DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodnar et al. (WO 2013093531 A1) in view of Peng et al. (US 8720617 B2) and Belik et al. (US 4469369 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bodnar discloses a plurality of low floor (Bodnar, page 14 line 22) road vehicles (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, two vehicles of different lengths), each said low floor road vehicle comprising: a front module (Bodnar, Fig. 1) having front and back sides (Bodnar, Fig. 1, opposing sides in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle), the front module defining a driver's section (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8 shows driver seat area for Fig. 1 embodiment of the front module) configured for providing seating to a driver of the vehicle; a rear module (Bodnar, Fig. 4a) having front and back sides (Bodnar, Fig. 4a, opposing sides in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle); and a central module (Bodnar, Fig. 2a-2b) including i) a flat floor (Bodnar, 6b in Fig. 2b) having a front (Bodnar, front of floor 6b in Fig. 2b), a back (Bodnar, back of floor 6b in Fig. 2b) and two lateral sides (Bodnar, Fig. 2a-2b, left and right sides), ii) first and second lateral walls (Bodnar, 9b in Fig. 2b), each one mounted to the flat floor so as to extend upwardly from a respective lateral sides (Bodnar, Fig. 2b) thereof, iii) a roof (Bodnar, 3b in Fig. 2b) mounted onto the first and second lateral walls therebetween, the flat floor being attached at its front side to the front module at the back side thereof (Bodnar, front module is attached forward of the central module floor so the front floor side is attach to the back side of the front module; Bodnar teaches one can also use Fig. 6 front module in page 11 lines 29-31) and at its back side to the rear module at the front thereof (Bodnar, rear module is attached rearward of the central module floor so the floor back side is attach to the front side of the rear module); wherein, for the plurality of low floor road vehicles, the front module of all said low floor road vehicles has a same configuration (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, all has same front module), wherein, for the plurality of low floor road vehicles, the rear module of all said low floor road vehicles has a same configuration (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, same).
Bodnar fails to disclose a front load-carrying axle near the front side thereof; a rear load-carrying axle; wherein the central module of at least one said low floor road vehicles has a length differing from a length of a central module of another one of said low floor road vehicles; and wherein the central modules are single modules.
Peng teaches a front load-carrying axle (Peng, 30 in Fig. 2) near the front side (front axle will be near the front side after combination) and a rear load-carrying axle (Peng, 29 in Fig. 2).
Peng is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with wheels as Bodnar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar to incorporate the teachings of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success and have front and rear axles for the wheels such that the front axle is near the front side of the front module. Doing so provides drive shafts to drive the wheels and support the vehicle, therefore allowing the vehicle to operate and support loads/passengers.
Belik teaches the central modules are single modules (Belik, Fig. 4, single central module 31 between front module 1 and rear module 1).
Belik is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of modular vehicle as Bodnar in view of Peng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng to incorporate the teachings of Belik with a reasonable expectation of success and choose to have a single module in between the front and rear modules. Doing so provides a smaller vehicle form factor such that there is no waste in a less demanding use case, allows the vehicle to be maneuvered in narrow or crowded spaces, and creates stronger vehicle structural integrity since less connection joints are present with less modules.
The combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the claimed invention except for the central module of at least one said low floor road vehicles has a length differing from a length of a central module of another one of said low floor road vehicles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have different lengths, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Doing so also provides flexibility for manufacturers and designers; and allows different vehicle lengths to be achieved when simply changing the number of modules fails to meet a length requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, wherein the front module has a nose section (Bodnar, see annotated Fig. 6; Bodnar teaches one can also use Fig. 6 front module in page 11 lines 29-31 and claim 1) that includes the front load-carrying axle (after combination with Peng) and the driver's section extending from the nose section to the back side of the front module (Bodnar, see annotated Fig. 6, nose section is in front of 27 where driver’s section is located).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 6 from Bodnar
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one of the front and rear modules includes a steering system (Bodnar, claim 1, front) coupled to a respective one of the front and rear load-carrying axles (Bodnar, at least coupled indirectly since the steering component at the front module and can steer the wheels).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, wherein the rear module includes a drive motor that is operatively coupled to the rear load-carrying axle (Peng, Col. 4 lines 60-62, drive motor drives the wheels through the axle).
Peng is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with wheels as Bodnar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar to incorporate the teachings of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success and have a motor to drive the axle. Doing so provides direct drive to the rear wheels to increase vehicle drivability and stability.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, wherein the flat floor has a multilayer structure (Bodnar, abstract, body, which includes the floor, is made from multiple layers and shells) including at least one of aluminum and foam (Bodnar, claim 2, foam) therein.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, wherein the roof has a multilayer structure (Bodnar, abstract, roof is part of the body, which is made of multi-layer structure) including at least one of aluminum and foam (Bodnar, claim 2, foam) therein.
Regarding claim 22, Bodnar discloses a plurality of low floor (Bodnar, page 14 line 22) road vehicles (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, two vehicles of different lengths), each said low floor road vehicle comprising: a front module (Bodnar, Fig. 1) having front and back sides (Bodnar, Fig. 1, opposing sides in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle), the front module defining a driver's section (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8 shows driver seat area for Fig. 1 embodiment of the front module) configured for providing seating to a driver of the vehicle; a rear module (Bodnar, Fig. 4a) having front and back sides (Bodnar, Fig. 4a, opposing sides in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle); and a central module (Bodnar, Fig. 2a-2b) including i) a flat floor (Bodnar, 6b in Fig. 2b) having a front (Bodnar, front of floor 6b in Fig. 2b), a back (Bodnar, back of floor 6b in Fig. 2b) and two lateral sides (Bodnar, Fig. 2a-2b, left and right sides), ii) first and second lateral walls (Bodnar, 9b in Fig. 2b), each one mounted to the flat floor so as to extend upwardly from a respective lateral sides (Bodnar, Fig. 2b) thereof, iii) a roof (Bodnar, 3b in Fig. 2b) mounted onto the first and second lateral walls therebetween, the flat floor being attached at its front side to the front module at the back side thereof (Bodnar, front module is attached forward of the central module floor so the front floor side is attach to the back side of the front module; Bodnar teaches one can also use Fig. 6 front module in page 11 lines 29-31) and at its back side to the rear module at the front thereof (Bodnar, rear module is attached rearward of the central module floor so the floor back side is attach to the front side of the rear module); wherein, for the plurality of low floor road vehicles, the front module of all said low floor road vehicles has a same configuration (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, all has same front module), wherein, for the plurality of low floor road vehicles, the rear module of all said low floor road vehicles has a same configuration (Bodnar, Fig. 7-8, same).
Bodnar fails to disclose a front load-carrying axle near the front side thereof; a rear load-carrying axle; wherein the central module of at least one said low floor road vehicles has a length differing from a length of a central module of another one of said low floor road vehicles; and wherein each of the low floor road vehicles has a total of three modules, the three modules being the front module, the rear module and the central module.
Peng teaches a front load-carrying axle (Peng, 30 in Fig. 2) near the front side (front axle will be near the front side after combination) and a rear load-carrying axle (Peng, 29 in Fig. 2).
Peng is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with wheels as Bodnar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar to incorporate the teachings of Peng with a reasonable expectation of success and have front and rear axles for the wheels such that the front axle is near the front side of the front module. Doing so provides drive shafts to drive the wheels and support the vehicle, therefore allowing the vehicle to operate and support loads/passengers.
Belik teaches each of the low floor road vehicles has a total of three modules, the three modules being the front module, the rear module and the central module (after combination, Belik Fig. 4 teaches single central module 31 between front module 1 and rear module 1; same can be done in Bodnar such that there is only one module between the front and rear modules such that the vehicles has a total of three modules).
Belik is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of modular vehicle as Bodnar in view of Peng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng to incorporate the teachings of Belik with a reasonable expectation of success and choose to have a single central module such that there are a total of three modules. Doing so provides a smaller vehicle form factor such that there is no waste in a less demanding use case, allows the vehicle to be maneuvered in narrow or crowded spaces, and creates stronger vehicle structural integrity since less connection joints are present with less modules.
The combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the claimed invention except for the central module of at least one said low floor road vehicles has a length differing from a length of a central module of another one of said low floor road vehicles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have different lengths, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Doing so also provides flexibility for manufacturers and designers; and allows different vehicle lengths to be achieved when simply changing the number of modules fails to meet a length requirement.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lusk et al. (US 7862101 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 2, wherein the driver's section includes an upper platform (Bodnar, 27 in Fig. 6) on a first lateral side (Bodnar, Fig. 6, left side) thereof and a lower platform (Bodnar, 6a in Fig. 6) longitudinally adjacent the upper platform on a second lateral side (Bodnar, Fig. 6, right side and adjacent 27 in rear direction and in the right direction) thereof.
The combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik fails to teach the lower platform being levelled with the flat floor.
Lusk teaches the lower platform being levelled with the flat floor (Lusk, Fig. 15, front floor lower platform 230 is level with flat floor 231 of the central module after they attach).
Lusk is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with modules as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Lusk with a reasonable expectation of success and have the lower platform levelled with the flat floor. Doing so avoids obstacles between the two floor sections to allow unobstructed movement within the vehicle for passengers and luggage.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birnschein et al. (US 20180345971 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach the front and rear module each includes an independent steering system.
Birnschein teaches the front and rear module each includes an independent steering system (Birnschein, Fig. 4 and paragraph 53 and 55, each module has a steering mechanism 438).
Birnschein is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with modules as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Birnschein with a reasonable expectation of success and have independent steering system in the front and rear modules. Doing so allows more control of the vehicle in terms of maneuverability.
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Begley et al. (GB 2547656 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 9, but fails to teach both aluminum and foam.
Begley teaches both aluminum (Begley, abstract, shell/skin can be aluminum or non-metallic) and foam (Bodnar already teaches foam in claim 2; additionally, so does Begley in abstract).
Begley is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus body structure made of shell/skin and foam as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Begley with a reasonable expectation of success and use aluminum as the shell material. Doing so allows the vehicle to be made with aluminum when other materials are not readily available while still provide the advantages of providing a lightweight, strong and dimensionally accurate structures (Begley, page 4 lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 11, but fails to teach both aluminum and foam.
Begley teaches both aluminum (Begley, abstract, shell/skin can be aluminum or non-metallic) and foam (Bodnar already teaches foam in claim 2; additionally, so does Begley in abstract).
Begley is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus body structure made of shell/skin and foam as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Begley with a reasonable expectation of success and use aluminum as the shell material. Doing so allows the vehicle to be made with aluminum when other materials are not readily available while still provide the advantages of providing a lightweight, strong and dimensionally accurate structures (Begley, page 4 lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach the lateral walls of the central module each includes an aluminum frame.
Begley teaches the lateral walls of the central module each includes an aluminum frame (Bodnar abstract teaches vehicle body made from a shell and core structure, where the body would include the walls of the central module; Begley abstract teaches shell/skin can be aluminum).
Begley is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus body structure made of shell/skin and foam as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Begley with a reasonable expectation of success and use aluminum as the shell material such that the lateral walls includes an aluminum frame. Doing so allows the vehicle to be made with aluminum when other materials are not readily available while still provide the advantages of providing a lightweight, strong and dimensionally accurate structures (Begley, page 4 lines 17-18).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ternent et al. (DE 102017200377 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach at least one of the front and rear modules includes a steel frame.
Ternent teaches at least one of the front and rear modules includes a steel frame (Bodnar discloses metal insert in page 8 line 6 for the modules’ shell plus core structure; and Ternent teaches metal insert can be steel in third paragraph on page 4 of machine translation).
Ternent is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus body structure with metal inserts as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Ternent with a reasonable expectation of success and use steel as the metal insert material such that the modules include a steel frame. Doing so provides additional strength to the vehicle structure when needed, and steel is a common material therefore would be easy to work with and purchase.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burke (US 20040012162 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach electrically powered; the vehicle further comprising a battery module.
Burke teaches electrically powered (Burke, abstract); the vehicle further comprising a battery module (Burke, abstract).
Burke is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with modules as Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng and Belik to incorporate the teachings of Burke with a reasonable expectation of success and have the vehicle powered by electricity and have batteries. Doing so provides cleaner and alternative energy source for the vehicle which also allows less emission and less noise.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 16, wherein the battery module is mounted onto the rear module (Burke, paragraph 149, battery situated over the axles, and rear module of Bodnar in view of Peng have rear axle).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bergstrom (US 20160207418 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke teaches the plurality of low floor road vehicles as recited in claim 16, wherein the battery module is mounted onto the rear module over the rear-load carrying axle (Burke, paragraph 149, situated over the axles).
The combination of Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke fails to teach the battery is removably mounted.
Bergstrom teaches the battery is removably mounted (Bergstrom, paragraph 117).
Bergstrom is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of bus with modules and battery as Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicles as taught by Bodnar in view of Peng, Belik, and Burke to incorporate the teachings of Bergstrom with a reasonable expectation of success and have battery removably mounted. Doing so allows battery replacement and maintenance when needed (Bergstrom, paragraph 117).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Applicant’s Reply, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Belik. Belik teaches using a single central module; see rejection above for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 13, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the first and second lateral walls extending a) longitudinally beyond the front side of the flat floor so as to define a front module attaching portion that connects to the front module, and b) longitudinally beyond the back side of the flat floor so as to define a rear module attaching portion that receives the rear module therebetween as claimed in claim 21 and the driver's section includes a driver's seat on the upper platform, adjacent to the first lateral wall as claimed in claim 4. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Bodnar teaches in a driver’s seat on the upper platform (Bodnar, page 11 lines 32-33 and Fig. 6) adjacent to a lateral wall of the front module. However, claim 4 requires adjacent to the first lateral wall, which is of the central module. Bodnar therefore fails to teach the adjacency of the first lateral wall to the driver’s seat on the upper platform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights