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 .
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges that the amended claim set, and drawings corrects the issues noted by the previous office action of (1 – 9 – 2026). All of the previous objection, 112 rejections, and drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (3 – 23 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Masini et al. (US 20140083606 A1, hereinafter Masini) / Masini does not teach the newly amended feature of
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Masini / Masini as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As noted below, Masini teaches As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame. With Simplicean et al. (US 5975625 A, hereinafter Simplicean) adding on (Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 is found to act as a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle, which provides for accessing the trunk and forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for a arcuate void that is formed in the second section of the base. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, the first section includes a first
PNG
media_image1.png
394
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment,
PNG
media_image2.png
480
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 10) which shows a plastic outer body formed of two sections. Providing for the second section to include a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 11) shows a plastic body formed of three sections. Providing for the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Masini / Masini as modified.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/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.
The term “close proximity to” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close proximity to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood to be adjacent.
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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini et al. (US 20140083606 A1, hereinafter Masini), in view of Bartsch (EP 1029740 A2, hereinafter Bartsch) in view of Simplicean et al. (US 5975625 A, hereinafter Simplicean)Regarding claim 1,
A modular system for forming a monocoque of a land vehicle, the modular system comprising:
a front cage mold unit that corresponds to a front cage of the monocoque defining an operator cabin of the vehicle, and
a first mold unit coupled to the front cage mold unit that corresponds to a monocoque section located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction,
wherein: the front cage mold unit is a single mold unit,
the front cage mold unit includes a base at least partially defining a floor of the operator cabin of the vehicle and
a frame at least partially defining a roof of the operator cabin of the vehicle that extends above the base in a vertical direction,
the base is interconnected with the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the frame and
(ii) a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle,
the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment,
the second section includes a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment, and
the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
Masini teaches the following:
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 39 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. Highlighting, that the various secondary molds are found to be in all directions relative the main mould, including rearward. Additionally, the secondary mold and the main mold are aligned in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that outer faces of the main mold unit and the secondary mold unit are coplanar. Highlighting, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, for the purpose of forming a composite mold that includes the main mould and secondary molds allows for the production of at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of one or more main molds and one or more secondary molds, (Abstract).
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 33 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. ([0058]) teaches referring to (Figs. 21 to 26), it is seen that a shell 4S of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. ([0059]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. Highlighting, that the main mould(s) act as applicants front cage mold. As such, the main component and its main mold corresponding to a front cage and its mold cavity is disclosed. As depicted in (Fig. 17), the main moulds and secondary moulds are in an exploded view with arrows depicting how they may be reassembled. Highlighting, that the cavities of the main mould and secondary mould are understood to extend in the longitudinal direction from the main mold to the secondary mold in the lateral direction between the coplanar outer faces of the main mold unit and a secondary mold. Accordingly, that the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another.
([0051]) teaches that Referring to (Fig. 17), it is seen that in an eighth step of the process the main component 18 is arranged on at least one further first main mould 31 having at least one functional surface substantially equal to a functional surface of the first main mould 11, or, alternatively, the main component 18 is left on the first main mould 11. ([0057]) teaches that in (Fig. 20), it is seen that in a tenth step of the process the moulding assembly 40 is opened and the final product 44 comprising the main component 18 joined to the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 by means of the cured intermediate substrates 41, is separated from the main mould 31 and from the secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. ([0059]) adding that Referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44. As such, the main component 18 comprising the front cage mold unit is understood to be a single mold unit.
(Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. As such, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for fabricating the shell and roof as a single integral component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component in order to eliminate the need for a construction step in addition to reducing the use of adhesives or fastening elements (weight) between the shell and roof, ([0059]).
([0040]) teaches that illustrated in (Figs. 27 & 28) is a perspective view of a roof manufactured by means of the process. ([0059]) adding that roof 52 has at least one pair of projections 53, 54 which protrude downwardly below the frame for a windshield and have a shape substantially complementary to the shape of cavities 50, 51, so that in a final assembly step roof 52 can be fixed on shell 48 by fixing projections 53, 54 in cavities 50, 51. Accordingly, the roof comprising projections 53, 54 is shown to be implemented as a portion of the operator cabin and found extend above the base in a vertical direction.
As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame.
Regarding Claim 1, Masini is silent on a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle comprising a frame, base (14) and rear (15) is separated from the interior (8) of the vehicle (1), (Abstract), Bartsch suggests details regarding a configuration in which the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle, and in this regard, Bartsch teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12). As detailed, the base (12) of the boot is found to extend forward in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the base (12) and corresponding boot are not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini. By modifying the base such that it extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle, as taught by Bartsch. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle as it allows for providing a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12), (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for the change of shape and change of size may be recited regarding the shape and size of the base fabricated. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143. Additionally, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.Regarding Claim 1, Masini as modified by Bartsch is silent on the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle that can be built to include a one-piece plastic outer body and a metal support frame underlying the outer body. The outer body is preferably formed by a molding process, (Abstract), Simplicean suggests details regarding the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
394
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 10) which shows a plastic outer body formed of two sections. Providing for the second section to include a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 11) shows a plastic body formed of three sections. Providing for the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Bartsch. By further modifying the base such that it extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle, as taught by Simplicean. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle as it allows for providing a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12), (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for the change of shape and change of size may be recited regarding the shape and size of the base fabricated. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143. Additionally, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle.
Masini teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed. Highlighting, that ([0059]) teaches the assembly of various components that are fabricated through injection molding, to form a parts and components used in the assembly of a monocoque. Additionally, ([0058] - [0059]) teaches the production multiple variously shaped monocoque components is described and the assembly of a structure comprising the various components is also disclosed. Therefore, it is understood that this process can be used to fabricate a variety of components and vehicle types. Consequently, using this process to fabricate a rear floor of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and/or intermediate section of the monocoque that, is positioned rearward of the front cage, amounts to applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As such, the case law for KSR may be applied. Consequently, citing the case law for KSR "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first mold unit corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage in the longitudinal direction and forward of a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle.
Masini teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that, the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([(0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed.Highlighting, that ([0059]) teaches the assembly of various components that are fabricated through injection molding, to form a parts and components used in the assembly of a monocoque. Additionally, ([0058] - [0059]) teaches the production multiple variously shaped monocoque components is described and the assembly of a structure comprising the various components is also disclosed. Therefore, it is understood that this process can be used to fabricate a variety of components and vehicle types. Consequently, using this process to fabricate a rear floor of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and/or intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage, amounts to applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As such, the case law for KSR may be applied. Consequently, citing the case law for KSR "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Further comprising a second mold unit coupled to the first mold unit that corresponds to the rear floor of the monocoque.
Masini teaches the following:
As detailed above, ([0053]) teaches that, the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([(0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the first mold unit is selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a first intermediate section mold unit having a first length,
(ii) a second intermediate section mold unit having a second length greater than the first length, and
(iii) a third intermediate section mold unit having a third length greater than the second length.
Masini teaches the following:
– c.) ([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10,12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. Accordingly, the molds utilized are found to comprise fabricating a first intermediate section with the mold unit having a first length and fabricate a second intermediate section with a mold unit having a second length greater than the first length and fabricate a third intermediate section with mold unit having a third length greater than the second length. Additionally, the case law for change of size may be implemented. Consequently, citing the case law for the change of size, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,189 USPQ143 (CCPA 1976) Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. Masini discloses the claimed invention except for selecting a first mold unit from molds of different sizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to selecting a first mold unit from molds of different sizes since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to scale the size of molds one may select from when choosing a first mold unit to be large, small or intermediate in order to form multiple monocoque components, such as the shell. Which may be attached to a monocoque roof by means of mechanical fastening elements, ([0059]).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein each of the first length, the second length, and the third length is a fixed length.
Masini teaches the following:
([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10, 12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. . Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. As detailed, the molds utilized to fabricate the intermediate section are found to have a fixed length.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein the intermediate section of the monocoque has a single fixed length.
Masini teaches the following:
([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10, 12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. . Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. As detailed, the molds utilized to produce the intermediate section are found to have a single fixed length.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 8, Masini is silent on the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction. In analogous art as applied above, Bartsch suggests details regarding a configuration in which the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and in this regard, Bartsch teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12). As detailed, the base (12) of the boot is found to define a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 8,
Wherein the supporting structure is formed to include a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Masini is silent on the supporting structure is formed to include a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle. In analogous art as applied above, Bartsch suggests details regarding a configuration in which the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and in this regard, Bartsch teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12). As detailed, the base (12) of the boot is found to define a supporting structure formed to include a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle. Highlighting, while a single cutouts is shown, it is understood that drawing is of the profile of a motor vehicle with rear engine / car. As such, a duplicate cutout is understood to be provided symmetrical to the cutout illustrated. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the a pair of cutouts. The case law for the duplication of parts may be recited. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.B.) Claim(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini in view of Ionel Eugene Simplicean (US 5975625 A, hereinafter Simplicean)Regarding claim 1,
A modular system for forming a monocoque of a land vehicle, the modular system comprising:
a front cage mold unit that corresponds to a front cage of the monocoque defining an operator cabin of the vehicle, and
a first mold unit coupled to the front cage mold unit that corresponds to a monocoque section located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction,
wherein: the front cage mold unit is a single mold unit,
the front cage mold unit includes a base at least partially defining a floor of the operator cabin of the vehicle and
a frame at least partially defining a roof of the operator cabin of the vehicle that extends above the base in a vertical direction, [[and]]
the base is interconnected with the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the frame and
(ii) a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle,
the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment,
the second section includes a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment, and
the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
Masini teaches the following:
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 39 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. Highlighting, that the various secondary molds are found to be in all directions relative the main mould, including rearward. Additionally, the secondary mold and the main mold are aligned in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that outer faces of the main mold unit and the secondary mold unit are coplanar. Highlighting, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, for the purpose of forming a composite mold that includes the main mould and secondary molds allows for the production of at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of one or more main molds and one or more secondary molds, (Abstract).
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 33 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. ([0058]) teaches referring to (Figs. 21 to 26), it is seen that a shell 4S of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. ([0059]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. Highlighting, that the main mould(s) act as applicants front cage mold. As such, the main component and its main mold corresponding to a front cage and its mold cavity is disclosed. As depicted in (Fig. 17), the main moulds and secondary moulds are in an exploded view with arrows depicting how they may be reassembled. Highlighting, that the cavities of the main mould and secondary mould are understood to extend in the longitudinal direction from the main mold to the secondary mold in the lateral direction between the coplanar outer faces of the main mold unit and a secondary mold. Accordingly, that the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another.
([0051]) teaches that Referring to (Fig. 17), it is seen that in an eighth step of the process the main component 18 is arranged on at least one further first main mould 31 having at least one functional surface substantially equal to a functional surface of the first main mould 11, or, alternatively, the main component 18 is left on the first main mould 11. ([0057]) teaches that in (Fig. 20), it is seen that in a tenth step of the process the moulding assembly 40 is opened and the final product 44 comprising the main component 18 joined to the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 by means of the cured intermediate substrates 41, is separated from the main mould 31 and from the secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. ([0059]) adding that Referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44. As such, the main component 18 comprising the front cage mold unit is understood to be a single mold unit.
(Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. As such, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for fabricating the shell and roof as a single integral component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component in order to eliminate the need for a construction step in addition to reducing the use of adhesives or fastening elements (weight) between the shell and roof, ([0059]).
([0040]) teaches that illustrated in (Figs. 27 & 28) is a perspective view of a roof manufactured by means of the process. ([0059]) adding that roof 52 has at least one pair of projections 53, 54 which protrude downwardly below the frame for a windshield and have a shape substantially complementary to the shape of cavities 50, 51, so that in a final assembly step roof 52 can be fixed on shell 48 by fixing projections 53, 54 in cavities 50, 51. Accordingly, the roof comprising projections 53, 54 is shown to be implemented as a portion of the operator cabin and found extend above the base in a vertical direction.
As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame.
Regarding Claim 1, Masini is silent on a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle that can be built to include a one-piece plastic outer body and a metal support frame underlying the outer body. The outer body is preferably formed by a molding process, (Abstract), Simplicean suggests details regarding a configuration in which the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 is found to act as a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle, which provides for accessing the trunk and forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for a arcuate void that is formed in the second section of the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 10) which shows a plastic outer body formed of two sections. Providing for the second section to include a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 11) shows a plastic body formed of three sections. Providing for the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini. By modifying the structure to include a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement, as taught by Simplicean. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and implementing a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement as it allows for a molding process can be carried out to provide various integral built-in features, e.g. fuel tank, battery tray, fenders, front or rear seats, seat channels, headlight housings, tail light housings, instrument panel, dual steering wheel mounts (right and left), cup holder, spare tire recess, cargo hold-down anchorages, and frame attachment surfaces, (Col. 6, lines 5 – 11) and provides for a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94 as it provides for change the manufacturing from four seat to a five-seat vehicle very quickly (e.g. in hours). This feature provides great marketing flexibility, (Col. 1, lines 50 – 54). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding a first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle. However, the case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle.
Masini teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed. Highlighting, that ([0059]) teaches the assembly of various components that are fabricated through injection molding, to form a parts and components used in the assembly of a monocoque. Additionally, ([0058] - [0059]) teaches the production multiple variously shaped monocoque components is described and the assembly of a structure comprising the various components is also disclosed. Therefore, it is understood that this process can be used to fabricate a variety of components and vehicle types. Consequently, using this process to fabricate a rear floor of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and/or intermediate section of the monocoque that, is positioned rearward of the front cage, amounts to applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As such, the case law for KSR may be applied. Consequently, citing the case law for KSR "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Masini is silent on the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle that can be built to include a one-piece plastic outer body and a metal support frame underlying the outer body. The outer body is preferably formed by a molding process, (Abstract), Simplicean suggests details regarding the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10), the rear body section 94 is found to act as the rear floor that at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini. By modifying the structure to include a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle that includes a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94, as taught by Simplicean. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing rear body section 94 that corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle as it provides for a molding process can be carried out to provide various integral built-in features, e.g. fuel tank, battery tray, fenders, front or rear seats, seat channels, headlight housings, tail light housings, instrument panel, dual steering wheel mounts (right and left), cup holder, spare tire recess, cargo hold-down anchorages, and frame attachment surfaces, (Col. 6, lines 5 – 11) and provides for a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94 as it provides for change the manufacturing from four seat to a five-seat vehicle very quickly (e.g. in hours). This feature provides great marketing flexibility, (Col. 1, lines 50 – 54). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding a first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle. However, the case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the first mold unit corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage in the longitudinal direction and forward of a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle.
Masini teaches the following:
([0053]) teaches that, the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([(0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed.Highlighting, that ([0059]) teaches the assembly of various components that are fabricated through injection molding, to form a parts and components used in the assembly of a monocoque. Additionally, ([0058] - [0059]) teaches the production multiple variously shaped monocoque components is described and the assembly of a structure comprising the various components is also disclosed. Therefore, it is understood that this process can be used to fabricate a variety of components and vehicle types. Consequently, using this process to fabricate a rear floor of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and/or intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage, amounts to applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As such, the case law for KSR may be applied. Consequently, citing the case law for KSR "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Masini is silent on the first mold unit corresponding to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage in the longitudinal direction and forward of a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the first mold unit corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage in the longitudinal direction and forward of a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10), the center body section 92 is found to act as the intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage in the longitudinal direction and forward of a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle.
The same rejection rationale case law(s), and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Further comprising a second mold unit coupled to the first mold unit that corresponds to the rear floor of the monocoque.
Masini teaches the following:
As detailed above, ([0053]) teaches that, the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([(0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Masini is silent on the second mold unit coupled to the first mold unit that corresponds to the rear floor of the monocoque. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding a second mold unit coupled to the first mold unit that corresponds to the rear floor of the monocoque, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10), the rear body section 94 is found to act as the rear floor that at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction.
The same rejection rationale case law(s), and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the first mold unit is selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a first intermediate section mold unit having a first length,
(ii) a second intermediate section mold unit having a second length greater than the first length, and
(iii) a third intermediate section mold unit having a third length greater than the second length.
Masini teaches the following:
– c.) ([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10,12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. Accordingly, the molds utilized are found to comprise fabricating a first intermediate section with the mold unit having a first length and fabricate a second intermediate section with a mold unit having a second length greater than the first length and fabricate a third intermediate section with mold unit having a third length greater than the second length.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Masini is silent on the intermediate section mold unit’s length. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the intermediate mold unit’s length, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the center body section 92 is found to act as the intermediate section of the monocoque that has a length / first length that is fixed. Accordingly, it is understood that the longer the intermediate section provided in the center the more seats that can be implemented in the vehicle.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the size of the intermediate section mold unit. However, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein each of the first length, the second length, and the third length is a fixed length.
Masini teaches the following:
([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10, 12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. . Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. As detailed, the molds utilized to fabricate the intermediate section are found to have a fixed length.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Masini is silent on the intermediate section mold unit having a fixed length. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the intermediate mold unit having a fixed length, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the center body section 92 is found to act as the intermediate section of the monocoque that has a length that is fixed. Accordingly, it is understood that the longer the intermediate section provided in the center the more seats that can be implemented in the vehicle.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the size of the intermediate section mold unit. However, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 5,
Wherein the intermediate section of the monocoque has a single fixed length.
Masini teaches the following:
([0045]) teaches that in (Fig. 4) the main substrates 10, 12 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each main substrate 10, 12 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts, which portions are preferably cut by numerical control machines. Also, the first spacers 7 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Fig. 4). ([0048]) teaches that in (Figs. 9 to 12) the secondary substrates 19, 20, 21, 22 are shown for simplicity with a rectangular shape, however each secondary substrate 19, 20, 21, 22 can be divided into a plurality of portions having different shapes, sizes, thicknesses and/or wefts. . Also, the second inserts 27, 28, 29, 30 may have shapes and/or dimensions differing from those shown in (Figs. 9 to 12). ([0054]) teaches that the main moulds 11, 13 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 35, 36, 37, 38 are suitably provided with surfaces with shapes and/or elements, for example pins and holes, for carrying out a mechanical coupling with corresponding shapes and/or elements. As such, it is understood that a variety of shapes, sizes and for the articles produced from the moulding operations, and a variety of shapes, sizes and for the moulds implemented can be utilized. As detailed, the molds utilized to produce the intermediate section are found to have a single fixed length.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Masini is silent on the intermediate section mold unit having a fixed length. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the intermediate mold unit having a fixed length, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the center body section 92 is found to act as the intermediate section of the monocoque that has a length that is fixed. Accordingly, it is understood that the longer the intermediate section provided in the center the more seats that can be implemented in the vehicle.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well. Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the size of the intermediate section mold unit. However, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 8, Masini is silent on the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding a configuration in which the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the front body section is found to comprise a second section of the base that defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 8,
Wherein the supporting structure is formed to include a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Masini is silent on the supporting structure is formed to include a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding a configuration in which the second section of the base defines a supporting structure located forward of the operator cabin of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the front body section is found to comprise a second section of the base that defines a supporting structure incudes tire recess / a pair of cutouts each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 3, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
C.) Claim(s) 10 – 11 & 14 – 15, 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini in view of Alain Constans (US 20100263954 A1, hereinafter Constans) and in further view of Simplicean
Regarding claim 10,
A modular system for forming a monocoque of a land vehicle, the modular system comprising:
a front cage mold unit that corresponds to a front cage of the monocoque defining an operator cabin of the vehicle, and
a rear floor mold unit that corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction,
wherein: the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle;
the rear floor at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction;
a base of the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction,
a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction,
the base of the front cage mold unit comprises a first section that is overlaid by the frame and
a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle,
the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment,
the second section includes a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment, and
the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
Masini teaches the following:
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 39 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. Highlighting, that the various secondary molds are found to be in all directions relative the main mould, including rearward. Additionally, the secondary mold and the main mold are aligned in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that outer faces of the main mold unit and the secondary mold unit are coplanar. Highlighting, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, for the purpose of forming a composite mold that includes the main mould and secondary molds allows for the production of at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of one or more main molds and one or more secondary molds, (Abstract).
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 33 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. ([0058]) teaches referring to (Figs. 21 to 26), it is seen that a shell 4S of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. ([0059]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. Highlighting, that the main mould(s) act as applicants front cage mold. As such, the main component and its main mold corresponding to a front cage and its mold cavity is disclosed. As depicted in (Fig. 17), the main moulds and secondary moulds are in an exploded view with arrows depicting how they may be reassembled. Highlighting, that the cavities of the main mould and secondary mould are understood to extend in the longitudinal direction from the main mold to the secondary mold in the lateral direction between the coplanar outer faces of the main mold unit and a secondary mold. Accordingly, that the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another.
([0053]) teaches that the secondary components 19, 20, 21, 22 are then arranged on the intermediate substrates and/or on the second spacers 32, 33, 34 and/or on the main component 18 by means of further secondary moulds 35, 36, 37, 38. Additionally, ([0058]) mentions that the lower rear portion of shell 48, corresponds to the bench behind the seats in the monocoque. As such, the construction of a rear floor portion is disclosed and an intermediate section portion that is found behind (reward) of the seats, and operational cabin is disclosed. Highlighting, that ([0059]) teaches the assembly of various components that are fabricated through injection molding, to form a parts and components used in the assembly of a monocoque. Additionally, ([0058] - [0059]) teaches the production multiple variously shaped monocoque components is described and the assembly of a structure comprising the various components is also disclosed. Therefore, it is understood that this process can be used to fabricate a variety of components and vehicle types. Consequently, using this process to fabricate a rear floor of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and/or intermediate section of the monocoque that, is positioned rearward of the front cage, amounts to applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. As such, the case law for KSR may be applied. Consequently, citing the case law for KSR "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
& f.) (Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 27) the front cage has projections 53 and 54 which are found to provide for the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction, and the front cage has two arched pillars forming the front window aperture which are found to provide for a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction. As such, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for fabricating the shell and roof as a single integral component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component in order to eliminate the need for a construction step in addition to reducing the use of adhesives or fastening elements (weight) between the shell and roof, ([0059]).
As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame.
Regarding Claim 10, Masini is silent on the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle. In analogous art for a vehicle self-supporting monocoque body assembly comprising a base frame structure is provided, (Abstract), Constans suggests details regarding the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle, and in this regard, Constans teaches the following:
([0043]) teaches that the vehicle outer frame interface 36 is shaped to receive a cabin frame structure 52 and comprises a first part of the cabin frame structure interface 54 located on a top surface of the base frame structure 12 and a second part of the cabin frame structure interface 56 located on a front surface of the base frame structure 12. This is best illustrated in (Figs. 4 & 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini. By modifying the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle, as taught by Constans. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle as it provides for cars that are motorized and can be controlled by an operator cabin, ([0058]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success i.e., the front cage at least partially defines a front end, back end or center of the land vehicle provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the modification of the rear floor from that of a square/rectangle to that of a square/rectangle with reduced width in some portion is understood to be change of shape. Accordingly, recited the case law for the change of shape. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Masini as modified by Constans is silent on the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle that can be built to include a one-piece plastic outer body and a metal support frame underlying the outer body. The outer body is preferably formed by a molding process, (Abstract), Simplicean suggests details regarding the first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle and the first section includes first base surface and the first second includes second base surface and their arrangement, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10), the rear body section 94 is found to act as the rear floor that at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction.
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 is found to act as a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle, which provides for accessing the trunk and forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for a arcuate void that is formed in the second section of the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 10) which shows a plastic outer body formed of two sections. Providing for the second section to include a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 11) shows a plastic body formed of three sections. Providing for the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans. By further modifying the structure to include a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle that includes a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94, as taught by Simplicean. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing rear body section 94 that corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle as it provides for a molding process can be carried out to provide various integral built-in features, e.g. fuel tank, battery tray, fenders, front or rear seats, seat channels, headlight housings, tail light housings, instrument panel, dual steering wheel mounts (right and left), cup holder, spare tire recess, cargo hold-down anchorages, and frame attachment surfaces, (Col. 6, lines 5 – 11) and provides for a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94 as it provides for change the manufacturing from four seat to a five-seat vehicle very quickly (e.g. in hours). This feature provides great marketing flexibility, (Col. 1, lines 50 – 54). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding a first mold unit corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque that defines a rear end of the vehicle. However, the case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 10,
Wherein the base and the frame are interconnected as a unitary structure.
Masini teaches the following:
(Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. As such, the base and the frame are interconnected as a unitary structure. Accordingly, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214.
Regarding claim 14 – 15 as applied to claim 10 & 14 respectively,
Wherein the front cage mold unit comprises an arcuate void extending therethrough
the arcuate void is formed in the second section of the base.
Masini teaches the following:
& 15a.) As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame. Above the projections 53, 54 are found to be holes / arcuate void extending at least partway through a sidewall of the front cage mold unit.
Regarding Claim(s) 14 – 15, Masini as modified by Constans is silent on the a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle and the arcuate void is formed in the second section of the base. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle and the arcuate void is formed in the second section of the base, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
& 15a.) (Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 is found to act as a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle, which provides for accessing the trunk and forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for a arcuate void that is formed in the second section of the base.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 10, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15,
Wherein the arcuate void is arranged in close proximity to the front end of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Masini as modified by Constans is silent on the arcuate void is arranged adjacent the front end of the vehicle. In analogous art as applied above, Simplicean suggests details regarding the arcuate void is arranged adjacent the front end of the vehicle, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 comprises a forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for an arcuate void that is arranged adjacent the front end of the vehicle.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 10, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 18,
A modular system for forming a monocoque of a land vehicle, the modular system comprising:
a first mold unit that corresponds to a front cage of the monocoque defining an operator cabin of the vehicle,
a second mold unit that corresponds to a rear floor of the monocoque located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction, and
a third mold unit that corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and forward of the rear floor in the longitudinal direction,
wherein: the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle;
the rear floor at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction;
a base of the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction, [[and]]
a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction,
the base of the front cage mold unit comprises a first section that is overlaid by the frame and
a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle,
the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment,
the second section includes a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment, and
the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
Masini teaches the following:
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 39 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. Highlighting, that the various secondary molds are found to be in all directions relative the main mould, including rearward. Additionally, the secondary mold and the main mold are aligned in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that outer faces of the main mold unit and the secondary mold unit are coplanar. Highlighting, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds,. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the alignment of the main mold and secondary molds, for the purpose of forming a composite mold that includes the main mould and secondary molds allows for the production of at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of one or more main molds and one or more secondary molds, (Abstract).
([0055]) teaches that referring to (Fig. 18), it is seen that in a ninth step of the process the first main moulds 111 and/or 31 and the secondary moulds 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38 and/or 33 are fastened to each other with mechanical fastening devices, in particular toggle latches and/or screws, to form a modular moulding assembly 40. ([0058]) teaches referring to (Figs. 21 to 26), it is seen that a shell 4S of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. ([0059]) teaches that referring to (Figs. 27 & 28), it is seen that a roof 52 of a monocoque can comprise said final product 44, namely it can be made by means of the process and/or the moulds according to the present invention. Highlighting, that the main mould(s) act as applicants front cage mold. As such, the main component and its main mold corresponding to a front cage and its mold cavity is disclosed. As depicted in (Fig. 17), the main moulds and secondary moulds are in an exploded view with arrows depicting how they may be reassembled. Highlighting, that the cavities of the main mould and secondary mould are understood to extend in the longitudinal direction from the main mold to the secondary mold in the lateral direction between the coplanar outer faces of the main mold unit and a secondary mold. Accordingly, that the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited for any discrepancies regarding the alignment of the molds relative to one another.
& g.) (Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 27) the front cage has projections 53 and 54 which are found to provide for the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction, and the front cage has two arched pillars forming the front window aperture which are found to provide for a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction. As such, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214. Accordingly, Masini discloses the claimed invention except for fabricating the shell and roof as a single integral component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to fabricate the shell and roof as a single integral component in order to eliminate the need for a construction step in addition to reducing the use of adhesives or fastening elements (weight) between the shell and roof, ([0059]).
As illustrated in (Figs. 21 & 22) and (Figs. 27 & 28), the shell 48 is found to act as applicant’s base that is interconnected with the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame to define (i) a first section of the base that is overlaid by the roof comprising projections 53, 54 / the frame.
Regarding Claim 18, Masini is silent on the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle. In analogous art for a vehicle self-supporting monocoque body assembly comprising a base frame structure is provided, (Abstract), Constans suggests details regarding the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle, and in this regard, Constans teaches the following:
([0043]) teaches that the vehicle outer frame interface 36 is shaped to receive a cabin frame structure 52 and comprises a first part of the cabin frame structure interface 54 located on a top surface of the base frame structure 12 and a second part of the cabin frame structure interface 56 located on a front surface of the base frame structure 12. As such, the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini. By modifying the front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle, as taught by Constans. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a front cage at least partially defines a front end of the land vehicle as it provides for cars that are motorized and can be controlled by an operator cabin, ([0058]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success i.e., the front cage at least partially defines a front end, back end or center of the land vehicle provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the modification of the rear floor from that of a square/rectangle to that of a square/rectangle with reduced width in some portion is understood to be change of shape. Accordingly, recited the case law for the change of shape. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.Regarding Claim(s) 18, Masini as modified by Constans is silent on a third mold unit that corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and forward of the rear floor in the longitudinal direction. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle that can be built to include a one-piece plastic outer body and a metal support frame underlying the outer body. The outer body is preferably formed by a molding process, (Abstract), Simplicean suggests details regarding a third mold unit that corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and forward of the rear floor in the longitudinal direction, and in this regard, Simplicean teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 8 – 10), in particular (Fig. 8 & 10) the operator cabin / front cage is found to encompass a portion of the front body section 90 and the entirety of the rear body section 94, namely all the seats. With (Fig. 9 & 10) showing the central body section 92, which acts as applicant’s third mold unit that corresponds to an intermediate section of the monocoque that is positioned rearward of the front cage and forward of the rear floor in the longitudinal direction. Highlighting, that the central body section 92 is found to be added between the front body section 90 of the rear body section 94 at a point in which the entirety of the central body section 92 would be within the operator cabin / front cage. Highlighting, (Col. 1, lines 50 – 54) teaches that by employing plural interchangeable body sections it is possible to change the manufacturing from four seat to a five-seat vehicle very quickly (e.g. in hours). This feature provides great marketing flexibility.
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 10) the rear body section 94 is found to act as athe rear floor that at least partially defines a rear end of the land vehicle arranged opposite the front end in the longitudinal direction.
(Col. 1, lines 45 – 50) teaches that in preferred practice of the invention the plastic body component is a single plastic member formed by a molding operation or a rotational casting process. However, the plastic body component can alternately be formed by two or three interchangeable body sections securable together by mechanical or adhesive connections in "LEGO" fashion. (Col. 5, lines 23 – 25) teaches that (Fig. 10) represents a four-seater version, whereas (Fig. 11) represents a six-seater version. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 8 – 10), the front body section 90 is found to act as a second section that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at the front end of the land vehicle, which provides for accessing the trunk and forwardly facing surfaces of the front fenders 16 have openings 28 therein for the headlights, which provide for a arcuate void that is formed in the second section of the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, the first section includes a first base surface that extends continuously in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction from one lateral side of the front cage mold unit to another lateral side of the front cage mold unit arranged opposite the one lateral side to at least partially define a first base compartment.
PNG
media_image2.png
480
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 10) which shows a plastic outer body formed of two sections. Providing for the second section to include a second base surface that extends continuously in the lateral direction from the one lateral side to the another lateral side to at least partially define a second base compartment.
PNG
media_image4.png
368
840
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 11) and provided within, in particular (Fig. 11) shows a plastic body formed of three sections. Providing for the first and second base compartments are coupled to one another at a forward end of the first section of the base without being closed off from one another at the forward end of the first section of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans. By further modifying the structure to include a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94, as taught by Simplicean. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing a central body section 92 sandwich between the front body section 90 and rear body section 94 as it provides for change the manufacturing from four seat to a five-seat vehicle very quickly (e.g. in hours). This feature provides great marketing flexibility, (Col. 1, lines 50 – 54).
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 18,
Wherein the second and third mold units are aligned in the vertical direction.
Masini teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that illustrated in (Figs. 27 & 28) is a perspective view of a roof manufactured by means of the process. ([0059]) adding that roof 52 has at least one pair of projections 53, 54 which protrude downwardly below the frame for a windshield and have a shape substantially complementary to the shape of cavities 50, 51, so that in a final assembly step roof 52 can be fixed on shell 48 by fixing projections 53, 54 in cavities 50, 51. (Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 27) the front cage has projections 53 and 54 which are found to provide for the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction, and the front cage has two arched pillars forming the front window aperture which are found to provide for a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 18,
Wherein the frame of the first mold unit extends above a body of the third mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body of the third mold unit are not aligned in the vertical direction.
Masini teaches the following:
([0040]) teaches that illustrated in (Figs. 27 & 28) is a perspective view of a roof manufactured by means of the process. ([0059]) adding that roof 52 has at least one pair of projections 53, 54 which protrude downwardly below the frame for a windshield and have a shape substantially complementary to the shape of cavities 50, 51, so that in a final assembly step roof 52 can be fixed on shell 48 by fixing projections 53, 54 in cavities 50, 51. (Claim 23) allows for molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds. As such, molding two main components, for instance the shell and roof is understood to be disclosed. ([0041]) teaches that (Fig. 28) shows a monocoque comprising the shell of (Fig. 21) and the roof of (Fig. 27). Highlighting, that an alternative fabrication procedure that forms two individual components (Fig. 21 & Fig. 27), as a single unit (Fig. 28), is understood to be integral construction variation. Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 27) the front cage has projections 53 and 54 which are found to provide for the front cage mold unit and a body of the rear floor mold unit are aligned in a vertical direction, and the front cage has two arched pillars forming the front window aperture which are found to provide for a frame of the front cage mold unit extends above the body of the rear floor mold unit in the vertical direction such that at least part of the frame and the body are not aligned in the vertical direction.
D.) Claim(s) 13 & 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini in view of Constans in view of Simplicean and in further view of Courtright et al. (US 9102287 B1, hereinafter Courtright)
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 10,
Wherein the rear floor mold unit comprises a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the body of the rear floor mold unit in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction.
Regarding Claim 13, Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean is silent on a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. In analogous art for the construction of a combined superstructure and frame, i.e., monocoque constructions of a vehicle, Courtright suggests details regarding the shape of a rear floor unit, in particular a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction, and in this regard Courtright teaches the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
436
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Col. 2, lines 40 – 41) teaches that (Fig. 3) is a partial exploded perspective view of a sill and bed assembly, showing the truck bed and the sill in isolation. As illustrated in (Fig. 3) and recreated below, (Fig. 3) provides for a rear floor that comprises a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. The cutouts are indicated by the arrows. Highlighting, that the addition of cutouts is understood to be achievable by changing the shape of mold that is utilized for fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean. By further modifying a rear floor of the modular chassis to comprise a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width, as taught by Courtright, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known rear floor shape, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Courtright. Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the modification of the rear floor from that of a square/rectangle to that of a square/rectangle with reduced width in some portion is understood to be change of shape. Accordingly, recited the case law for the change of shape. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23 ,MPEP 2143.Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 10,
Wherein: the rear floor mold unit comprises a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the body of the rear floor mold unit in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction, and
the front cage mold unit comprises an arcuate void extending therethrough
Masini teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 27), the window apertures are found to provide for an arcuate void extending at least partway through a sidewall of the front cage mold unit.
Regarding Claim 17, Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean is silent on a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. In analogous art for the construction of a combined superstructure and frame, i.e., monocoque constructions of a vehicle, Courtright suggests details regarding the shape of a rear floor unit, in particular a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction, and in this regard Courtright teaches the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
436
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Col. 2, lines 40 – 41) teaches that (Fig. 3) is a partial exploded perspective view of a sill and bed assembly, showing the truck bed and the sill in isolation. As illustrated in (Fig. 3) and recreated below, (Fig. 3) provides for a rear floor that comprises a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. The cutouts are indicated by the arrows. Highlighting, that the addition of cutouts is understood to be achievable by changing the shape of mold that is utilized for fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean. By further modifying a rear floor of the modular chassis to comprise a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width, as taught by Courtright, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known rear floor shape, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Courtright. Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the modification of the rear floor from that of a square/rectangle to that of a square/rectangle with reduced width in some portion is understood to be change of shape. Accordingly, recited the case law for the change of shape. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.E.) Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masini in view of Constans in view of Simplicean and in view of Bartsch and in further view of CourtrightRegarding claim 17 as applied to claim 10,
Wherein: the rear floor mold unit comprises a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the body of the rear floor mold unit in the lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction, and
the front cage mold unit comprises an arcuate void extending therethrough
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean is silent on a second section of the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle and the arcuate void is formed in the second section. In analogous art for fabricating a motor vehicle comprising a frame, base (14) and rear (15) is separated from the interior (8) of the vehicle (1), (Abstract), Bartsch suggests details regarding a configuration in which the base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle, and in this regard, Bartsch teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12). As detailed, the base (12) of the boot is found to define a supporting structure formed to include a pair of cutouts / arcuate voids each configured to at least partially surround a wheel of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans and Simplicean. By further modifying the base such that it extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle, as taught by Bartsch. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a base that extends forward of the first section in the longitudinal direction beyond the frame such that the second section is not overlaid by the frame at a forward end of the vehicle as it allows for providing a front boot (3) with a separating wall (5) containing a charging hole (9) and a lid (18) has a base (12), (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for the change of shape and change of size may be recited regarding the shape and size of the base fabricated. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143. Additionally, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 17, Masini as modified by Constans, Simplicean and Bartsch is silent on a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another such that the rear floor mold unit has a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. In analogous art for the construction of a combined superstructure and frame, i.e., monocoque constructions of a vehicle, Courtright suggests details regarding the shape of a rear floor unit, in particular a rear floor comprising a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction, and in this regard Courtright teaches the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
436
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Col. 2, lines 40 – 41) teaches that (Fig. 3) is a partial exploded perspective view of a sill and bed assembly, showing the truck bed and the sill in isolation. As illustrated in (Fig. 3) and recreated below, (Fig. 3) provides for a rear floor that comprises a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width between the plurality of cutouts in the lateral direction. The cutouts are indicated by the arrows. Highlighting, that the addition of cutouts is understood to be achievable by changing the shape of mold that is utilized for fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production of a shells and roofs far monocoques that includes molding at least one main component made of a composite material and one or more secondary components made of a composite material by means of two or more main molds and one or more secondary molds of Masini as modified by Constans, Simplicean and Bartsch. By further modifying further modifying a rear floor of the modular chassis to comprise a plurality of cutouts that reduces the width, as taught by Courtright, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known rear floor shape, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Courtright. Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the modification of the rear floor from that of a square/rectangle to that of a square/rectangle with reduced width in some portion is understood to be change of shape. Accordingly, recited the case law for the change of shape. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23, MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robert Bollinger (US 20190351950 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) an automotive vehicle includes a body having floorboards positioned along the base of the vehicle body and extending from a front end of the vehicle to a rear end of the vehicle along an uninterrupted path.
Harmon et al. (US 20230391268 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that this disclosure relates to a front trunk including a closure providing increased headroom and shade. In some aspects, the techniques described herein relate to a motor vehicle, including: a front trunk establishing a cargo space.
Farooq et al. (US 20230192027 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a vehicle-hood assembly includes a vehicle hood and an energy absorber fixed to the vehicle hood. The energy absorber is releasable from a compressed position to an uncompressed position. The energy absorber includes a chamber that is sealed and vacuum pressurized in the compressed position. An actuator is configured to unseal the chamber to release the energy absorber from the compressed position to the uncompressed position.
Gill et al. (US 20220355738 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) provided is a front trunk cargo storage system. The system includes a main body that defines a primary storage compartment, and a load floor drawer mounted upon a floor of the primary storage compartment.
Desai et al. (US 20230356662 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) disclosed are systems and methods for a vehicle. The vehicle can include a compartment. The vehicle can include an apparatus disposed within the compartment. The apparatus can include a drawer configured to open through transportation out of the compartment
Dong Kim (US 20220097610 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present invention relates to a vehicle frunk trim. A storage-box accommodation space is formed on one side of the frunk trim, and a flexible storage box is mounted on an inside surface of a sidewall, positioned in the direction of the storage-box accommodation space, of a body portion.
Nothdurfter et al. (US 20190283810 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that a vehicle load-bearing structure includes a cell made of composite materials and composed of a plurality of components joined to each other by at least one joining system to form a single structure; the cell is made up of a number n of components between 3 and 8, that is 3<n<8.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights