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 under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Figs. 1-16 appear to be multi-generation copies of computer generated picture. The lines and leader lines are not all solid. Further, many of the elements are not clear due to the darkness of the elements.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 80U.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 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuoka et al. (US 20190193620).
Regarding claim 1: Matsuoka discloses a ramp module 80, 87 of a vehicle 100 (Fig. 3; [0026], [0027], [0036]). Matsuoka discloses the ramp module comprising a lower radial vehicle body member 80 comprising a plurality of center portion members arranged in a center portion of a lower portion of a vehicle body of the vehicle in transverse and longitudinal directions of the vehicle body (Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka discloses a plurality of rear portion members arranged in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body (Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka discloses a center portion ramp module mounting member connecting the center portion members arranged in the transverse direction (Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka discloses a rear portion ramp module mounting member connecting the rear portion members and a bottom surface of the vehicle body (Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka discloses a center in-floor ramp module covering the center portion member and configured to slide along the center portion members arranged in the transverse direction (Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka discloses a flattening rear member covering the rear portion members (Figs. 3, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 8: Matsuoka discloses that the flattening rear member is disposed in the transverse direction of the vehicle body and has a shape of a hollow bar 71 (Fig. 8).
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 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 of this title, 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 2-3, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 20190193620) in view of Ohtake et al. (US 20220073150).
Matsuoka discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2: Matsuoka does not discuss welds and thus does not explicitly disclose that the center portion ramp module mounting member is connected to a side surface of the center portion members by welds. Ohtake discloses the use of welds in connecting ramp portions ([0078]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Matsuoka to utilize welds for connections, as taught by Ohtake, so that the center portion ramp module mounting member is connected to a side surface of the center portion members by welds. As both Matsuoka and Ohtake are directed to a vehicle ramps, as welds are a well-known way to connect structures, as Matsuoka is silent regarding welds and thus does not preclude their use, and as Ohtake explicitly teaches the use of welds, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired connection means a finite selection of connections suitable for a vehicle ramps (i.e. welded, bolted, or integrally formed). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3: Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses that the rear portion ramp module mounting member is connected to a side surface of the rear portion members by welds (Matsuoka – discloses the recited structures; Ohtake teaches the use of welds).
Regarding claim 15: Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a vehicle body comprising a first-row seat member and a third-row seat member (Matsuoka - Figs. 1-3 – discloses a passenger vehicle [0026] that appears to have multiple seating rows; Ohtake – Figs. 1-3; [0029] – discloses a mini-bus size vehicle which would have at least a third row seat member). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a lower radial vehicle body member 80 comprising a plurality of center portion members disposed in a center portion of a lower portion of a vehicle body of the vehicle in transverse and longitudinal directions of the vehicle body (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a plurality of rear portion members disposed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a center portion ramp module mounting member connecting the center portion members disposed in the transverse direction (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 5, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a rear portion ramp module mounting member connecting the rear portion members and a bottom surface of the vehicle body (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a center in-floor ramp module covering the center portion member and configured to slide along the center portion members disposed in the transverse direction (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation). Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses a flattening rear member covering the rear portion members (Matsuoka - Figs. 3, 8, 9 – Matsuoka discloses various structure (not all individually numbered) that can be interpreted as the broadly recited limitation).
Regarding claim 16: Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses that the center portion ramp module mounting member is connected to a side surface of the center portion members by first welds and the rear portion ramp module mounting member is connected to a side surface of the rear portion members by second welds (Matsuoka – discloses the recited structures; Ohtake teaches the use of welds).
Regarding claim 19: Matsuoka, as modified by Ohtake, discloses that the flattening rear member is disposed in the transverse direction of the vehicle body and has a shape of a hollow bar 71 (Matsuoka - Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 4-7, 9-10, 17-18, and 20 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.
Vehicles having ramps are very well known in the art. Further, the design of vehicular ramps including their structures are also very well known. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Matsuoka et al. (US 20190193620), Ohtake et al. (US 20220073150), Collett (US 10821038), Nunn et al. (US 10568786), Kiser et al. (US 20170216113), Kim et al. (US 20250196750), Stevens et al. (US 20180105091), Pocobello et al. (US 20070116534), and Buffaloc (US 5769593). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle body comprising a first-row seat member and a third-row seat member, a ramp module of a vehicle, a lower radial vehicle body member, a plurality of center portion members arranged in a center portion of a lower portion of a vehicle body of the vehicle in transverse and longitudinal directions of the vehicle body, a plurality of rear portion members arranged in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body in a rear portion of the lower portion of the vehicle body, a center portion ramp module mounting member connecting the center portion members arranged in the transverse direction, a rear portion ramp module mounting member connecting the rear portion members and a bottom surface of the vehicle body, a center in-floor ramp module covering the center portion member and configured to slide along the center portion members arranged in the transverse direction, and a flattening rear member covering the rear portion members. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited structural details and positional relationships. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed structural, positional and attachment relationships of the various ramp structures/modules and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights