim 16, Line 15, replace “parallel, and” with “parallel; and”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an electric motor unit caried by the second frame…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant means to state there are multiple of the “electric motor unit” with each one connected to a respective one of the front axle unit and the rear axle unit OR whether the applicant is only claiming a single one of the “electric motor unit” attached to one of the front axle unit and the rear axle unit.
Claim 1, Page 4, Line 10 recites “the ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “gearbox assemblies.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “gearbox assemblies” as recited in claim 2 relate to the “means of transmission members” as previously recited in claim 1? I.e., are they referring to the same claim elements of different claim elements?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said front frame module" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is it meant to be the same element as the “front anti-crash module” as recited in claim 1? Additionally, the examiner notes that claim 1 recites “wherein each of said main cell module, said front anti-crash module and said rear frame module consists of a reticular structure…”; wherein this recitation in claim 1 uses the phrase “consists of” which would appear to set the “a front anti-crash module” in stone. Therefore, applicant is reminded that should the element of “said front frame module" be the same element as the “front anti-crash module”; this would be improper as a claim which depends from a claim which “consists of” the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step (See MPEP 2111.03).
Claim 11 recites “connected to a recharging circuit of the battery pack…” However, the examiner notes that claim 1 recites “configured to act as a structural element of the vehicle frame and as a container for a battery pack”; wherein the phrase “configured to” appears to imply that the “a battery pack” as recited in claim 1 is only the intended use of the electric vehicle as recited. Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant actually means to positively recite the “a battery pack” as part of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11 going forward?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the supply voltage" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the single battery module" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the "the single battery module" relates to any of the previously recite “battery modules”? I.e., are they referring to the same claim elements or different claims elements?
Claim 16 recites “said battery pack comprises…” However, the examiner notes that claim 1 recites “configured to act as a structural element of the vehicle frame and as a container for a battery pack”; wherein the phrase “configured to” appears to imply that the “a battery pack” as recited in claim 1 is only the intended use of the electric vehicle as recited. Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant actually means to positively recite the “a battery pack” as part of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 16 going forward?
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the voltage" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the state of the use" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a first switching configuration” and “a second switching configuration.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how each of the limitations of “a first switching configuration” and “a second switching configuration” relate to the previously recited “a first position” and “a second position”?
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the operating state" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the activation" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the passage of power supply" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “said battery pack associated with a Battery Management System…” However, the examiner notes that claim 1 recites “configured to act as a structural element of the vehicle frame and as a container for a battery pack”; wherein the phrase “configured to” appears to imply that the “a battery pack” as recited in claim 1 is only the intended use of the electric vehicle as recited. Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant actually means to positively recite the “a battery pack” as part of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 18?
Claim 19 recites “An electric vehicle according to claim wherein…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what claim, claim 19 is meant to depend upon. There does not appear to be anything after the word “claim” in the limitation as noted above. Therefore, claim 19 has not been further treated on the merits until it is clarified as to what claim 19 is meant to depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642