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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, and 4-21 are currently pending.
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 5-6, 13, 16, and 17 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.
With respect to claims 5-6, 13, 16, and 17, the claims are written as dependent on rejected claim 2. If a base claim has been canceled, a claim which depends thereon should be rejected as indefinite because The metes and bounds of the claims are vague and ill-defined because the scope of what each claim should cover is not defined. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claims will be treated as dependent on claim 1.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 13-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarron et al US 2020/0369140 A1 (hence McCarron).
In re claim 1, McCarron discloses a self-contained vehicle platform or chassis incorporating substantially all of the functional systems, subsystems and components (e.g., mechanical, electrical, structural, etc.) necessary for an operative vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A skateboard chassis assembly (Fig.2, Fig.5, and Paragraphs 0130-0131) for an electric vehicle (Paragraph 0133), comprising:
a frame (Fig.5, #500, and Paragraph 0139) extending from a front end (Fig.5, #504, and Paragraph 0139) to a rear end (Fig.5, #506, and Paragraph 0139) and having a central portion including a pair of central longitudinal members extending in spaced relationship with one another (Fig.5, #524 “the left and right mid-body side rails” and Paragraph 0140) and a front central crossmember (Fig.5, #514, and Paragraph 0139) and a rear central crossmember (Fig.5, #516, and Paragraph 0139) each disposed adjacent a respective one of said front or rear ends and extending transversely between said pair of central longitudinal members in spaced relationship with one another(Fig.5), wherein the pair of central longitudinal members and the front and rear central crossmembers collectively define a central pocket (Fig.5, #538 between #514 and #516 and Paragraph 0142);
a front bumper connected to said front end (Fig.5, #508 and Paragraph 0141) and a rear bumper connected to said rear end (Fig.5, #519, and Paragraph 0141);
said frame including a front portion having at least one pair of front longitudinal members extending in spaced relationship with one another between said front central crossmember and said front bumper to define a front pocket (Fig.5, portions of the left and right mid-body side rails 524 between lateral structural cross member element 514 and front end of the vehicle and pockets to the left and right side of element 528);
said frame including a rear portion having at least one pair of rear longitudinal members extending in spaced relationship with one another between said rear central crossmember and said rear bumper to define a rear pocket (Fig.5, portions of the left and right mid-body side rails 524 between lateral structural cross member element 516 and rear end of the vehicle and pockets to the left and right side of element 528); and
a battery housing at least partially located in said central pocket and at least one of said front or rear pockets for incorporating a battery pack into the skateboard chassis assembly (Fig.2, #212, Paragraph 0133; Fig.11A, #1100, and Paragraph 0161, and Fig.12A-12C and Paragraph 0163)
In re claim 4, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said battery housing is located in said front pocket, said central pocket and said rear pocket (Fig.2, #212, Paragraph 0133; Fig.11A, and Paragraph 0161, and Fig.12A-12C and Paragraph 0163)
In re claim 5, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said front portion of said frame includes at least one front end cross member extending between said pair of front longitudinal members (Fig.5, #510, and Paragraphs 0139-0140) and said rear portion of said frame includes at least one rear cross member extending between said rear longitudinal members (Fig.5, #518, and Paragraphs 0139-0140)
In re claim 6, McCarron teaches the following:
a suspension assembly connected to said pair of front longitudinal members and said pair of rear longitudinal members for interconnected said frame of the skateboard chassis assembly to a pair of front wheels and a pair of rear wheels and providing a scalable, compact and common suspension architecture for the skateboard chassis assembly (Fig.2, #218, Paragraph 0133 “a variety of suspension systems 218 to connect the vehicle platform to the wheels of the vehicle”, and Figs. 17A-17C, and Paragraph 0184 “front suspension, and Figs. 24A-B, and Paragraph 0199 “rear suspension”)
In re claim 7, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said battery housing including a cover defining a seat attachment for allowing said cover to additional function as a floor of the electric vehicle for eliminating the floor from the body-in-white (Fig.12B, #1212 and Paragraph 0163, Fig.14A, #1404, #1402, and Paragraph 0176)
In re claim 8, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said middle central cross member of said frame defining a seat attachment for allowing said frame to additionally function as a floor of the electric vehicle for eliminating the floor from the body-in-white (Fig.14B, #1406, and Paragraph 0176 “In such embodiments, either the top cover plate 1404 of the vehicle platform also serves as the floor or bottom of the vehicle body, or where the vehicle body has a separate floor, as shown in FIG. 14B cooperative attachment points 1406 are disposed on the vehicle body 1408 that pass through the bottom floor 1410 of the vehicle body to allow for direct engagement of elements (e.g., seats, consoles, etc.)”)
In re claim 13, McCarron teaches the following:
a propulsion assembly supported by at least one of said front or rear portions of said frame (Fig.2, #214, #216, and Paragraph 0133)
In re claim 14, McCarron teaches the following:
at least one battery module housed within said battery housing (Fig.2, #212, Paragraph 0133; Fig.11A, and Paragraph 0161, and Fig.12A-12C and Paragraph 0163)
In re claim 15, McCarron teaches the following:
a tray extending underneath said at least one battery module for supporting said at least one battery module within said battery housing (Fig.12B, #1214, and Paragraphs 0163, and 0166)
In re claim 16, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said at least one pair of front longitudinal members includes a pair of front top longitudinal members and a pair of front bottom longitudinal members (Fig.5, #560, #565, and Paragraph 0151) and said at least one pair of rear longitudinal members includes a pair of rear top longitudinal members (Fig.5, #533, and Paragraph 0157) and a pair of rear bottom longitudinal members (Fig.5, #526, and Paragraph 0157)
In re claim 17, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein a pivotable connection interconnects said front portion and said central portion of said frame (Fig.12B, #1220, and Paragraph 0165 “Front and rear structural members 1220 may also be configured to deform, similar embodiments described above, thus reducing affect damage to the energy storage system during a front and/or rear collision”)
In re claim 21, McCarron teaches the following:
wherein said central portion of said frame includes a middle central cross member extending transversely between said pair of central longitudinal members in spaced relationship with each of the front and rear central crossmembers (Fig.5, # 515, and Paragraphs 0139-0140)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarron.
In re claim 9, McCarron discloses the claimed invention as recited above including longitudinal members including a shoulder for connecting said frame of the skateboard chassis assembly to a body-in-white (Fig.13A, #1302 and Paragraph 0173) but doesn’t explicitly teaches the following:
` wherein said pair of central longitudinal members
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange said shoulders on the central longitudinal members, since applicant has not disclosed that arrange said shoulders on the central longitudinal members instead of any other longitudinal member, as taught by McCarron, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the shoulders being on other longitudinal members since they perform the same goal of attaching the vehicle frame to the vehicle body (McCarron, Paragraph 0173).
In re claim 10, McCarron discloses the claimed invention as recited above including the platform also includes a plurality of seal caps each having a contoured body with an outside surface and an inside surface such that the inside surface cooperatively engages with a corresponding mounting point (Paragraph 0022), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a seal extending between said shoulder and said body-in-white
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include a seal between said shoulder and said body-in-white since McCarron teaches said technique while connecting two members to create a structure isolated or separated from the external environment (McCarron, Paragraph 0177).
In re claim 11, McCarron teaches the following:
at least one mechanical fastener extending between said shoulder and said body-in-white for connecting said frame of the skateboard chassis assembly to the body-in-white (Paragraph 0173 “bolts, screws, latches,”)
In re claim 12, McCarron teaches the following:
at least one weld extending between said shoulder and said body-in-white for connecting said frame of the skateboard chassis assembly to the body-in-white (Paragraph 0173 “non-releasable couplings such as weld flanges or riveting surfaces”)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarron in view of Lee et al US 2022/0234437 A1 (hence Lee).
In re claim 18, McCarron discloses the claimed invention as described above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein said propulsion assembly is comprised of an in-wheel motor
Nevertheless, Lee discloses a modular driving apparatus and, more specifically, to a modular driving apparatus capable of being driven in combination with an external device or being driven independently (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein said propulsion assembly is comprised of an in-wheel motor (Paragraphs 0016 and 0054)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the McCarron reference to include the wheel module formed of an in-wheel motor type including at least one of a driving motor, a brake device, and a shock-absorbing device, as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a propulsion system and move the wheel of an electric vehicle (Lee, Paragraph 0016).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarron in view of Langworthy et al US 2025/0050725 A1 (hence Langworthy).
In re claim 19, McCarron discloses the claimed invention as described above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein said cover is connected to a longitudinal tab on said pair of central longitudinal members on a first upper portion, and said cover includes a sidewall portion having a sidewall tab connected to said pair of central longitudinal members on a second lower portion
Nevertheless, Langworthy discloses a frame assembly that includes a battery housing at least partially integrated with a frame of an automobile (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein said cover is connected to a longitudinal tab on said pair of central longitudinal members on a first upper portion (Fig.3, #34, #43, and Fig.27, and Paragraph 0072) and said cover includes a sidewall portion having a sidewall tab connected to said pair of central longitudinal members on a second lower portion (Fig.11, #138 and Paragraph 0056)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the McCarron reference to include the cover design, as taught by Langworthy, in order to protect the battery within the housing (Langworthy, Paragraph 0048).
In re claim 20, Langworthy teaches the following:
a seal disposed between said longitudinal tab and said pair of central longitudinal members (Paragraph 0059)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarron and that McCarron doesn’t teach or suggest a battery housing at least partially located in said central pocket and at least one of said front or rear pockets, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, McCarron discloses a front portion having at least one pair of front longitudinal members extending in spaced relationship with one another between said front central crossmember and said front bumper to define a front pocket (Fig.5, portions of the left and right mid-body side rails 524 between lateral structural cross member element 514 and front end of the vehicle and pockets to the left and right side of element 528); and said frame including a rear portion having at least one pair of rear longitudinal members extending in spaced relationship with one another between said rear central crossmember and said rear bumper to define a rear pocket (Fig.5, portions of the left and right mid-body side rails 524 between lateral structural cross member element 516 and rear end of the vehicle and pockets to the left and right side of element 528), and at least Fig.2, Fig.11A, Fig.11B, and Fig.12A show the part of the battery nesting in said front and rear pockets.
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 RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669