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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danielson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0104793).
Re claim 1, Danielson et al. discloses an electric vehicle comprising one or more electric motors (54), and a monocoque supporting the one or more electric motors, wherein the monocoque comprises a front cage (see the annotated figure below) defining an operator cabin and a rear floor located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction that at least partially defines a stowage compartment of the electric vehicle (the area above the rear floor), wherein the front cage includes an arcuate void extending at least partway therethrough (see the annotated figure below), and wherein the arcuate void extends through one exterior side of the front cage that is arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, the arcuate void is arranged adjacent a front end of the vehicle (see the annotated figure above).
Re claim 7, the monocoque further comprises an intermediate section disposed between the front cage and the rear floor in the longitudinal direction; and the intermediate section has a single fixed length (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
914
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, the intermediate section includes a plurality of sidewalls and a ceiling; and the plurality of sidewalls, the ceiling, and the rear floor at least partially cooperate to define an interior space of the stowage compartment that is closed off from one or more locations outside the vehicle. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, Danielson discloses an electric vehicle comprising one or more electric motors (54); and a monocoque supporting the one or more electric motors, wherein the monocoque comprises a front cage (see the annotated figure below) defining an operator cabin, a rear floor located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction that at least partially defines a stowage compartment of the electric vehicle, and an intermediate section disposed between the front cage and the rear floor in the longitudinal direction, wherein the front cage includes an arcuate void extending at least partway through a sidewall of the front cage therethrough, and wherein the intermediate section is devoid of cutouts, wherein the arcuate void extend through one exterior side of the front cage that is arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 20, Danielson discloses an electric vehicle comprising one or more electric motors, and a monocoque supporting the one or more electric motors, wherein the monocoque comprises a front cage defining an operator cabin, a rear floor located rearward of the front cage in a longitudinal direction that at least partially defines a stowage compartment of the electric vehicle, and an intermediate section disposed between the front cage and the rear floor in the longitudinal direction, wherein the front cage includes an arcuate void extending at least partway through a sidewall of the front cage therethrough, and wherein the intermediate section has a constant width over the longitudinal direction and wherein the arcuate void extends through one exterior side of the front cage that is arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-4 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0104793) in view of Misencik (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0101876).
Re claims 2 and 12, Danielson et al. discloses all of the limitation so of the claims, as applied above, except for the rear floor being formed to include a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the rear floor in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Misencik teaches a rear floor being formed to include a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the rear floor in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
569
691
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Danielson et al., to have the rear floor be formed to include a plurality of cutouts extending inwardly toward one another through the rear floor in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Misencik, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Re claims 3 and 13, Danielson et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the plurality of cutouts not extending in the longitudinal direction over an entire length of the rear floor.
Misencik teaches a plurality of cutouts not extending in the longitudinal direction over an entire length of the rear floor. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
569
691
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Danielson et al., to have a plurality of cutouts not extending in the longitudinal direction over an entire length of the rear floor, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Misencik, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Re claim 4, Danielson et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the rear floor extending in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end opposite the first end, and the plurality of cutouts being arranged midway between the first end and the second end in the longitudinal direction.
Misencik teaches a rear floor extending in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end opposite the first end, and the plurality of cutouts being arranged midway between the first and the second end in the longitudinal direction. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
571
691
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Misencik, to have the rear floor extending in the longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end opposite the first end, and the plurality of cutouts being arranged midway between the first end and the second end in the longitudinal direction, as taught by Misencik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Re claim 14, Danielson et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the rear floor having a reduced width between the plurality of cutouts. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
571
691
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Misencik teaches a rear floor having a reduced with between a plurality of cutouts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Danielson et al., to have a rear floor having a reduced width between a plurality of cutouts, as taught by Misencik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Re claim 15, Danielson et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the plurality of cutouts including two cutouts arranged opposite one another in the lateral direction. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image7.png
571
691
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Misencik teaches a plurality of cutouts including two cutouts arranged opposite one another in the lateral direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Danielson et al., to have a plurality of cutouts including two cutouts arranged opposite one another in the lateral direction, as taught by Misencik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Re claim 16, Danielson et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the rear floor having a first width along a first end thereof, the rear floor having a second width along a second end thereof arranged opposite the first end, the rear floor has a third width between the two cutouts; and each of the first width and the second width is greater than the third width.
Misencik teaches the rear floor having a first width along a first end thereof, the rear floor having a second width along a second end thereof arranged opposite the first end, the rear floor has a third width between the two cutouts, and each of the first width and the second width is greater than the third width. See the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image8.png
629
758
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an electric vehicle, such as that disclosed by Danielson et al., to have the rear floor have a first width along a first end thereof, the rear floor have a second width along a second end thereof arranged opposite the first end, the rear floor have a third width between the two cutouts, and each of the first width and the second width be greater than the third width, as taught by Misencik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate larger wheels and tires for the rear of the vehicle to increase its driving performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 17-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has changed the rejections above to accommodate the claim amendments made by applicant in the response of 3/32/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights