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 .
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 23, 25, 26 and 31 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.
Regarding claim 23, “further comprising: at least one electric traction drive; and at least one battery serving at least for the traction drive arranged in the battery space” is unclear and confusing. It is not clear if the claim recites that the traction drive or battery is in the battery space.
Regarding claim 25, “wherein load points are predetermined at which the connecting elements are connected to the vehicle frame” is unclear and confusing. It is not clear what “load points” are. There is no physical structure claimed.
Regarding claims 26 and 31, “wherein the at least one belt support is connected to the vehicle frame in such a way that tensile forces are only introduced into the vehicle frame outside the battery space area during operation” is unclear and confusing. One cannot claim that tensile forces are only introduced to the frame “during operation.” This is not accurate. Also, during operation of what? This claim, like claim 25, is more unsupported theory or hypothetical than actual structural limitations.
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) 12, 22, 24, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlick (DE 102016205055).
Regarding claim 12, Schlick discloses A recreational vehicle (10), comprising: a vehicle frame (131); at least one belt support (fig 6) which is fastened at least indirectly to the vehicle frame; connecting elements (at least 24), which serve to connect the at least one belt support to the vehicle frame (at least fig 2); and a battery space arranged at least partially inside the vehicle frame (known to be in front portion 4); wherein; the belt support is arranged at least partially above the battery space (fig 1); and the belt support is connected to the vehicle frame in such a way that the connecting elements are arranged outside the battery space (fig 1).
Schlick does not specifically disclose a battery space arranged at least partially inside the vehicle frame, where the belt support is connected to the vehicle frame in such a way that the connecting elements are arranged outside the battery space.
However, it is well-known in the art to have a battery arranged in the engine bay, which in the device of Schlick would be at the lower front end of 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the arrangement of Schlick with a well-known vehicle battery location in the engine bay resulting in Schlick having a battery space arranged at least partially inside the vehicle frame, where the belt support is connected to the vehicle frame in such a way that the connecting elements are arranged outside the battery space, since such a battery location is well-known and provides easy access and reduced wiring compared to a remote location and is no more than the application of known techniques to art ready for improvement yielding predictable results of a battery space arranged at least partially inside the vehicle frame, where the belt support is connected to the vehicle frame in such a way that the connecting elements are arranged outside the battery space.
Regarding claim 22, Schlick in view of the discussion above makes obvious further comprising at least one battery arranged in the battery space (see discussion above).
Regarding claim 24, Schlick in view of the discussion above makes obvious further comprising at least one crash element (the front bumper), which in the event of a vehicle impact serves to protects a battery arranged in the battery space, the at least one crash element being arranged outside the battery space (fig 1).
Regarding claim 27, Schlick in view of the discussion above makes obvious wherein the vehicle frame and/or the at least one belt support are designed in such a way that a battery does not have to be removed from the battery space during assembly and/or disassembly of the belt support (at least fig 1, where access to the battery and seat are separate and create no interference).
Regarding claim 28, Schlick in view of the discussion above makes obvious wherein the recreational vehicle is a motorhome (Title, Description).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time The recreational vehicle according to claim 12, wherein: a battery space region of a floor is arranged above the battery space, the battery space region of the floor delimiting the battery space and arranged at least partially between the at least one belt support and the battery space; and the connecting elements are arranged outside the battery space region of the floor.
Claims 29-30 are allowed.
Claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
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, J Allen 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.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights