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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”) and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Hirai teaches an electric vehicle comprising: a frame structure; at least one electric motor supported by the frame structure to generate rotational power to drive movement of the electric vehicle; and a body supported by the frame structure that includes a first sidewall arranged on one side of the vehicle and a second sidewall arranged on another side of the vehicle opposite the first sidewall [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Abstract: “An electric vehicle includes: a body that includes a body frame; a driving module that includes a sub-frame detachable from the body frame, driving wheels, a driving device provided with a motor mounted on the sub-frame and applying driving force to the driving wheels to start or accelerate the electric vehicle”], wherein: the first sidewall includes a first door to access an operator cabin of the vehicle from the one side of the vehicle and an opera window located rearward of the first door in a longitudinal direction, the second sidewall includes a second door to access the operator cabin from the other side of the vehicle that is aligned with the first door in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Paragraph 12: “The electric vehicle 11 includes a body 13 provided with a body frame 12 that forms the contour of the vehicle. The body 13 is mounted on the body frame 12 and includes a left-right pair of front doors 14a and a left-right pair of rear doors 14b.”], but does not teach a side door that is movable in the longitudinal direction.
Klaameyer teaches a side door located rearward of the second door that is movable in the longitudinal direction to access a rear compartment of the vehicle spaced from the operator cabin [Klaameyer Figs. 30 and 31, Reference Characters 800 and 1000; Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “The driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 are slidably coupled to body 100 and each independently movable along parallel guide rails having tracks that extend both above and below the right cab opening 204 and the side cargo opening 404.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side door in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing door interference for vehicle users, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “By sliding rather than rotating about hinges, the driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 provide significantly less interference for a person or object moving into or out of the delivery vehicle 10.”].
Hirai further teaches that the first sidewall is devoid of a door arranged rearward of the opera window in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1, Reference Character 15b (opera window)], but does not teach the second sidewall being devoid of a window rearward of the second door.
Goldberg teaches the second sidewall is devoid of a window arranged rearward of the second door in the longitudinal direction [Goldberg Figs. 3 (first sidewall, having a window but being devoid of a door arranged rearward) and 4a (second sidewall, having a second door {hidden} but devoid of a window arranged rearward)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second wall devoid of a window rearward of the second door in view of Goldberg. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Goldberg because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a greater number of cooking and preparation components to be secured to the side wall, as recognized by Goldberg [Goldberg Paragraph 0019: “the cargo area to include a number of cooking and preparation components secured to the side walls”].
Regarding Claim 2, Hirai teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first sidewall is devoid of a window arranged rearward of the opera window in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1, Reference Character 15b (opera window)].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a second sidewall but does not teach the second sidewall being devoid of an opera window. Goldberg teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second sidewall is devoid of an opera window [Goldberg Figs. 3 (first sidewall) and 4a (second sidewall)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second wall devoid of an opera window in view of Goldberg. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a greater number of cooking and preparation components to be secured to the side wall, as recognized by Goldberg [Goldberg Paragraph 0019: “the cargo area to include a number of cooking and preparation components secured to the side walls”].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hirai and Goldberg teaches an electric vehicle comprising a frame but does not teach a cap roof. Klaameyer teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a cap roof supported by the frame structure and the body that includes a unitary structure which covers the operator cabin and the rear compartment [Klaameyer Fig. 47, Reference Character 118]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Goldberg to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cap roof in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Goldberg, and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a seal that could restrict the travel of liquids or contaminants between the driver compartment and cargo compartment, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Fig. 35; Klaameyer Paragraph 29: “FIG. 35 is a top perspective view of the delivery vehicle of FIG. 8 with a roof of the delivery vehicle removed, detailing a sealing arrangement between the front door and the rear door of the side door assembly of FIG. 31, according to an exemplary embodiment.” and Klaameyer Paragraph 136: “The guide rail covers 810 can help provide additional sealing and further restrict the travel of unwanted liquids or contaminants into the cargo compartment 402 or the driver compartment 202. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 are curved or flat panels that are bolted or otherwise secured to one or more of the A-pillar 112, B-pillar 114, or C-pillar 116. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 can extend to and be coupled with a roof 118 of the body 100.”].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”), further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”), and further in view of Bishop (US 2132228 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg teaches a vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach a canopy. Bishop teaches the electric vehicle of claim 4, further comprising a canopy at least partially movable relative to the cap roof along a pair of roof rails coupled to the cap roof [Bishop Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 3; Bishop Paragraph 5: “the sliding panel for an opening in the front part of a vehicle roof is adapted to slide rearwardly under a canopy or cover for the rear part of the roof flush with the upper surface of the roof”; Bishop Paragraph 19: “the front half of the opening is closed by a longitudinally slidable panel 2 while the rear half is closed by a sheet metal or other cover or canopy 3 under which the panel 2 is adapted to slide.”; Bishop Paragraph 21: “The cover 3 may be slidably mounted in guides 5 at the sides of the roof opening as shown in Figure 5 so that it can be slid forwardly over the panel 2”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle comprising a cap roof, of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a canopy in view of Bishop. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, and Bishop because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing headroom and enabling the implementation of an opening through which passengers can exit the vehicle in the event of an accident, as recognized by Bishop [Bishop Paragraph 3: “the available head room in the rear part of the body D is substantially increased, which is a great advantage with the modern body in which the overall height is kept low.”; Bishop Paragraph 4: “to permit an opening to be uncovered in the rear part of the roof if desired or a partial opening to be provided at both the front and rear; to facilitate the exit of passengers from the vehicle in the event of the vehicle overturning or being involved in an accident”].
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”), further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”), and further in view of JP055 (JP S6111055 Y2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach a gutter. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 4, wherein the cap roof includes one gutter that extends in the longitudinal direction above the second door to define an overhang above the second door [JP055 Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, Reference Characters 11 (roof) and 9 (gutter); JP055 Column 3, Lines 34-36: “The drip guide 16 extends further from the upper edge of the rear side weatherstrip 15, which is adjacent to the sliding door, and connects to the gutter-shaped drip guide on the side 9a of the drip channel 9”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a gutter in view of JP055. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, and JP055 because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing water from flowing in the interior of the vehicle, as recognized by JP055 [JP055 Column 4, Lines 31-44: “Water can be certainly prevented from pouring into the vehicle interior of a room from the body opening upper part at the time of door opening, and moreover, at the time of door closed, since the Then can control that water enters into the seal portion by the door weather strip of a door rear side part”].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hirai, Goldberg, and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising teaches a cap roof but does not teach gutters. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 6, wherein the electric vehicle is devoid of another gutter arranged on the one side of the electric vehicle [JP055 Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, Reference Characters 11 (roof) and 9 (gutter); JP055 Claim 1: “A vehicle (a body where a J-rail side sliding door is attached) forms a door-receiving recess at the part facing the body opening, while the upper part of the sliding door forms a roof side part that matches the curved shape of the recess 6a when the door is closed. When the door is closed, this roof side part 5 is housed within the recess 8, making it continuous with the general roof side part 6a. In this way, the upper edge of the sliding door forms the J-rail side part, which connects with the general J-rail side part.”]. It should be noted that while JP055 does not explicitly teach the vehicle being devoid of another gutter, JP055’s reference to “a door receiving recess”, “the sliding door”, “the door”, and “the upper edge of the sliding door” suggests the presence of a single door and thus a single gutter. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side devoid of a gutter in view of JP055; as the stated reason for having a gutter is to prevent water from entering the interior of the body [JP055 Column 4, Lines 31-44: “Water can be certainly prevented from pouring into the vehicle interior of a room from the body opening upper part at the time of door opening], the absence of a door suggests the absence of a gutter. Accordingly, a side devoid of a gutter would reduce costs and reduce manufacturing workload, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, G.).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg teaches an electric vehicle comprising teaches a cap roof but does not teach a unitary cap roof-gutter structure. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 6, wherein the cap roof has a single-piece construction such that the unitary structure and the one gutter are formed as a single piece [JP055 Fig. 3, Reference Characters 11 and 9]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, single-piece construction in view of JP055. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, and JP055 because this would have achieved the desirable result of enhancing preferred routing of water, as recognized by JP0655 [JP055 Column 2, Lines 12-16: “in the door female housing 8, rain water, car-washing water, etc. which flowed down to drip channel 9 will flow and fall from body roof 11 from between door 1 and body opening edges 7a from the back terminal of the drip channel 9 in the backside upper part of body opening edge 7a.” ].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”), further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”), further in view of JP055 (JP S6111055 Y2), and further in view of Batist et al. (GB 2473189 A) (hereinafter “Batist”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, and JP055 teaches an electric vehicle comprising a gutter but does not teach a gutter light. Batist teaches the electric vehicle of claim 6, further comprising a gutter light arranged in close proximity to the one gutter to illuminate an area located outside of the electric vehicle adjacent the second door in use of the electric vehicle [Batist Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 12 and 24; Batist Abstract: “A gutter 12 includes a light 24 that shines over the door 10 of a caravan, camper van, motor home or recreational vehicle.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle, comprising a gutter, of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, and JP055 to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a gutter light in view of Batist. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, Goldberg, JP055, and Batist because this would have achieved the desirable result of illuminating the doorway entrance, as recognized by Batist [Batist Page 3, Lines 17-18: “The gutter has a light 24 that can shine downwardly and outwardly to illuminate the doorway entrance.”].
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 10, Hirai teaches an electric vehicle comprising: a frame structure; at least one electric motor supported by the frame structure to generate rotational power to drive movement of the electric vehicle; a body supported by the frame structure that includes a first sidewall arranged on one side of the vehicle and a second sidewall arranged on another side of the vehicle opposite the first sidewall [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Abstract: “An electric vehicle includes: a body that includes a body frame; a driving module that includes a sub-frame detachable from the body frame, driving wheels, a driving device provided with a motor mounted on the sub-frame and applying driving force to the driving wheels to start or accelerate the electric vehicle”]; but does not teach a cap roof.
Klaameyer teaches a cap roof supported by the frame structure and the body [Klaameyer Fig. 47, Reference Character 118]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cap roof in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a seal that could restrict the travel of liquids or contaminants between the driver compartment and cargo compartment, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Fig. 35; Klaameyer Paragraph 29: “FIG. 35 is a top perspective view of the delivery vehicle of FIG. 8 with a roof of the delivery vehicle removed, detailing a sealing arrangement between the front door and the rear door of the side door assembly of FIG. 31, according to an exemplary embodiment.” and Klaameyer Paragraph 136: “The guide rail covers 810 can help provide additional sealing and further restrict the travel of unwanted liquids or contaminants into the cargo compartment 402 or the driver compartment 202. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 are curved or flat panels that are bolted or otherwise secured to one or more of the A-pillar 112, B-pillar 114, or C-pillar 116. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 can extend to and be coupled with a roof 118 of the body 100.”].
Hirai further teaches that the first sidewall includes a first door to access an operator cabin of the vehicle from the one side of the vehicle and an opera window located rearward of the first door in a longitudinal direction, the second sidewall includes a second door to access the operator cabin from the other side of the vehicle that is aligned with the first door in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Paragraph 12: “The electric vehicle 11 includes a body 13 provided with a body frame 12 that forms the contour of the vehicle. The body 13 is mounted on the body frame 12 and includes a left-right pair of front doors 14a and a left-right pair of rear doors 14b.”], but does not teach a side door that is movable in the longitudinal direction.
Klaameyer teaches a side door located rearward of the second door that is movable in the longitudinal direction to access a rear compartment of the vehicle spaced from the operator cabin [Klaameyer Figs. 30 and 31, Reference Characters 800 and 1000; Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “The driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 are slidably coupled to body 100 and each independently movable along parallel guide rails having tracks that extend both above and below the right cab opening 204 and the side cargo opening 404.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side door in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing door interference for vehicle users, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “By sliding rather than rotating about hinges, the driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 provide significantly less interference for a person or object moving into or out of the delivery vehicle 10.”].
Hirai teaches an electric vehicle but does not teach a unitary cap roof structure.
Klaameyer teaches that the cap roof includes a unitary structure which covers the operator cabin and the rear compartment [Klaameyer Fig. 47, Reference Character 118]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, unitary structure roof in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a seal that could restrict the travel of liquids or contaminants between the driver compartment and cargo compartment, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Fig. 35; Klaameyer Paragraph 29: “FIG. 35 is a top perspective view of the delivery vehicle of FIG. 8 with a roof of the delivery vehicle removed, detailing a sealing arrangement between the front door and the rear door of the side door assembly of FIG. 31, according to an exemplary embodiment.” and Klaameyer Paragraph 136: “The guide rail covers 810 can help provide additional sealing and further restrict the travel of unwanted liquids or contaminants into the cargo compartment 402 or the driver compartment 202. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 are curved or flat panels that are bolted or otherwise secured to one or more of the A-pillar 112, B-pillar 114, or C-pillar 116. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 can extend to and be coupled with a roof 118 of the body 100.”].
Regarding Claim 14, Hirai teaches the electric vehicle of claim 10, wherein the first sidewall is devoid of a door arranged rearward of the opera window in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1, Reference Character 15b (opera window)].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”) and further in view of JP055 (JP S6111055 Y2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach a gutter. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 10, wherein the cap roof includes one gutter that extends in the longitudinal direction above the second door to define an overhang above the second door [JP055 Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, Reference Characters 11 (roof) and 9 (gutter)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a gutter in view of JP055. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and JP055 because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing water from flowing in the interior of the vehicle, as recognized by JP055 [JP055 Column 4, Lines 31-44: “Water can be certainly prevented from pouring into the vehicle interior of a room from the body opening upper part at the time of door opening, and moreover, at the time of door closed, since the Then can control that water enters into the seal portion by the door weather strip of a door rear side part”].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach single-piece construction. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 11, wherein the cap roof has a single-piece construction such that the unitary structure and the one gutter are formed as a single piece [JP055 Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, Reference Characters 11 (roof) and 9 (gutter)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a single-piece construction in view of JP055. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and JP055 because this would have achieved the desirable result of enhancing preferred routing of water, as recognized by JP0655 [JP055 Column 2, Lines 12-16: “in the door female housing 8, rain water, car-washing water, etc. which flowed down to drip channel 9 will flow and fall from body roof 11 from between door 1 and body opening edges 7a from the back terminal of the drip channel 9 in the backside upper part of body opening edge 7a.” ].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach a gutter. JP055 teaches the electric vehicle of claim 11, wherein the electric vehicle is devoid of another gutter arranged on the one side of the electric vehicle [JP055 Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 6, Reference Characters 11 (roof) and 9 (gutter); JP055 Claim 1: “A vehicle (a body where a J-rail side sliding door is attached) forms a door-receiving recess at the part facing the body opening, while the upper part of the sliding door forms a roof side part that matches the curved shape of the recess 6a when the door is closed. When the door is closed, this roof side part 5 is housed within the recess 8, making it continuous with the general roof side part 6a. In this way, the upper edge of the sliding door forms the J-rail side part, which connects with the general J-rail side part.”]. It should be noted that while JP055 does not explicitly teach the vehicle being devoid of another gutter, JP055’s reference to “a door receiving recess”, “the sliding door”, “the door”, and “the upper edge of the sliding door” suggests the presence of a single door and a single gutter. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side devoid of a gutter in view of JP055. It should be further noted that, as the stated reason for having a gutter is to prevent water from entering the interior of the body [JP055 Column 4, Lines 31-44: “Water can be certainly prevented from pouring into the vehicle interior of a room from the body opening upper part at the time of door opening], the absence of a door suggests the absence of a gutter. Accordingly, a side devoid of a gutter would reduce costs and reduce manufacturing workload, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, G.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”) and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a second sidewall but does not teach being devoid of a window. Goldberg teaches the electric vehicle of claim 10, wherein the second sidewall is devoid of a window arranged rearward of the second door in the longitudinal direction [Goldberg Figs. 3 (first sidewall) and 4a (second sidewall)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second wall devoid of a window rearward of the second door in view of Goldberg. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and Goldberg because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a greater number of cooking and preparation components to be secured to the side wall, as recognized by Goldberg [Goldberg Paragraph 0019: “the cargo area to include a number of cooking and preparation components secured to the side walls”].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”) and further in view of Bishop (US 2132228 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach a canopy. Bishop teaches the electric vehicle of claim 10, further comprising a canopy at least partially movable relative to the cap roof along a pair of roof rails coupled to the cap roof [Bishop Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 3; Bishop Paragraph 19: “the front half of the opening is closed by a longitudinally slidable panel 2 while the rear half is closed by a sheet metal or other cover or canopy 3 under which the panel 2 is adapted to slide.”; Bishop Paragraph 21: “The cover 3 may be slidably mounted in guides 5 at the sides of the roof opening as shown in Figure 5 so that it can be slid forwardly over the panel 2”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle comprising a cap roof, of the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a canopy in view of Bishop. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and Bishop because this would have achieved the desirable results of increasing headroom and enabling the implementation of an opening through which passengers can exit the vehicle in the event of an accident, as recognized by Bishop [Bishop Paragraph 3: “the available head room in the rear part of the body D is substantially increased, which is a great advantage with the modern body in which the overall height is kept low.”; Bishop Paragraph 4: “to permit an opening to be uncovered in the rear part of the roof if desired or a partial opening to be provided at both the front and rear; to facilitate the exit of passengers from the vehicle in the event of the vehicle overturning or being involved in an accident”].
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”) and further in view of Hamlin et al. (US 1485029 A) (hereinafter “Hamlin”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 17, Hirai teaches an electric vehicle comprising: a frame structure; at least one electric motor supported by the frame structure to generate rotational power to drive movement of the electric vehicle; a body supported by the frame structure that includes a first sidewall arranged on one side of the vehicle and a second sidewall arranged on another side of the vehicle opposite the first sidewall [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Abstract: “An electric vehicle includes: a body that includes a body frame; a driving module that includes a sub-frame detachable from the body frame, driving wheels, a driving device provided with a motor mounted on the sub-frame and applying driving force to the driving wheels to start or accelerate the electric vehicle”], but does not teach a cap roof.
Klaameyer teaches a cap roof supported by the frame structure and the body [Klaameyer Fig. 47, Reference Character 118]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cap roof in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a seal that could restrict the travel of liquids or contaminants between the driver compartment and cargo compartment, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Fig. 35; Klaameyer Paragraph 29: “FIG. 35 is a top perspective view of the delivery vehicle of FIG. 8 with a roof of the delivery vehicle removed, detailing a sealing arrangement between the front door and the rear door of the side door assembly of FIG. 31, according to an exemplary embodiment.” and Klaameyer Paragraph 136: “The guide rail covers 810 can help provide additional sealing and further restrict the travel of unwanted liquids or contaminants into the cargo compartment 402 or the driver compartment 202. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 are curved or flat panels that are bolted or otherwise secured to one or more of the A-pillar 112, B-pillar 114, or C-pillar 116. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 can extend to and be coupled with a roof 118 of the body 100.”].
Hirai further teaches that the first sidewall includes a first door to access an operator cabin of the vehicle from the one side of the vehicle and an opera window located rearward of the first door in a longitudinal direction, the second sidewall includes a second door to access the operator cabin from the other side of the vehicle that is aligned with the first door in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1; Hirai Paragraph 12: “The electric vehicle 11 includes a body 13 provided with a body frame 12 that forms the contour of the vehicle. The body 13 is mounted on the body frame 12 and includes a left-right pair of front doors 14a and a left-right pair of rear doors 14b.”], but does not teach a side door that is movable in the longitudinal direction.
Klaameyer teaches a side door located rearward of the second door that is movable in the longitudinal direction to access a rear compartment of the vehicle spaced from the operator cabin [Klaameyer Figs. 30 and 31, Reference Characters 800 and 1000; Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “The driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 are slidably coupled to body 100 and each independently movable along parallel guide rails having tracks that extend both above and below the right cab opening 204 and the side cargo opening 404.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a side door in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing door interference for vehicle users, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Paragraph 114: “By sliding rather than rotating about hinges, the driver cab door 800 and the side cargo door 1000 provide significantly less interference for a person or object moving into or out of the delivery vehicle 10.”].
Hirai teaches an electric vehicle but does not teach a unitary cap roof structure.
Klaameyer teaches that the cap roof includes a unitary structure which covers the operator cabin and the rear compartment [Klaameyer Fig. 47, Reference Character 118]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai and Goldberg to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, unitary structure in view of Klaameyer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Klaameyer because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a seal that could restrict the travel of liquids or contaminants between the driver compartment and cargo compartment, as recognized by Klaameyer [Klaameyer Fig. 35; Klaameyer Paragraph 29: “FIG. 35 is a top perspective view of the delivery vehicle of FIG. 8 with a roof of the delivery vehicle removed, detailing a sealing arrangement between the front door and the rear door of the side door assembly of FIG. 31, according to an exemplary embodiment.” and Klaameyer Paragraph 136: “The guide rail covers 810 can help provide additional sealing and further restrict the travel of unwanted liquids or contaminants into the cargo compartment 402 or the driver compartment 202. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 are curved or flat panels that are bolted or otherwise secured to one or more of the A-pillar 112, B-pillar 114, or C-pillar 116. In some examples, the guide rail covers 810 can extend to and be coupled with a roof 118 of the body 100.”].
Hirai teaches an electric vehicle but does not teach first and second gutters.
Hamlin teaches a first gutter that extends in the longitudinal direction above the first door to define a first overhang above the first door, and a second gutter that extends in the longitudinal direction above the second door to define a second overhang above the second door [Hamlin Figs. 1-3, Reference Characters 22 (roof) and 49 & 50 (gutters). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, first and second gutters in view of Hamlin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai and Hamlin because this would have achieved the desirable result of conducting water away from the doorways, as recognized by Hamlin [Hamlin Paragraph 17: “each gutter having a downwardly extended forward portion 51 and downwardly extended rear portion 52, the gutters being so arranged as to receive water from the go roof and conduct it away from the doorways.”].
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hirai and Klaameyer teaches an electric vehicle comprising a cap roof but does not teach unitary cap roof-gutter structure. Hamlin teaches the electric vehicle of claim 17, wherein the cap roof has a single-piece construction such that the unitary structure, the first gutter, and the second gutter are formed as a single piece [Hamlin Figs. 1-3, Reference Characters 22 (roof) and 49 & 50 (gutters)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of Hirai and Klaameyer to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, single-piece construction in view of Hamlin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, and Hamlin because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the roof and gutters to be removed in a single operation, as recognized by Hamlin [Hamlin Paragraph 21: “the entire top may be removed from the vehicle body if desired”]. It should be noted that while Hamlin’s roof and gutter combination appears to consist of multiple components, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the roof and gutter components of Hamlin to be of a unitary construction, as a matter of obvious design choice. Applicant should note that it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two or more pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” (MPEP2144.04(V).
Regarding Claim 19, Hirai teaches the electric vehicle of claim 17, wherein the first sidewall is devoid of a door arranged rearward of the opera window in the longitudinal direction [Hirai Fig. 1, Reference Character 15b (opera window)].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (US 9168818 B2) (hereinafter “Hirai”) in view of Klaameyer et al. (US 12012015 B2) (hereinafter “Klaameyer”), further in view of Hamlin et al. (US 1485029 A) (hereinafter “Hamlin”), and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20200175467 A1) (hereinafter “Goldberg”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Hamlin teaches an electric vehicle comprising a sidewall but does not teach being devoid of a window. Goldberg teaches the electric vehicle of claim 17, wherein the second sidewall is devoid of a window arranged rearward of the second door in the longitudinal direction [Goldberg Figs. 3 (first sidewall) and 4a (second sidewall)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric vehicle of the combination of Hirai, Klaameyer, and Hamlin to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a second wall devoid of a window rearward of the second door in view of Goldberg. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hirai, Klaameyer, Hamlin, and Goldberg because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling a greater number of cooking and preparation components to be secured to the side wall, as recognized by Goldberg [Goldberg Paragraph 0019: “the cargo area to include a number of cooking and preparation components secured to the side walls”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights