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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 14, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“plurality of interior trim assembly stations” recited in claims 1 and 8
“plurality of exterior trim assembly stations” recited in claims 1 and 8
“assembly stations” recited in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “plurality of interior trim assembly stations” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“stations”). Examiner notes that “station” is reasonably considered to be a ‘generic placeholder’ because “station” does not require or invoke any type of specific structure for performing a given function. In reaching this conclusion, Examiner recognizes that “station” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “any of the places in a manufacturing operation at which one part of the work is done” and “equipment used for performing a particular job.”
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“interior trim assembly” or ‘configured for interior trim assembly’ and “configured to assemble one or more of: :a main harness and a front compartment harness, an antiblock brake system (ABS) module and a braking pipeline, a front compartment air conditioning pipe, an electronic control module, a sunroof, an instrument panel, a roof, a carpet, a console, front and rear windshields, and an exterior trim”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “plurality of exterior trim assembly stations” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“stations”). Examiner notes that “station” is reasonably considered to be a ‘generic placeholder’ because “station” does not require or invoke any type of specific structure for performing a given function. In reaching this conclusion, Examiner recognizes that “station” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “any of the places in a manufacturing operation at which one part of the work is done” and “equipment used for performing a particular job.”
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“exterior trim assembly” or ‘configured for exterior trim assembly’ and “configured to assemble one or more of: a front-end module, headlights, seats, front and rear bumpers, tires, a fuel filler, and an electrical check out system”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The limitation “assembly stations” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“stations”). Examiner notes that “station” is reasonably considered to be a ‘generic placeholder’ because “station” does not require or invoke any type of specific structure for performing a given function. In reaching this conclusion, Examiner recognizes that “station” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “any of the places in a manufacturing operation at which one part of the work is done” and “equipment used for performing a particular job.”
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“assembly” or ‘configured for assembly’ and “configured to assemble the lower body frame, the suspension system, the steering system, the braking system, the chassis electronics control system, and the energy storage system”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more assembly stations” in the last paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one or each of the ‘plurality of interior trim assembly stations,’ ‘plurality of exterior trim assembly stations,’ and ‘marriage station,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to ‘assembly stations’ other than the ‘plurality of interior trim assembly stations,’ ‘plurality of exterior trim assembly stations,’ and ‘marriage station.’
As explained above, the claim limitations “plurality of interior trim assembly stations,” “plurality of exterior trim assembly stations,” and “one or more assembly stations” each invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the limitations ‘plurality of interior trim assembly stations’ and ‘plurality of exterior trim assembly stations,’ Examiner recognizes that the Specification provide sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations and the claimed functions (paragraphs 55 and 56). However, the Specification does not provide sufficient structure for the limitations to perform the claimed functions. Regarding the limitation “one or more assembly stations,” the Specification does not provide antecedent basis for either the limitation or the claimed function of the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 8, 10 – 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the vehicle final assembly line does not comprise one or more assembly stations configured to assemble the lower body frame, the suspension system, the steering system, the braking system, the chassis electronics control system, and the energy storage system” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation in the originally filed Specification for several reasons.
First, Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches ‘interior trim assembly stations’ which are configured to assemble ‘a main harness and a front compartment harness, an anti-lock brake system (ABS) module and a braking pipeline, a front compartment air conditioning pipe, an electronic control module, a sunroof, an instrument panel, a roof, a carpet, a console, front and rear windshields, and/or exterior trim’ (paragraph 55) as well as ‘exterior trim assembly stations’ which are configured to assemble ‘a front-end module, headlights, seats, front and rear bumpers, tires, a fuel filler, and/or an electrical check out system (ECOS)’ (paragraph 56). However, there is no express teaching in the Specification that the ‘assembly stations’ are not configured to assemble a ‘lower body frame, a suspension system, a steering system, a braking system, a chassis electronics control system, and an energy storage system’ as recited by the limitation. In fact, the Specification also teaches that the ‘assembly stations’ of the ‘vehicle final assembly line’ are generally configured to assemble “various components” of the vehicle (paragraph 13) and that the ‘assembly stations’ are each configured to assemble a wide variety of components (paragraphs 40 and 58). Because the Specification teaches that the ‘assembly stations’ are each configured to assemble general components, one skilled in the art would not understand that the ‘assembly stations’ of the Specification are not further configured to assemble a ‘lower body frame, a suspension system, a steering system, a braking system, a chassis electronics control system, and/or an energy storage system.’
Secondly, the Specification expressly teaches that the ‘vehicle final assembly line’ comprises assembly stations for assembling an anti-lock braking system module and braking pipeline (paragraph 55), which may reasonably be considered to be a ‘braking system,’ as well as an electronic control module, instrument panel, and electrical check out system (paragraphs 55 and 56), which may reasonably be considered to be an ‘chassis electronics control system.’ Therefore, the Specification does not teach the ‘assembly stations’ not be configured to assemble a ‘braking system’ or ‘chassis electronics control system,’ as recited by the limitation.
Finally, the Specification expressly teaches the ‘electric chassis,’ which comprises the lower body frame, suspension system, steering system, braking system, chassis electronics control system, and energy storage system, is in a “substantially completed state” and the ‘vehicle final assembly line’ includes a “marriage station” which completes assembly of the ‘electric chassis’ (paragraph 53).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the lower body frame, the suspension system, the steering system, the braking system, the chassis electronics control system, and the energy storage system are all assembled on the electric chassis before the electric chassis is conveyed to the marriage station by the AGV” in the last paragraph of the claim. Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation in the claim. This can be found for several reasons.
First, while the Specification teaches that the ‘electrical chassis’ comprises a ‘lower body frame, suspension system, steering system, braking system, chassis electronics control system, and energy storage system,’ the Specification does not teach each of the ‘‘lower body frame, suspension system, steering system, braking system, chassis electronics control system, and energy storage system’ being fully assembled onto the ‘electrical chassis’ prior to the ‘electrical chassis’ being conveyed to the ‘marriage station.’ While Applicant argues that support for the limitation can be found on paragraphs 7 – 10 of the Specification, Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation in these paragraphs.
Secondly, the Specification clearly and expressly teaches that the electrical chassis is in a “substantially completed state” at the ‘marriage station’ such that the ‘electrical chassis’ undergoes final assembly steps, including ‘butt joints of mechanical, electrical and liquid pipelines of the electrical chassis’ at the ‘marriage station’ (paragraph 53). Because of this, the Specification does not teach the ‘lower body frame, suspension system, steering system, braking system, chassis electronics control system, and energy storage system’ being assembled onto the ‘electrical chassis’ prior to the ‘electrical chassis’ being conveyed to the ‘marriage station.’
As explained above, the limitations ‘plurality of interior trim assembly stations,’ ‘plurality of exterior trim assembly stations,’ and ‘one or more assembly stations’ each invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the limitations to perform their claimed functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726