DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the poor scan quality of Figure 3 makes the geometry difficult to see. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 3-6, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka teaches “A ramp module of a vehicle disposed on a vehicle body inside the vehicle, the ramp module comprising:
a center floor front member and a center floor rear member disposed at a center portion of a lower portion of the vehicle body in a transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a center floor side member disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connecting the center floor front member and the center floor rear member at one side of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1); and
a center in-floor ramp module covering the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member, the center in-floor ramp module being slidably movable in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
554
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 2, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 1, wherein a lower part of the center floor side member is connected to a side sill of the vehicle body with the vehicle body therebetween (see paragraph 44 and Matsuoka, Figure 1).”
PNG
media_image2.png
530
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 1, further comprising a rear floor front member disposed in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image3.png
540
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 3, wherein the center in-floor ramp module comprises:
a plurality of ramp module members fixed to the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1); and
a ramp configured to slidably move in the transverse direction of the vehicle body between the ramp module members (see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image4.png
516
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 5, wherein the ramp module members comprise:
a front ramp module member and a rear ramp module member disposed in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (outer plate and inner plate represent front and rear ramp module members respectively, see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 2); and
a center ramp module member disposed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connecting center parts of the front ramp module member and the rear ramp module member (middle plate, see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image5.png
474
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 13, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 5, further comprising a ramp reinforcement member disposed on an end of the ramp opposite the center floor side member, wherein the ramp reinforcement member is configured to withdraw the ramp to an outside of the center in-floor ramp module and support the ramp on a ground surface after withdrawing (inner plate makes contact with sidewalk, see paragraph 51 and Matsuoka, Figure 9).”
PNG
media_image6.png
430
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 9
Regarding claim 18, Matsuoka teaches “A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (see Matsuoka, Abstract);
a ramp module disposed on the vehicle body, the ramp module comprising:
a center floor front member and a center floor rear member disposed at a center portion of a lower portion of the vehicle body in a transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a center floor side member disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connecting the center floor front member and the center floor rear member at one side of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a center in-floor ramp module covering the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member, wherein the center in-floor ramp module is slidably movable in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1), and wherein the center in-floor ramp module comprises:
a plurality of ramp module members fixed to the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1), the ramp module members comprising a front ramp module member and a rear ramp module member disposed in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (outer plate and inner plate represent front and rear ramp module members respectively, see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 2) and a center ramp module member disposed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connecting center parts of the front ramp module member and the rear ramp module member (middle plate, see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 2); and
a ramp configured to slidably move in the transverse direction of the vehicle body between the ramp module members (see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1);
a rear floor front member disposed in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2);
a center flattening panel covering the ramp module member, the ramp, and the center floor side member;
a front flattening panel covering the center floor front member; and
a rear flattening panel covering the rear floor front member (floor surface extends over vehicle frame, see paragraph 44, Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 3).”
Regarding claim 19, Matsuoka teaches “The vehicle of claim 18, wherein the ramp module further comprises a ramp reinforcement member disposed on an end of the ramp opposite the center floor side member, wherein the ramp reinforcement member is configured to withdraw the ramp to an outside of the center in-floor ramp module and support the ramp on a ground surface after withdrawing (inner plate makes contact with sidewalk, see paragraph 51 and Matsuoka, Figure 9).”
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A), in view of Girardin, et al. (US 20220347025 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 3 above, except “wherein an anchor mounting member is disposed in the center floor front member and the rear floor front member, the anchor mounting member being configured to fix a ride inside the vehicle.”
However, Girardin teaches “wherein an anchor mounting member is disposed in the center floor front member and the rear floor front member, the anchor mounting member being configured to fix a ride inside the vehicle (see paragraph 0041 and Girardin, Figure 7) .”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the wheelchair anchoring points as taught by Girardin with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to safely secure a wheelchair or other mobility device so that it cannot roll around the vehicle during travel, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image7.png
882
587
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Girardin, Figure 7
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A), in view of Fontaine, et al. (US 20060245883 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuoka teaches “The ramp module of claim 6, wherein the front ramp module member and the rear ramp module member partially overlap on the center floor front member and the center floor rear member (front and rear floor members overlap with ramp module members at different points, Matsuoka, Figure 7, Annotation Set 1).”
Matsuoka does not teach “[coupling] by bolts.”
However, Fontaine teaches “[coupling] by bolts (removable fasteners such as screws or bolts are used to fasten components, see Fontaine, paragraph 1127).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of bolts as a fastening means as taught by Fontaine with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to ensure that the components of the vehicle stay firmly secured during use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka, in view of Fontaine, teaches “The ramp module of claim 7, wherein the ramp is disposed to be slidable between a floor part defined by a space between the front ramp module member and the rear ramp module member and a lower portion of the center ramp module member (see Matsuoka, Figure 7, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image8.png
643
832
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 7, Annotation Set 1
PNG
media_image9.png
643
832
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 7, Annotation Set 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of bolts as a fastening means as taught by Fontaine with the ramp and vehicle assembly including a space accommodating the slidable ramp taught by Matsuoka, to ensure that the components of the vehicle stay firmly secured during use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 5 above, except “a center flattening panel covering the ramp module members, the ramp, and the center floor side member;
a front flattening panel covering the center floor front member; and
a rear flattening panel covering the rear floor front member.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the single floor plate member as taught by Matsuoka (see Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2), for ease of replacement and maintenance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
PNG
media_image10.png
480
588
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 10, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 9 above, except “wherein the center flattening panel, the front flattening panel, and the rear flattening panel comprise aluminum plates.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the flattening panels from aluminum plating, to reduce weight, contributing to vehicle fuel efficiency, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A), in view of Kim (KR 19980023543 U).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 9 above, except “wherein the front flattening panel is fixed to a rear surface of a first row seat member of the vehicle body and to the center floor front member by a bolt.”
However, Kim teaches “wherein the front flattening panel is fixed to a rear surface of a first row seat member of the vehicle body and to the center floor front member by a bolt (see Kim, Figure 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of bolts to fasten the floor plate to the seat as taught by Kim with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to ensure that the seat of the vehicle stays firmly secured during use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image11.png
366
439
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kim, Figure 2
Regarding claim 12, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 9 above, except “wherein the rear flattening panel is fixed to a front surface and a wheel side of a third row seat member of the vehicle body and to the rear floor front member by bolts.”
However, Kim teaches “wherein the rear flattening panel is fixed to a front surface and a wheel side of a third row seat member of the vehicle body and to the rear floor front member by bolts (see Kim, Figure 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of bolts to fasten the floor plate to the front seat as taught by Kim with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to ensure that the seat of the vehicle stays firmly secured during use, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A), in view of Edwards et al. (US 7527467 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 13 above, except “further comprising a groove disposed in the ramp reinforcement member and extending in a longitudinal direction of the ramp reinforcement member.”
However, Edwards teaches “further comprising a groove disposed in the ramp reinforcement member and extending in a longitudinal direction of the ramp reinforcement member (see Edwards, Figure 1b).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a groove in the end of the ramp as taught by Edwards with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to provide a grip point by which the ramp can be positioned manually, if need be, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image12.png
553
662
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Edwards, Figure 1b
Regarding claim 20, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 19 above, except “further comprising a groove disposed in the ramp reinforcement member and extending in a longitudinal direction of the ramp reinforcement member.”
However, Edwards teaches “further comprising a groove disposed in the ramp reinforcement member and extending in a longitudinal direction of the ramp reinforcement member (see Edwards, Figure 1b).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a groove in the end of the ramp as taught by Edwards with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to provide a grip point by which the ramp can be positioned manually, if need be, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (CN 109955919 A), in view of Lewis et al. (US 6186733 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuoka teaches “A ramp module of a vehicle disposed on a vehicle body inside the vehicle, the ramp module comprising:
a center floor front member and a center floor rear member disposed at a center portion of a lower portion of the vehicle body in a transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a center floor side member disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connecting the center floor front member and the center floor rear member at one side of the vehicle body (see paragraph 37 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a center in-floor ramp module covering the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member, the center in-floor ramp module being slidably movable in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1), and the center in-floor ramp module comprising:
a plurality of ramp module members fixed to the center floor front member, the center floor rear member, and the center floor side member (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1); and
a ramp configured to slidably move in the transverse direction of the vehicle body between the ramp module members (see paragraph 47 and Matsuoka, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1);
a rear floor front member disposed in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see paragraph 46 and Matsuoka, Figure 3, Annotation Set 2).”
Matsuoka does not teach “a dummy reinforcement center floor side member disposed in a center part of the center floor side member and extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle body.”
However, Lewis teaches “a dummy reinforcement center floor side member disposed in a center part of the center floor side member and extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle body (see Lewis, Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a support member as taught by Lewis with the ramp and vehicle assembly taught by Matsuoka, to reinforce the floor panel covering the space that the ramp resides in, preventing deformation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image13.png
540
720
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Lewis, Figure 4
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 16-17 is the inclusion in the claim of limitations directed to “further comprising a ramp slit opening disposed in the ramp, wherein the dummy reinforcement center floor side member is inserted and mounted in the ramp slit opening.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Prior art fails to teach a dummy reinforcement member that slides into a slit disposed in the ramp, rendering claim 16 allowable if rewritten to be independent. Claim 17 would become allowable by virtue of dependence on claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose stowable vehicle ramps.
Ishikawa (US 20180256421 A1)
Ohtake et al. (CN 114162223 A)
Ikeda et al. (US 11548559 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights