Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites “ configured for assembling said electric and/or hybrid vehicles in which no operation of transformation of steel is carried out, thereby eliminating most toxic emissions, the production of chemical or other waste, sound pollution, vibration, odors, dust and the consumption of water so that said plant can be located near and/or in residential zones”. This is interpreted as an intended use of the assembly building, there being no specific structures of the building recited in the product claim required to perform the claimed intended use.
Claim 16 recites “dedicated to the storage of and the fitting of propulsion batteries in said electric and/or hybrid vehicles”. This is interpreted as an intended use of the battery building, there being no specific structures of the building recited in the product claim required to perform the claimed intended use.
Claim 16 recites “so that said plant can be located near and/or in residential zones”. This limitation is interpreted as an alternative. The proximity required by the term “near” is not defined in the specification and will be interpreted based on what one of ordinary skill would understand when reading the application.
Claim 17 recites “ASS space intended for the repair of vehicles in circulation and for changing elements of said vehicles”. The limitation “ASS space” as used in the claims is interpreted as an “after sales service” space. The limitation “said vehicles” in this context is interpreted as referring to “vehicles in circulation” as recited previously.
Claim 24 recites “said battery building is a rudimentary building of small size, thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident.”. The terms of degree used in the claim (marked as bold and underline here) are not defined in the specification and thus do not convey specific requirements for the buildings in the prior art. The prior art buildings will be applied to the claim based on the BRI of the terms of degree used.
Claim 27 recites “said workshop building is a rudimentary building of small size, thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident.”. The terms of degree used in the claim (marked as bold and underline here) are not defined in the specification and thus do not convey specific requirements for the buildings in the prior art. The prior art buildings will be applied to the claim based on the BRI of the terms of degree used.
Claim 28 recites “one or more fire breaks”. This is interpreted a different set of “one or more fire breaks” than was recited in Claim 26.
Claim 30 recites “low pollution”. The term “low” is a term of degree that is not defined in the specification. As such, the limitation will be interpreted based on what one of ordinary skill would understand when reading the application.
Claim 30 recites “near customers”. The term “near” is a term of degree that is not defined in the specification. As such, the limitation will be interpreted based on what one of ordinary skill would understand when reading the application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 31 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is marked as “Currently amended” yet no amendments are indicated via underlining or strikethrough.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 32-33 are no longer 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant presents an amendment to Claim 16 in the filing dated 07/30/2026. This amendment narrows the claim and requires a new interpretation of the claim and its dependents.
Applicant presents amendments to Claims 32-33 in the filing dated 07/30/2026. The amendment changes the scope of the claim requiring a new interpretation of the claims.
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.
Claims 16-17, 19-29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Crozier (WO2017109726A1, with text citations from the machine translation) in view of Tomforde (US6070320A).
Claim 16
Crozier teaches a plant (¶0036 Line 292 “assembly center”) for manufacturing electric or hybrid vehicles (¶0036 Line 290 “battery”), said plant including on a site at least one assembly building (¶0036 Line 292 “assembly center”) for assembling said vehicles in which no operation of transformation of steel is carried out (¶0027 teaches the parts are made from polymer.), thereby eliminating most toxic emissions, the production of chemical or other waste, sound pollution, vibration, odors, dust and consumption of water (¶0027 teaches the parts are made from polymer. ¶0036 teaches the parts are separately manufactured and delivered to a central assembly center, which is interpreted as eliminating all of the transformation of steel as claimed, thus eliminating the claimed pollution at the assembly center.) so that said plant can be located near or in residential zones. (¶0036 teaches the centers are located near megacities.)
Crozier does not explicitly disclose a battery building on said site and dedicated to the storage of and the fitting of propulsion batteries in said electric and/or hybrid vehicles, said battery building being separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks. Crozier does teach that the vehicles use batteries (¶0024, ¶0036 and ¶0077 teach the vehicles use batteries.)
However, Tomforde teaches an assembly plant for a vehicle that includes buildings separated by one or more fire breaks. (Figures 1-3 teach various orientations of the automobile plant. Figure 1 shows that different shops (9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17) used in the plant. Some of these shops are separated from one another by an open space, which is a fire break.) The building(s) of Tomforde are capable/configured to perform the intended use limitation(s) of “on said site and dedicated to the storage of and the fitting of propulsion batteries in said electric and/or hybrid vehicles” as this limitation does not convey any structural requirements for the building other than the ability to store propulsion batteries.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known multiple building plant technique of Tomforde to the multiple operation assembly center of Crozier in order to provide a group of buildings to perform the various tasks that includes a main assembly line (See Tomforde Figure 1 Item 3); allows for expansion (See Tomforde Col. 2, Lines 35-37); and allows the separate buildings to be close to the assembly line and each other (See Tomforde Col. 2, Lines 45-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known multiple building plant technique of Tomforde to the multiple operation assembly center of Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the assembly center of Crozier will be in the form of a plant with a plurality of buildings, with some spaced from one another by open space creating a fire break.
Claim 17
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16, further including at least one of: a retrofit space intended for the renovation of ageing vehicles to give them a second life (Crozier ¶0040 teaches the chassis can be changed out for a newer one at the garage. The garage in this context is interpreted as the assembly center due to the fact that the document discusses the assembly of the parts of the chassis at the assembly center in ¶0036. ¶0036 also discloses the collection of end of life bodywork components.); an ASS space intended for the repair of vehicles in circulation and for changing elements of said vehicles (Crozier ¶0040 teaches the chassis can be changed out for a newer one at the garage. The garage in this context is interpreted as the assembly center due to the fact that the document discusses the assembly of the parts of the chassis at the assembly center in ¶0036. ¶0036 also discloses the collection of end of life bodywork components.); a recycling space configured for recycling components of vehicles at end of life (Crozier ¶0036 discloses the collection of end of life bodywork components.) or a showroom open to the public and intended for vehicle purchasing.
Claim 19
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 17 wherein the ASS space is configured for carrying out a change of body on a vehicle in circulation in its ASS space. (Crozier ¶0040 teaches the chassis can be changed out for a newer one at the garage. The garage in this context is interpreted as the assembly center due to the fact that the document discusses the assembly of the parts of the chassis at the assembly center in ¶0036. ¶0036 also discloses the collection of end of life bodywork components at the assembly center.)
Claim 20
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16 functioning in a semi knocked down (SKD) system in which subassemblies arrive in said plant pre-assembled and pre-inspected after which said subassemblies are assembled in the assembly space to produce the finished vehicle. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches that subcontracting suppliers manufacture four modules (subassemblies) and that those modules are sent to the assembly center (plant). ¶0077 teaches the modules are assembled and checked in the subcontracting factories.)
Claim 21
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16, wherein the plant is configured for the assembly of vehicles comprising four modules: a front subframe module, a rear subframe module, a central platform chassis module and a body module. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches the modules include front, rear, central, and body modules.)
Claim 22
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 21, in which the body module comprises polymer (Crozier, ¶0060 Line 472 teaches the body is made from polymer.) and the plant is configured so that the body module is produced on site in the assembly building. (Crozier teaches the shell/body can be changed out at the garage (¶0040) such that a new body module is “produced” (provided) on site in the building. Alternatively, the body module is a functional limitation from Claim 21 where the plant is configured to assembling vehicles consisting of the body module and therefore not positively recited in the claim(s). The plant of Crozier is capable of performing the claimed intended use of producing body modules because no specific structure for performing the intended use has been claimed yet.)
Claim 23
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 6 in which said chassis modules arrive already partially or completely assembled and are assembled together in the assembly building to form the chassis. (Crozier ¶0035-0036 teaches that the assembly centers manufacture the vehicle (chassis) on site from the modules (chassis modules) that are delivered from the subcontracting suppliers.)
Claim 24
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16, wherein said battery building is a rudimentary building of small size thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed and/or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident. (Tomforde teaches the structural requirements of the battery building (Figure 1 shows several building separated by open ground / fire breaks.) in claim 16. The claim does not define “rudimentary”, “small”, “low”, “lower” or another building that is being compared to arrive at the claimed relationship. Therefore, the buildings of Tomforde are more basic, smaller, and lower cost than other buildings as claimed.)
Claim 25
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16, further including at least one space dedicated to an erection of a battery tent separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks, said battery tent configured to carry out operations intended to be carried out in the battery building if said battery building is not functional. (The claim does not specify what qualifies a space as suitable for erection of a battery tent other than the requirement of it being separated by a fire break. Tomforde Figure 1 shows there are spaces around the buildings that are suitable for erecting a tent while still providing a gap between said tent and the buildings of the plant for a fire break. Tomforde Col. 2 Lines 35-37 teach that the plant can be expanded.)
Claim 26
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 16 including at least one workshop building separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks (Tomforde Figures 1-3 teach various orientations of the automobile plant. Figure 1 shows that different shops (9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17) used in the plant. Some of these shops are separated from one another by an open space, which is a fire break.) and configured for operations of adjustment, inspection, repair, ASS, retrofit, recycling and/or other operations on vehicles fitted with propulsion batteries. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches that the assembly center is used for assembly of vehicles and the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. ¶0040 teaches that the garage (interpreted as part of the assembly center) can be used for retrofit of existing vehicles.)
Claim 27
Crozier in view Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 26 in which said workshop building (Tomforde teaches a plurality of shops (9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17).) is a rudimentary building of small size, thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident. (Figure 1 of Tomforde shows some of the shops are smaller than others, meeting the “small size” limitation. Applicant does not define the requirements to meet the terms of degree used in the claim, so it is asserted that the small size of the building in Tomforde meets the limitations of “low cost” and “rapidly reconstructed” at “lower cost”.)
Claim 28
Crozier in view Tomforde teaches the plant as claimed in claim 26, including at least one space configured for an erection of a temporary shelter separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks, said shelter being configured to carry out operations to be carried out in the workshop building if said workshop building is not functional. (The claim does not specify what qualifies a space as suitable for erection of a temporary shelter other than the requirement of it being separated by a fire break. Tomforde Figure 1 shows there are spaces around the buildings that are suitable for erecting a shelter while still providing a gap between said tent and the buildings of the plant for a fire break. Tomforde Col. 2 Lines 35-37 teach that the plant can be expanded.)
Claim 29
Crozier in view of Tomforde teaches a method of manufacturing vehicles (Crozier ¶0024, ¶0036 and ¶0077 teach the vehicles use batteries.) executed by a plant as claimed in claim 16. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches the assembly of vehicles using an assembly center (plant) as claimed in Claim 16 in that they are made from polymer (¶0035), and are assembled from pre-made subassemblies such that no steel transformation is occurring at the assembly center (plant). Tomforde teaches buildings separated by fire break.)
Claim 33
Crozier in view Tomforde teaches the plant of claim 16, wherein said at least one assembly building at the site is configured for assembling numerous chassis modules manufactured elsewhere (Crozier ¶0024) with polymer body parts molded and formed (Crozier ¶0023 teaches the body parts are molded.) in the plant at the site. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches the chassis modules and body module are assembled in the plant at the site.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozier (WO2017109726A1) in view of Tomforde (US6070320A), as applied in Claim 16, in view of Viot (US20150353703A1).
Claim 18
Crozier teaches the plant as claimed in claim 17 in which polymer bodies are recycled in a space. (¶0036 teaches the collection of end-of-life vehicles to create a recycling loop. This occurs in a space.)
Crozier does not explicitly disclose that the polymer bodies are ground up.
However, Viot teaches a method where polymer bodies are ground up. (Viot teaches a recycling method where vehicle parts (¶0090) are collected as post-consumer materials and ground (¶0096) to create ground materials (28) that are polymers. The product made using this ground material is a bodywork part for a vehicle (See Figure 5).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known post-consumer grinding recycling station of Viot with the recycling of automobile bodies method of Crozier in order to provide a system capable of removing contaminants in the recycled material (See Viot ¶0005) and reduce the use of natural resources and amount of plastic waste (See Viot ¶0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known post-consumer grinding recycling station of Viot with the recycling of automobile bodies method of Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozier (WO2017109726A1), as applied in Claim 29, further in view of Meyer (US8844109B2), Tomforde (US6070320A), Miller (US20080202048A1) and Bowaianbaru (JPH02179571A).
Claim 30
Crozier teaches a method of manufacturing vehicles as claimed in claim 29 (¶0036 teaches an assembly center for assembling modules into vehicles.) the method comprising: modules or module parts intended to form a vehicle are manufactured in a dedicated and decentralized plant (¶0036 teaches subcontracting suppliers manufacture subassemblies and send them to the centralized assembly center.); the modules are transported to a centralized assembly plant near customers (¶0036 teaches the centers are located near megacities.); elements of the vehicle are produced in the assembly plant (¶0036 teaches the assembly center manufactures the vehicle from four modules.); modules, in the same assembly plant (assembly center) there are provided services of repairs, replacement, maintenance, retrofitting, dismantling (¶0040 teaches there is a garage to change out a part with another. This covers the claimed repairs, replacement, maintenance, retrofitting, and dismantling.), recycling and recovery of modules or parts of modules of existing vehicles or complete vehicles (¶0036 teaches the assembly center has an area to collect end of life vehicles or components for recycling. This covers recycling and recovery of modules as claimed.)
Crozier does not explicitly disclose the modules or parts thereof are taken by non-polluting or low pollution transport. Crozier does disclose that the parts have a low gray transport energy (See ¶0036).
However, Meyer teaches modules or parts thereof are taken by non-polluting or low pollution transport means (Meyer Figure 1 teaches the transportation of modules (Ma Mb) from separate production facilities (Pa Pb) to a central location (S). Col. 1 Lines 55-56 teach the transportation of the modules by rail.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the known rail transportation technique of Meyer with the unknown transportation method in Crozier in order to move a large amount of modules (due to use of the rail wagon in Meyer) at once. (General knowledge in transportation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known rail transportation technique of Meyer with the unknown transportation method in Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Crozier does not explicitly disclose parts of modules and elements of the vehicle are assembled in dedicated parts of the assembly plant, and there are parts of the assembly plant dedicated to various operations. The parts in this context are interpreted as sections/buildings of the plant. Crozier does disclose that the assembly center performs various actions (See ¶0036 and 0040)
However, Tomforde teaches parts of modules and elements of the vehicle are assembled in dedicated parts of the assembly plant, and there are parts of the assembly plant dedicated to various operations (Tomforde teaches a plurality of shops (9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17) that perform various assembly operations at a plant for automotive assembly.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known multiple building plant technique of Tomforde to the multiple operation assembly center of Crozier in order to provide a group of buildings to perform the various tasks that includes a main assembly line (See Tomforde Figure 1 Item 3); allows for expansion (See Tomforde Col. 2, Lines 35-37); and allows the separate buildings to be close to the assembly line and each other (See Tomforde Col. 2, Lines 45-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known multiple building plant technique of Tomforde to the multiple operation assembly center of Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Crozier in view of Meyer and Tomforde does not disclose some dedicated parts of the plant being intended to be sacrificed in the event of problems and replaced by equivalent and temporary or non-temporary parts in order to prevent halting or reducing production.
However, Miller teaches some dedicated parts of a system being intended to be sacrificed in the event of problems and replaced by equivalent and temporary or non-temporary parts in order to prevent halting or reducing production (Miller teaches that in the event that a building is destroyed in an unforeseen disaster or weather event, to provide a temporary building that meets all the same requirements and performs the same function. See ¶0006. The function of providing a temporary building is to prevent a stoppage.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known temporary building plan technique of Miller to the multiple building assembly center of Crozier in view of Meyer and Tomforde in order to provide a temporary space in the event of a disaster that causes the original space to be unusable/destroyed, where the temporary space meets all the specific requirements. (See Miller ¶0006)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known temporary building plan technique of Miller to the multiple building assembly center of Crozier in view of Meyer and Tomforde because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Crozier does not explicitly disclose in the plant there are provided parts dedicated to sales. Crozier does disclose that the vehicle is manufactured close to the customer and there is no transportation of the vehicle after manufacturing (¶0036)
However, Bowaianbaru teaches that in the same assembly plant there are provided parts dedicated to sales and other automotive work. (Bowaianbaru teaches a plant for automotive work (See Lines 12-14) that has multiple portions (See Figures 1-3), including an area for sales (See Line 191 and 196).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known sales area of the plant in Bowaianbaru to the assembly center of Crozier in order to provide a location for purchasing, sales, management operations on site and at the front of the center. (See Bowaianbaru Lines 195-196)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known sales area of the plant in Bowaianbaru to the assembly center of Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the assembly center of Crozier will have an area for sales.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozier (WO2017109726A1) in view of Belaud (FR2721559A1).
Claim 31
Crozier teaches a plant (¶0036 Line 292 “assembly center”) for manufacturing electric or hybrid vehicles (¶0036 Line 290 “battery”), said plant including on a site at least one assembly building (¶0036 Line 292 “assembly center”) for assembling said vehicles in which no operation of transformation of steel is carried out (¶0027 teaches the parts are made from polymer.), thereby eliminating most toxic emissions, the production of chemical or other waste, sound pollution, vibration, odors, dust and consumption of water (¶0027 teaches the parts are made from polymer. ¶0036 teaches the parts are separately manufactured and delivered to a central assembly center, which is interpreted as eliminating all of the transformation of steel as claimed, thus eliminating the claimed pollution at the assembly center.) so that said plant can be located near or in residential zones.
Crozier does not disclose as part of the plant, a battery building dedicated to the storage of and the fitting of propulsion batteries in said vehicles, said battery building being separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks, wherein said battery building is a rudimentary building of small size thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed and/or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident. Crozier does disclose a service garage as part of the plant (¶0040 teaches the chassis can be changed out for a newer one at the garage. The garage in this context is interpreted as at the assembly center due to the fact that the document discusses the assembly of the parts of the chassis at the assembly center in ¶0036. ¶0036 also discloses the collection of end of life bodywork components.) and that the plant assembles battery powered vehicles. (¶0036 Line 290 “battery”)
However, Belaud teaches a battery building dedicated to the storage of and the fitting of propulsion batteries in said vehicles (Belaud teaches a battery building (Figure 8) for storage of battery modules (4) that is separate from the area around it.), said battery building being separated from the rest of said plant by one or more fire breaks (Figure 8 shows open area around the building.), wherein said battery building is a rudimentary building of small size thus having a low cost of construction and adapted to be rapidly reconstructed and/or renovated at lower cost in the event of an incident. (Belaud’s building is a small building that consists of a back wall and overhang structure. This structure is interpreted as “low” cost and configured to be “rapidly” reconstructed at “lower” cost due to its simple nature.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known external battery building of Belaud with the assembly/service center of Crozier in order to allow for users to swap out batteries when they run out of charge. (See Belaud ¶0005)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known known external battery building of Belaud with the assembly/service center of Crozier because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 32
Crozier in view of Belaud teaches the plant of claim 31, wherein said at least one assembly building at the site is configured for assembling numerous chassis modules manufactured elsewhere (Crozier ¶0024) with polymer body parts molded and formed (Crozier ¶0023 teaches the body parts are molded.) in the plant at the site. (Crozier ¶0036 teaches the chassis modules and body module are assembled in the plant at the site.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 16 using Czinger have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) using Czinger have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 with respect to the combination of Crozier and Belaud have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 10, Applicant argues against the combination of Belaud and Crozier by stating that: (a) Belaud is not a vehicle manufacturing plant (Page 11 of the remarks); (b) Crozier gives no motivation to create a separate battery building (Page 11 of the remarks); (c) Belaud is not in the same technical context as Crozier (Page 11 of the remarks); (d) the combination does not arrive at the limitations of Claim 31, specifically “a battery building dedicated to storage and fitting of propulsion batteries in vehicles being manufactured, separated from the rest of the plant by firebreaks, and designed as a small rudimentary low-cost reconstructable building” (Page 12 of the remarks); (e) Belaud teaches complex infrastructure, not a rudimentary low-cost battery building (Page 12 of the remarks); (f) the combination does not teach a fire break (Page 12 of the remarks).
Belaud is not relied upon for teaching a vehicle manufacturing plant. Crozier is relied upon for teaching the assembly plant, while also having a garage (for vehicle maintenance/part swapping, see ¶0040) on site. Therefore, the combination of references arrives at the claim as currently presented.
No motivation sourced from Crozier was/is used in the combination of references presented in the rejections. The motivation is sourced from Belaud, ¶0008 to allow the users to swap out their batteries. Crozier teaches a garage for maintenance and swap out of other parts (body modules), therefore Crozier not only does not disparage the addition of a battery swap out station, it actively teaches that the assembly plant includes an area where users can swap out parts of their vehicle.
Belaud, Crozier, and the claimed invention are all in the context of electric, battery powered vehicles and parts/components of said vehicles. Additionally, as discussed above in response to point (b), both Belaud and Crozier pertain to swapping out parts of vehicles.
Crozier pertains to an assembly building where vehicles are manufactured that also includes a maintenance garage where vehicle parts are swapped out (¶0040). Belaud, Figure 8 shows a building is dedicated to the storage and swapping out of batteries into a vehicle that is separated from its surroundings by open ground, which is a fire break. The building is smaller and lower cost than another building (the claim does not specify the terms of degree used) Therefore, the combination of references arrives at the argued limitations in Claim 31.
It is respectfully asserted that the terms of degree (small, low cost, rudimentary, etc) used in the claims are not defined in such a way that one of ordinary skill would understand Belaud’s building(s) to not meet the claimed building. There is no building provided to compare with to arrive at the “low” or “small” terms of degree, and the buildings shown in Belaud are clearly lower in cost and smaller than other buildings present in an urban environment.
Belaud, Figure 8 shows the battery building is located on its own and not directly connected to another building. Therefore, the open ground is a fire break as claimed and the combination of references teaches the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form. See the following table for a description of the relevant subject matter found in the prior art:
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
WO2023051781A1
2021-09-30
Figure 1 teaches a small building made from low cost materials that is used for batteries.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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 W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights