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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee (US Pat. No. 11,505,265).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses A joint structure of a vehicle body, the joint structure comprising: a driving module detachably mountable on a front part of an underbody of a vehicle; and a space module detachably mountable on the underbody, wherein the space module is selected from a plurality of differently shaped space modules, is joinable to the underbody, is capable of being moved independently, is joinable to the driving module to be movable in a group with the driving module, and is interchangable with other space modules of the plurality of differently shaped space modules selectable based on a shape and a purpose of the space module (see at least Abst, annotated figs below). Please note that the prior art is capable of performing the functions and intended use as claimed. Limitations of “movable,” “selectable,” “mountable,” “joinable,” “interchangeable,” etc. only requires that the device is capable of performing these functions. It is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
602
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses further comprising a detachable battery mounted on the underbody, the detachable battery being configured to store energy consumable by the space module (see 204, fig 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergstrom (US Pub. No. 2016/0207418).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee does not specifically disclose further comprising a detachable controller mounted on the space module, the detachable controller being configured to control a device installed at the underbody, the driving module, or the space module and to perform a calculation for the device [claim 3] or further comprising a detachable integrated thermal management device disposed outside the space module, the detachable integrated thermal management device being configured to perform cooling, heating, and air-conditioning in the space module or to perform cooling of a device in the space module [claim 4].
However, at least Bergstrom discloses a modular vehicle comprising a controller (at least para 158) and thermal management systems (at least para 170).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the controller and thermal management features of Bergstrom with the arrangement of Lee to provide further comprising a detachable controller mounted on the space module, the detachable controller being configured to control a device installed at the underbody, the driving module, or the space module and to perform a calculation for the device or further comprising a detachable integrated thermal management device disposed outside the space module, the detachable integrated thermal management device being configured to perform cooling, heating, and air-conditioning in the space module or to perform cooling of a device in the space module, since these systems are well-known in electric vehicles and incorporating them as discussed would provide a vehicle with a controller for managing the various systems and a thermal management system to provide necessary heating or cooling to occupants or payload. The inclusion of these features is no more than the application of known techniques into prior art yielding predictable results of necessary vehicle control and temperature control and, therefore, are considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 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.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time The joint structure of claim 1, further comprising: a camera mounted on the space module, the space module being configured to function as a closed-circuit television (CCTV) and an autonomous traveling device; a space lighting device configured to function as an external light and a flashing light; and a solar roof configured to function to convert light energy to electrical energy [claim 5]; The joint structure of claim 1, wherein the driving module comprises a driving autonomous traveling device and a driving lighting device configured to enable autonomous traveling and driving of the driving module [claim 6]; The joint structure of claim 1, further comprising an external airbag disposed on the space module, the external airbag being configured to absorb an impact in a case in which the driving module and the space module collide with each other [claim 7]; The joint structure of claim 1, further comprising an additional space module connected to a side part of the space module by a lateral connection structure [claim 8]; The joint structure of claim 1, further comprising: a driving module sensor disposed at a rear part of the driving module; and a space module sensor disposed at a front part of the space module [claim 9]; or A joint structure of a vehicle body, the joint structure comprising: a driving module detachably mountable on a front part of an underbody of a vehicle; a space module detachably mountable on the underbody, wherein the space module is selected from a plurality of differently shaped space modules, is joinable to the underbody, is capable of being moved independently, is joinable to the driving module to be movable in a group with the driving module, and is interchangable with other space modules of the plurality of differently shaped space modules selectable based on a shape and a purpose of the space module; and a detachable dolly integration module disposed at the front part of the underbody and configured to be driven by an in-wheel motor to move the space module in a state in which the space module is mounted on the underbody [claim 12].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights