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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “upper module 23” (paragraph 0023), “diagonal beam 32” (paragraph 0039), “transverse beam 128” (paragraph 0039), “transverse beam 210” (paragraph 0039), and “beam 247” (paragraph 0040).
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. 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 Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, “the cockpit structure” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as
--the cockpit module--, as was previously recited by the applicant.
In claim 7, lines 1-2, recite “a plurality of the vertical, transverse, longitudinal, and vertically angular beams”. However, “the vertical beams”, “the longitudinal beams”, and “the vertically angular beams” do not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a plurality of vertical, longitudinal, and vertically angular beams with a plurality of the transverse beams--.
In claim 8, line 2, “the driver” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a driver--.
In claim 8, line 3, “the basis” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as
--a basis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. US 20200114995 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. disclose a spaceframe (Anderson et al. 80; Anderson et al. Fig. 3A) for a commercial vehicle (Anderson et al. 10; Anderson et al. paragraph 0003), comprising a body module (Anderson et al. 81; Anderson et al. Fig. 12; Anderson et al. paragraph 0095) and a cockpit module (Anderson et al. 100), the body module comprising a modular frame (Anderson et al. paragraph 0076) comprising a mid-module (Anderson et al. 32), a rear module (Anderson et al. 62), an upper module (Anderson et al. 70) and a wheel arch module (Anderson et al. 33) (Anderson et al. Fig. 3B; Anderson et al. paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of longitudinal beams forming upper and lower sections (Anderson et al. paragraphs 0090-0091) of a platform structure (Anderson et al. 30; Anderson et al. Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of longitudinal beams are connected by a plurality of transverse beams and vertical beams (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 4; Anderson et al. paragraphs 0090-0091).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 1, wherein the cockpit module comprises a pair of front lower side beams (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 12), a pair of front upper side beams and transverse beams (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 12), two pairs of upright beams forming an A-pillar (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 3A) configured to have a windscreen or other protective aerodynamic device affixed thereto (Anderson et al. paragraph 0078) via bonding adhesive or other fixing method (Anderson et al. paragraph 0100), and a B-pillar (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
406
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 3, further comprising a horizontal transverse beam (Anderson et al. 73; Anderson et al. Fig. 3B; Anderson et al. paragraph 0078) at the top of the A-pillar and B-pillar forming a forward portal structure (see annotated Anderson et al. Fig. 3A above).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson et al. discloses the spaceframe of claim 4, wherein above the forward portal structure, beams are installed longitudinally (Anderson et al. 72) and vertically at an angle (Anderson et al. 77; Anderson et al. paragraphs 0096-0099) such as to provide structure for a frontal aerodynamic structure to be fixed (Anderson et al. paragraph 0078), wherein a plurality of horizontal beams connect a rear portal (Anderson et al. 60) to a rear of the frontal aerodynamic structure (Anderson et al. Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 3, wherein [a plurality of vertical, longitudinal, and vertically angular beams with a plurality of the transverse beams] are rigidly interconnected with welding or by other appropriate means (Anderson et al. paragraph 0067) to form a cockpit floor structure (Anderson et al. 12) and driver (Anderson et al. 11) and co-driver seats mounting structure (Anderson et al. Fig. 2; Anderson et al. paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 1, wherein the cockpit module comprises an integral cockpit area for [a] driver (Anderson et al. 11) a relatively lower seating position (Anderson et al. paragraph 0074), a full-width windscreen (Anderson et al. paragraph 0078), and an integral payload compartment (Anderson et al. 14) with an upper platform of a lower spaceframe structure (Anderson et al. 31) forming [a] basis for a payload compartment floor (Anderson et al. paragraph 0083).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. US 20200114995 A1, in view of Beaudry et al. US 7097232 B2.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson et al. disclose the spaceframe of claim 5, wherein a bulkhead structure (Anderson et al. 74; Anderson et al. Fig. 3B) is formed behind the cockpit [module] and connected to the top of the aerodynamic structure (Anderson et al. paragraph 0078). Anderson et al. do not disclose wherein a bulkhead structure is formed from a plurality of upright beams, wherein a plurality of horizontal transverse beams and diagonal beams orthogonal to each other are attached within the bulkhead structure.
However, Beaudry et al. disclose wherein a bulkhead structure (see annotated Beaudry et al. Fig. 3) is formed from a plurality of upright beams (Beaudry et al. 72; Beaudry et al. Fig. 4), wherein a plurality of horizontal transverse beams and diagonal beams orthogonal to each other are attached within the bulkhead structure (see annotated Beaudry et al. Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the spaceframe of Anderson et al. with the bulkhead structure as taught by Beaudry et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing additional beams integrated into a bulkhead structure to prevent the possibility of further deformation of a vehicle in the instance of a collision, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image4.png
343
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
405
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farhadi et al. US 20170174269 A1 disclose a touring vehicle with a multi-beam frame structure.
Wang et al. CN 207523805 U disclose the internal structural framework of an electric bus.
Sha et al. CN 112389160 A disclose a vehicle body with a multi-beam frame structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights