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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the plurality of battery packs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is 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 “different” in Claim 9 Line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “different” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The nature of the difference, e.g., shape, size, subsystem type, component type, rail attachment arrangement, cannot be discerned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wheeler et al. (US 20230070279 A1) (hereinafter “Wheeler”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Wheeler teaches a modular chassis for a vehicle [Wheeler Fig. 2, Reference Character 20; Wheeler Paragraph 0045: “The chassis assembly may support other components of the vehicle 10. In some embodiments, the chassis 20 extends longitudinally along a length of the vehicle 10. The chassis 10 may extend substantially parallel to a primary direction of travel of the vehicle 10. According to an exemplary embodiment, the chassis 20 includes three sections or portions, shown as front section 22, middle section 24, and rear section 26. The middle section 24 of the chassis 20 extends between the front section 22 and the rear section 26. In some embodiments, the middle section 24 of the chassis 20 couples the front section 22 to the rear section 26.”], comprising: a plurality of modular packs [Wheeler Paragraph 0080: “The chassis 20 may include at least one of a structural housing, shown as battery box or enclosure 1002, and a subframe 1004, and any combination thereof.”]; a first main rail coupled to each modular pack of the plurality of modular packs so that each modular pack of the plurality of modular packs is arranged linearly relative to an adjacent modular pack; a second main rail coupled to each modular pack of the plurality of modular packs opposite of the first main rail [Wheeler Fig. 2; Wheeler Paragraph 0048: “the front section 22, the middle section 24, and the rear section 26 are defined by a pair of frame rails that extend continuously along the entire length of the vehicle 10. In such an embodiment, the front rail portion 30 and the rear rail portion 34 would be front and rear portions of a first frame rail, and the front rail portion 32 and the rear rail portion 36 would be front and rear portions of a second frame rail. In such embodiments, the middle section 24 would include a center portion of each frame rail.”]; wherein at least one modular pack of the plurality of modular packs includes a subsystem or a component of a subsystem of the vehicle [Wheeler Fig.2; Wheeler Paragraph 0049: “the middle section 24 acts as a storage portion that includes one or more vehicle components. The middle section 24 may include an enclosure that contains one or more vehicle components and/or a frame that supports one or more vehicle components.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein a length of the modular chassis is defined by a number of modular packs included in the plurality of modular packs, and the length of the modular chassis defines a length of the vehicle [Wheeler Figs. 3-8, Reference Character 20; Wheeler Paragraph 0055: “The vehicle 10 may be outfitted with a variety of different application kits 80 to configure the vehicle 10 for use in different applications. Accordingly, a common vehicle 10 can be configured for a variety of different uses simply by selecting an appropriate application kit 80. By way of example, the vehicle 10 may be configured as a refuse vehicle, a concrete mixer, a fire fighting vehicle, an airport fire fighting vehicle, a lift device (e.g., a boom lift, a scissor lift, a telehandler, a vertical lift, etc.), a crane, a tow truck, a military vehicle, a delivery vehicle, a mail vehicle, a boom truck, a plow truck, a farming machine or vehicle, a construction machine or vehicle, a coach bus, a school bus, a semi-truck, a passenger or work vehicle (e.g., a sedan, a SUV, a truck, a van, etc.), and/or still another vehicle. FIGS. 3-8 illustrate various examples of how the vehicle 10 may be configured for specific applications. Although only a certain set of vehicle configurations is shown, it should be understood that the vehicle 10 may be configured for use in other applications that are not shown.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the subsystem or the component of a subsystem of the vehicle is at least one of: a battery pack, a battery pack module, a thermal management system, a fuel cell system, an e-axle system, and a traction drive system [Wheeler Fig. 2; Wheeler Paragraph 0049: “In some embodiments, the middle section 24 contains or includes one or more electrical energy storage devices (e.g., batteries, capacitors, etc.). In another embodiment, the middle section 24 includes fuel tanks. In yet another embodiment, the middle section 24 defines a void space or storage volume that can be filled by a user.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the first main rail is comprised of a plurality of first rails, each first rail extending through a forward-facing wall, an interior enclosure, and a rear-facing wall of one modular pack of the plurality of modular packs to couple with an adjacent first rail of an adjacent modular pack [Wheeler Fig. 2; Wheeler Paragraph 0048: “the front section 22, the middle section 24, and the rear section 26 are defined by a pair of frame rails that extend continuously along the entire length of the vehicle 10. In such an embodiment, the front rail portion 30 and the rear rail portion 34 would be front and rear portions of a first frame rail, and the front rail portion 32 and the rear rail portion 36 would be front and rear portions of a second frame rail. In such embodiments, the middle section 24 would include a center portion of each frame rail.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the at least one modular pack of the plurality of modular packs is a first modular pack and the subsystem or the component of a subsystem of the vehicle is a first subsystem or a first component of a subsystem of the vehicle; and a second modular pack of the plurality of modular packs includes a second subsystem or a second component of a subsystem of the vehicle [Wheeler Paragraph 0100: “If the module 1106 is disposed in a different portion of the battery box 1002, or in a different battery box 1002 entirely, and the system module 1112 is on a bottom of the internal cavity 1104, the module 1106 may be flipped such that the first side is directed toward the bottom of the internal cavity 1104.”].
Regarding Claim 9, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 8, wherein the second subsystem or the second component of a subsystem of the vehicle is different from the first subsystem or the first component of a subsystem of the vehicle [Wheeler Paragraph 0080: “The chassis 20 may include at least one of a structural housing, shown as battery box or enclosure 1002, and a subframe 1004, and any combination thereof.”; Wheeler Paragraph 0100: “If the module 1106 is disposed in a different portion of the battery box 1002, or in a different battery box 1002 entirely, and the system module 1112 is on a bottom of the internal cavity 1104, the module 1106 may be flipped such that the first side is directed toward the bottom of the internal cavity 1104.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Wheeler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the at least one modular pack of the plurality of modular packs includes a second subsystem or a second component of a subsystem of the vehicle [Wheeler Paragraph 0080: “The chassis 20 may include at least one of a structural housing, shown as battery box or enclosure 1002, and a subframe 1004, and any combination thereof.”; Wheeler Paragraph 0100: “If the module 1106 is disposed in a different portion of the battery box 1002, or in a different battery box 1002 entirely, and the system module 1112 is on a bottom of the internal cavity 1104, the module 1106 may be flipped such that the first side is directed toward the bottom of the internal cavity 1104.”].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20230070279 A1) (hereinafter “Wheeler”) in view of Kole (US 6779617 B1). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Wheeler teaches a modular chassis comprising a first main rail but does not teach exterior surface mounting. Kole teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the subsystem or the component of a subsystem is mounted on an exterior surface of the at least one modular pack of the plurality of modular packs [Kole Figs. 1-7, Reference Characters 37 and 38; Kole Paragraph 14: “The shaft has a second coupling at one of the side walls that is structured and arranged to couple to a wheel axle assembly.”; Kole Paragraph 8: “As how in FIGS. 2 and 7, the outer side walls 33 are provided with reinforced frame receptacles 38 around the openings 37.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular chassis of Wheeler to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, exterior surface mounting in view of Kole. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wheeler and Kole because this would have achieved the desirable results of providing low cost while also providing increased design freedom, as recognized by Kole [Kole “Detailed Description” Paragraph 4: “Once constructed, the engine, drive components and cab are assembled onto the frame, the axles are attached and the wheels are mounted. The interchangeable modules provide low cost and flexibility to a manufacturer. This is because the number of different components needed to make a variety of frames is reduced. By utilizing interchangeable modules, a wide variety of vehicles, within a horsepower and size range, can be manufactured. In addition, modules allow a vehicle to be converted from one type of frame to another type. For example, the frame can be lengthened by adding modules, or shortened by removing modules. Modules can even be removed from one vehicle and used on another.”].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20230070279 A1) (hereinafter “Wheeler”) in view of Hanssler et al. (DE 102016113759 A1) (hereinafter “Hanssler”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, Wheeler teaches a modular chassis comprising a first main rail but does not teach a side tie plate. Hanssler teaches the modular chassis of claim 1, wherein the first main rail is a side tie plate coupled to an exterior sidewall of each modular pack of the plurality of modular packs [Hanssler Fig. 2b, unnumbered two-piece tie plate that extends from the top rear end of the rear battery module to the top front end of the front battery module i.e., Reference Characters 36 and 34 respectively]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular chassis of Wheeler to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side tie plate in view of Hanssler. It should be noted that while Hanssler does not provide an explicit motivation for including side tie plates, such tie plates would enable multiple modules to be installed in a single operation, would enable multiple modules to gain support from the large central elastic bearing element, and would provide mounting points between the modules and the rails, as can be seen in Fig. 2b, and as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, G.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20230070279 A1) (hereinafter “Wheeler”) in view of Friedman (US 11325453 B2). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Wheeler teaches a modular chassis comprising a first main rail but does not teach fastener holes. Friedman teaches the modular chassis of claim 6, wherein each first rail includes a plurality of fastener holes so that a distance between the one modular pack of the plurality of battery packs and the adjacent modular pack is adjustable [Friedman Fig. 1; Friedman Paragraph 19: “mechanical fasteners 36 or bolts may be used with apertures 48 defined in the battery housing 22 to secure the mounting bracket 34 to the battery housing 22. Additional apertures 50 defined in the mounting brackets 34 may then be used with suitable fasteners to secure the mounting bracket 34 to the structural component of the vehicle, such as the opposing frame rails 24, 26.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular chassis of Wheeler to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, fastener holes in view of Friedman. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wheeler and Friedman because this would have achieved the desirable result of increasing design freedom, as recognized by Friedman [Friedman Paragraph 14: “While shown with three battery housings 22 adjacent one another, the present technology can be used with any number of battery housings 22, and the each battery housing 22 may be located in different locations, not necessarily adjacent to one another.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights