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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 11, 2026.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Perez teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle from an OEM condition into a modified condition, wherein in the OEM condition the battery electric vehicle has an original high voltage battery assembly with an original ground clearance [Perez Abstract: “Methods and systems for producing a mobility assist hybrid vehicle from an OEM hybrid vehicle may include: Removing the hybrid battery from the hybrid vehicle; removing at least a portion of a floor of the hybrid vehicle that extends from about a longitudinal position to about a second longitudinal position; mounting a replacement floor assembly to the hybrid vehicle”; Perez Paragraph 27: “the battery well 26 defined by the replacement floor assembly 12 allows the OEM hybrid battery 30 to be reconnected to the OEM hybrid vehicle control system, largely using unmodified existing components, including the high-voltage wiring harness and associated battery control systems”; Perez Paragraph 19: “sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle”], the method comprising installing a high voltage battery assembly at a lower elevation than the original high voltage battery assembly relative to a body of the battery electric vehicle [Perez Paragraph 50: “the unmodified OEM high-voltage wiring harness (not specifically shown) may be used to reconnect the hybrid battery 30 to the vehicle propulsion system.”]; and configuring a height adjustment device to move at least a portion of the body of the battery electric vehicle between a lowered position and a raised position, wherein in the raised position the high voltage battery assembly has a modified ground clearance that is equal to or greater than the original ground clearance [Perez Paragraph 19: In order to provide sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle, the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 may be provided with a plurality of body lift members].
Regarding Claim 2, Perez teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the original ground clearance is defined when the battery electric vehicle is at an original GVWR [Perez Paragraph 19: “In order to provide sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle, the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 may be provided with a plurality of body lift members”].
Regarding Claim 3, Perez teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the original ground clearance is defined by a distance between a lower plane of the original high voltage battery assembly and a ground and the modified ground clearance is defined by a distance between a lower plane of the modified high voltage battery assembly and the ground [Perez Fig. 1].
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 21, Perez teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle from an OEM condition into a modified condition, wherein in the OEM condition the battery electric vehicle has an original high voltage battery assembly with an original ground clearance [Perez Abstract: “Methods and systems for producing a mobility assist hybrid vehicle from an OEM hybrid vehicle may include: Removing the hybrid battery from the hybrid vehicle; removing at least a portion of a floor of the hybrid vehicle that extends from about a longitudinal position to about a second longitudinal position; mounting a replacement floor assembly to the hybrid vehicle”; Perez Paragraph 27: “the battery well 26 defined by the replacement floor assembly 12 allows the OEM hybrid battery 30 to be reconnected to the OEM hybrid vehicle control system, largely using unmodified existing components, including the high-voltage wiring harness and associated battery control systems”; Perez Paragraph 19: “sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle”], the method comprising installing a high voltage battery assembly at a lower elevation than the original high voltage battery assembly relative to a body of the battery electric vehicle [Perez Paragraph 50: “the unmodified OEM high-voltage wiring harness (not specifically shown) may be used to reconnect the hybrid battery 30 to the vehicle propulsion system.”]; and configuring a height adjustment device to move at least a portion of the body of the battery electric vehicle between a lowered position and a raised position, wherein in the raised position the high voltage battery assembly has a modified ground clearance that is approximately equal to or greater than the original ground clearance [Perez Paragraph 19: In order to provide sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle, the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 may be provided with a plurality of body lift members].
Regarding Claim 22, Perez teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the original ground clearance is defined when the battery electric vehicle is at an original GVWR [Perez Paragraph 19: “In order to provide sufficient ground clearance for the floor assembly 12, which again has been lowered with respect to the OEM floor assembly (not shown) previously removed from the OEM vehicle, the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 may be provided with a plurality of body lift members”].
Regarding Claim 23, Perez teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the original ground clearance is defined by a distance between a lower plane of the original high voltage battery assembly and a ground and the modified ground clearance is defined by a distance between a lower plane of the modified high voltage battery assembly and the ground [Perez Fig. 1].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Charmeau et al. (DE 102021214292 A1) (hereinafter “Charmeau”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Perez teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle comprising a height adjustment device but does not teach an airbag. Charmeau teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the height adjustment device comprises an airbag that is inflated to move the vehicle to the raised position and deflated to move the vehicle to the lowered position [Charmeau Paragraph 0034: “The airbag 305 may be inflated or deflated to adjust a height of the vehicle cabin floor relative to the front axle assembly”]. 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 method, of Perez, for modifying a battery electric vehicle, comprising the step of configuring a height adjustment device, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an airbag in view of Charmeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Perez and Charmeau because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling axial compression without requiring a guide structure, as recognized by Charmeau [Charmeau Paragraph 0047: “The air spring 130 may be positioned directly over a rear hub assembly 703 such that compressing the air spring 130 may allow for increased sag of the skateboard chassis (e.g., 108). In particular, compression of airbag 305 by member 610 may be directed vertically along axis 802 with member 610 aligned with air spring 130 to force stem 318 to push directly into airbag 305. In this way, the air spring 130 in the rear suspension system 156 can be configured for substantially axial compression without a guide structure extending a length thereof.”].
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Charmeau et al. (DE 102021214292 A1) (hereinafter “Charmeau”) and further in view of Schlangen (US 7735839 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Perez and Charmeau teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle comprising a height adjustment device but does not teach that the underside of the vehicle touches a ground surface. Schlangen teaches the method of claim 4 wherein in the lowered position an underside of the battery electric vehicle touches a ground [Schlangen Figs. 1 and 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 method, of the combination of Perez and Charmeau, for modifying a battery electric vehicle, comprising the step of configuring a height adjustment device, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, specifying that that the underside of the vehicle touches a ground surface in the lowered position, in view Schlangen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Perez, Charmeau, and Schlange because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling direct movement of wheelchairs onto the platform without the need for lift structures or ramps, as recognized by Schlangen [Schlangen Paragraph 9: “Wheelchairs, persons or loads can be moved directly on the platform. Lift structures and ramps are not used to elevate a wheelchair and move the elevated wheelchair into the vehicle.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Perez teaches the method of claim 4 further comprising the step of providing a ramp platform moveable between a stowed position and a deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the ramp bridges a gap between a floor surface of the battery electric vehicle and a ground [Perez Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 7, Perez teaches a ramp platform slope but does not explicitly teach the method of claim 6, wherein the ramp platform has a slope equal to or less than 1:4 when the body of the battery electric vehicle is in the lowered position. As the applicant has indicated that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that a ramp platform has a slope equal to or less than 1:4, it should be noted that the discovery of an optimum value of a known result-effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.)). Ramp slope is regarded as a result-effective variable as its particular value can be used to achieve a recognized result, in particular relative ease of ascent on a ramp platform. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way 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, C.).
Regarding Claim 8, Perez teaches the method of claim 6 further comprising the step of lowering a floor of the battery electric vehicle relative to the body [Perez Paragraph 16: “the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 may comprise a floor assembly 12 that has been lowered with respect to the vehicle body 14 and OEM floor assembly”].
Regarding Claim 9, Perez teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the lowering the floor step involves removing at least a portion of an OEM floor structure and installing a modified floor structure [Perez Abstract: “Removing the hybrid battery from the hybrid vehicle; removing at least a portion of a floor of the hybrid vehicle that extends from about a longitudinal position to about a second longitudinal position; mounting a replacement floor assembly to the hybrid vehicle”].
Regarding Claim 10, Perez teaches a modified floor structure thickness [Perez Fig. 5, Reference Character 12] and a motivation for specifying a particular range of values of this thickness [Perez Paragraph 31: “After the conversion methods and processes described herein have been completed, the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 will comprise a floor assembly 12 that has been lowered with respect to the vehicle body 14 in order to accommodate the mobility access system 32. The lowered floor assembly 12 also provides the required interior height to allow persons in mobility assist vehicles to easily ingress, egress, and move around inside the vehicle 10, as well as to meet any applicable regulations for mobility assist vehicles. For example, besides providing sufficient room to accommodate the mobility access system 32, the lowered floor assembly 12 provides for at least about 142 cm (about 56 inches) of vertical height between flat interior floor area 40 and the top portion 41 of the side door opening.”], but does not explicitly teach the method of claim 9, wherein a thickness of the modified floor structure is less than a thickness of the OEM floor structure. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be noted that “…where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, Perez teaches a gap between the floor structure and the high voltage battery assembly [Perez Paragraph 36: “The first and second cross-members 84 and 86, together with rear portions of the left and right sides 72 and 74 define the mobility access system mounting area 28.”] and a motivation for specifying a particular range of values for this gap [Perez Paragraph 28: “other advantages are associated with the replacement floor assembly 12. For example, the battery well and mobility access mounting areas 26 and 28 defined by the replacement floor assembly 12 allows the mobility access system 32 and hybrid battery 30 to be housed within the interior of the vehicle 10, thereby protecting them from exposure or damage that might otherwise result from the environment and hazards external to the vehicle 10, such as water, mud, dust, road salt and impacts from external objects. The exhaust pipe channel 60 provided in the replacement floor assembly 12 prevents the exhaust system 52 from protruding below the replacement floor assembly 12, thereby improving ground clearance and protecting the exhaust system 52 from damage. The support structure 11 for the fuel tank 50 protects the fuel tank 50 in the event of collision, thereby allowing the mobility assist hybrid vehicle 10 to more easily meet applicable safety and impact requirements.”] but does not explicitly teach the method of claim 9, wherein in the OEM condition an original gap exists between the OEM floor structure and the original high voltage battery assembly and in the modified condition a thickness of a modified gap between the modified floor structure and the high voltage battery assembly is reduced relative to the original gap. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be noted that “…where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Charmeau et al. (DE 102021214292 A1) (hereinafter “Charmeau”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 24, Perez teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle comprising a height adjustment device but does not teach an airbag. Charmeau teaches the method of claim 23 wherein the height adjustment device comprises an airbag that is inflated to move the vehicle to the raised position and deflated to move the vehicle to the lowered position [Charmeau Paragraph 0034: “The airbag 305 may be inflated or deflated to adjust a height of the vehicle cabin floor relative to the front axle assembly”]. 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 method, of Perez, for modifying a battery electric vehicle, comprising the step of configuring a height adjustment device, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a airbag in view of Charmeau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Perez and Charmeau because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling axial compression without requiring a guide structure, as recognized by Charmeau [Charmeau Paragraph 0047: “The air spring 130 may be positioned directly over a rear hub assembly 703 such that compressing the air spring 130 may allow for increased sag of the skateboard chassis (e.g., 108). In particular, compression of airbag 305 by member 610 may be directed vertically along axis 802 with member 610 aligned with air spring 130 to force stem 318 to push directly into airbag 305. In this way, the air spring 130 in the rear suspension system 156 can be configured for substantially axial compression without a guide structure extending a length thereof.”].
Claims 25-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US 10994795 B1) (hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Charmeau et al. (DE 102021214292 A1) (hereinafter “Charmeau”) and further in view of Schlangen (US 7735839 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Perez and Charmeau teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle comprising a height adjustment device but does not teach that the underside of the vehicle touches a ground surface. Schlangen teaches the method of claim 24 wherein in the lowered position an underside of the battery electric vehicle touches or approximately touches a ground [Schlangen Figs. 1 and 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 method, of the combination of Perez and Charmeau, for modifying a battery electric vehicle, comprising the step of configuring a height adjustment device, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, specifying that that the underside of the vehicle touches a ground surface in the lowered position, in view Schlangen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Perez, Charmeau, and Schlange because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling direct movement of wheelchairs onto the platform without the need for lift structures or ramps, as recognized by Schlangen [Schlangen Paragraph 9: “Wheelchairs, persons or loads can be moved directly on the platform. Lift structures and ramps are not used to elevate a wheelchair and move the elevated wheelchair into the vehicle.”].
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Perez and Schlangen teaches a method for modifying a battery electric vehicle comprising a height adjustment device but does not teach that the underside of the vehicle is closely spaced from the ground. Charmeau teaches the method of claim 25 wherein in the lowered position the underside of the battery electric vehicle is closely spaced from the ground [Charmeau Paragraph 0021: “The first lowered position may be lower to the ground relative to the nominal position. By allowing the vehicle to settle in a lowered position, the suspension system can increase customer satisfaction and ease of use.”; Charmeau Paragraph 0048: “lowering the vehicle may alleviate challenges associated with entering and exiting the vehicle cabin if the vehicle cabin can be lowered closer to the ground in the lowered position.”]. 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 method, of the combination of Perez and Schlangen, for modifying a battery electric vehicle, comprising the step of configuring a height adjustment device, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, specifying that the underside of the vehicle is closely spaced from a ground surface, in view Schlangen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Perez, Schlangen, and Charmeau because this would have achieved the desirable result of alleviating challenges associated with entering and exiting the vehicle cabin, as recognized by Charmeau [Charmeau Paragraph 0021: “The first lowered position may be lower to the ground relative to the nominal position. By allowing the vehicle to settle in a lowered position, the suspension system can increase customer satisfaction and ease of use.”; Charmeau Paragraph 0048: “lowering the vehicle may alleviate challenges associated with entering and exiting the vehicle cabin if the vehicle cabin can be lowered closer to the ground in the lowered position.”].
Regarding Claim 27, Perez teaches the method of claim 24 further comprising the step of providing a ramp platform moveable between a stowed position and a deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the ramp bridges a gap between a floor surface of the battery electric vehicle and a ground [Perez Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 28, Perez teaches a ramp platform slope but does not explicitly teach the method of claim 27, wherein the ramp platform has a slope equal to or less than approximately 1:4 when the body of the battery electric vehicle is in the lowered position. As the applicant has indicated that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that a ramp platform has a slope equal to or less than 1:4, it should be noted that the discovery of an optimum value of a known result-effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.)). Ramp slope is regarded as a result-effective variable as its particular value can be used to achieve a recognized result, in particular relative ease of ascent on a ramp platform. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way 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, C.).
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
