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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Borroni (WO 03018358 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Augustin discloses a vehicle (vehicle 1), comprising: a vehicle body (body 2) defining a vehicle cabin (passenger compartment 50); a pair of front wheels (front wheels 67) rotatably coupled to the vehicle body and defining a front rotation axis (axis of front wheels 67, fig.4), wherein the pair of front wheels are not mechanically linked together (fig.4); a pair of rear wheels (rear wheels 68) rotatably coupled to the vehicle body, wherein the pair of rear wheels are not mechanically linked together (fig.4); a motor (motor assembly 21), the motor providing propulsion to the wheel (fig.4); and a driver’s seat (central seat 61) disposed in the vehicle cabin and positioned along a centerline of the vehicle (central seat 61, fig.1), the driver’s seat being positioned sufficiently close to a front side of the vehicle body such that (central seat 61 is position close to front side of body 2, fig.1), when a driver sits in the driver’s seat, a heel point of the driver is located at or in front of the front rotation axis (pedals 43, 44, and 49 are in located at or in front of front wheel axis of wheels 67, figs.1-3). Augustin fails to disclose a plurality of electric motors, each electric motor of the plurality of motors being partially disposed in a rim of a corresponding wheel of the pair of front wheels and the pair of rear wheels and providing propulsion to that wheel.
However, Borroni discloses a plurality of electric motors (wheel motors 135, fig.11), each electric motor of the plurality of motors being partially disposed in a rim of a corresponding wheel of the pair of front wheels and the pair of rear wheels and providing propulsion to that wheel (hub motors 135 for wheels 73, 75, 77, and 79, fig.11, paragraph [0092]).
Augustin and Borroni are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the hub motors of Borroni with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of hub motors having a simple and compact design, and having a motor on each wheel can provide more control and power. Also, the use of wheel motors 135 reduces the height of the chassis 10 compared to the use of traction motors, and therefore may be desirable for certain uses (Borroni, paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 2, Augustin in combination with Borroni discloses wherein: the vehicle has a first length defined as a distance from a frontmost exterior portion of the vehicle to a rearmost exterior portion of the vehicle (Augustin, length from front of the body 2 to rear of the body 2, fig.1); the vehicle cabin has a second length defined as a distance from a frontmost portion of the vehicle cabin to a rearmost portion of the vehicle cabin (Augustin, length from front of the passenger compartment 50 to rear of the passenger compartment 50, figs.1-2); and a ratio of the second length to the first length ranges from about 0.8 to about 0.95 (Augustin fails disclose the ratio, but In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the ratio from 0.8 to about 0.95 to maximize the interior cabin space for passengers and cargo).
Regarding claim 3, Augustin in combination with Borroni , Augustin discloses wherein: the vehicle body includes a side door opening (sliding door 58, figs.1-2); and the vehicle further comprises: a side door slidably (sliding door 58, figs.1-2) coupled to the vehicle body having a closed position that blocks the side door opening and an open position that allows passage through the side door opening (figs.1-2), the side door having an integrally formed B pillar (sliding door 58 implicitly comprises a pillar which is in the middle of the vehicle, fig.1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Augustin in combination with Borroni discloses wherein the side door opening has a width ranging from about 125 centimeters (cm) to about 190 cm and a height ranging from about 115 cm to about 140 cm (Augustin fails to disclose the dimensions of the sliding door 58, but In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the width from 125cm to about 190cm and height form 115cm to about 140cm to allow a person to enter the cabin space with relative ease).
Regarding claim 5, Augustin in combination with Borroni, Augustin discloses wherein the side door opening is the only opening disposed on one of a left side or a right side of the vehicle body (door opening 58 is the only opening on the left side, fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Augustin in combination with Borroni, Borroni discloses wherein each electric motor of the plurality of electric motors includes an electroactive suspension system (suspension system 71 with suspension actuators 143-146 on wheels 73, 75, 77, and 79, fig.12, paragraphs [0095-0096) to at least one of raise or lower one corner of the vehicle body by a distance of about 100 millimeters (suspension system 71 is configured to adjust the chassis ride height, paragraphs [0095], Borroni fails to disclose the distance being about 100mm, but In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the suspension system raise or lower about 100mm to adjust ride height for different terrain, lowered when loading, and raised when driving, and dampen the ride).
Regarding claim 8, Augustin in combination with Borroni discloses wherein a floor of the vehicle cabin is disposed above ground (Augustin, floor 20; Borroni, chassis ride height is adjustable by the suspension system 71, paragraph [0071], fig.12) supporting the vehicle by a height of about 260 millimeters (Augustin and Borroni fail to disclose the dimension of the height of the floor above the ground, but In Gardner v. TEC Syst. discloses that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the floor about 260mm above the ground for easy entry and fast cargo loading).
Claim(s) 6, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Borroni (WO 03018358 A2), and Kondrad (US 12257932 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Augustin discloses the driver’s seat (61) is rotatably and removably mounted, but fails to disclose the seat is slidably coupled to the vehicle body.
However, Kondrad discloses wherein the driver’s seat (seat assemblies 124) is slidably coupled (rail system 316 with tracks 324 to allow seat assemblies 124 to slide) to the vehicle body and movable between a first position where the driver’s seat faces the front side of the vehicle body (seat assemblies 124 face forwards, fig.6) and a second position where the driver’s seat is oriented to face a side door opening of the vehicle body (seat assemblies 124 rotate about vertical axis 168 and swivel assembly 260 and can turn to face side, figs.5 and 10) and is disposed closer to the side door opening in the second position than in the first position (when seat assembly 124 is turn to side the seat 236 is disposed closer to the side door, figs.5 and 10).
Augustin and Kondrad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the adjustable seating of Kondrad with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of more adjustability of the seats to accommodate different passengers or cargo.
Regarding claims 20 and 23, Augustin in combination with Kondrad discloses the vehicle of claim 12 and battery (Augustin, battery 23) coupled to the vehicle body, to supply electrical power to the motor (Augustin, electric motor 21), but fails to disclose the electroactive suspension system and electric motors at four wheels.
However, Borroni disclose a first front wheel (wheel 73, fig.1) rotatably coupled to a first corner of the vehicle body by a first electroactive suspension system (suspension system 71 with suspension actuator 143, figs.12-13, paragraph [0095-0096]); a second front wheel (wheel 75, fig.1) rotatably coupled to a second corner of the vehicle body by a second electroactive suspension system (suspension system 71 with suspension actuator 144, figs.12-13, paragraph [0095-0096]); a first rear wheel (wheel 77, fig.1) rotatably coupled to a third corner of the vehicle body by a third electroactive suspension system (suspension system 71 with suspension actuator 145, figs.12-13, paragraph [0095-0096]); and a second rear wheel (wheel 79, fig.1) rotatably coupled to a fourth corner of the vehicle body by a fourth electroactive suspension system (suspension system 71 with suspension actuator 146, figs.12-13, paragraph [0095-0096]), wherein each of the first, second, third, and fourth electroactive suspension systems is independently controllable and configured to adjust respective heights between the first, second, third, and fourth corners of the vehicle body and a ground supporting the vehicle (suspension control system 141, figs.12-13, paragraph [0095-0096]). Borroni discloses a plurality of wheels (wheels 73, 75, 77, and 79, figs.1 and 11) rotatably coupled to the vehicle body; a plurality of electric motors (wheel motors 135, fig.11), each electric motor of the plurality of electric motors being coupled to one wheel of the plurality of wheels (fig.11), wherein each wheel of the plurality of wheels is independently driven by one electric motor of the plurality of electric motors (wheel motors 135, fig.11).
Augustin and Borroni are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the hub motors of Borroni with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of hub motors having a simple and compact design, and having a motor on each wheel can provide more control and power. Also, the use of wheel motors 135 reduces the height of the chassis 10 compared to the use of traction motors and therefore may be desirable for certain uses (Borroni, paragraph [0092]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Borroni (WO 03018358 A2), and in further view of Brady (US 20210141377 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Augustin in combination with Borroni discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: a user interface system disposed on the side door, the user interface system comprising: a display screen; a user input device; a camera; and a scanner.
However, Brady discloses further comprising: a user interface system disposed on the side door (user interface 211 as part of door 275, paragraph [0040]), the user interface system comprising: a display screen; a user input device; a camera; and a scanner (user interface 211 includes touch-screen display, input devices, a video camera, and a biometric scanner, paragraph [0035]).
Augustin and Brady are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the user interface disposed on the side of the door of Brady with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of the user interface system comprising a display screen; a user input device; a camera; and a scanner for inventory control within a vehicle.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Borroni (WO 03018358 A2), and in further view of Angermann (DE 102019202784 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Augustin in combination with Borroni disclose the vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose the vehicle in combination with a trailer.
However, Angermann discloses in combination with a trailer (trailer 1) to form a vehicle trailer assembly (trailer 1 with vehicle 2), the trailer comprising: a trailer frame; a first wheel (wheels 4) rotatably coupled to the trailer frame; a second wheel (wheels 4) rotatably coupled to the trailer frame; a first electric motor (electric motors 5), coupled to the first wheel, to drive the first wheel; a second electric motor (electric motors 5), coupled to the second wheel, to drive the second wheel; and a plurality of batteries (batteries in energy storage 8), coupled to the trailer frame, to supply electrical power to the first and second electric motors (fig.2), wherein the first and second electric motors are independently controllable (control device 9, fig.2).
Augustin and Angermann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the trailer assembly of Angermann with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of additional storage space in the trailer for delivering inventory.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Borroni (WO 03018358 A2), and in further view of Koberstein (US 20160009162 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Augustin in combination with Borroni discloses the vehicle of claim 1 but fail to disclose an instrument panel beam having cavities to transport air from an ambient environment to the vehicle cabin.
However, Koberstein discloses further comprising: an instrument panel beam (instrument panel 30, fig.1 and 7), coupled to the vehicle body, having one or more cavities (air vents 72, ducts 22 and 26 , fig.1) configured to transport air from an ambient environment surrounding the vehicle to the vehicle cabin (fresh air 78 from fresh-air ducts 22, fig.1 and 7); and a dashboard directly coupled to the instrument panel beam (dashboard, paragraph [0020]).
Augustin and Koberstein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the air system of Koberstein with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of providing air conditioning to the cabin of the vehicle for a more comfortable ride.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Kondrad (US 12257932 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Augustin discloses a vehicle (vehicle 1), comprising: a vehicle body (body 2) defining a vehicle cabin (passenger compartment 50) and having a side door opening (opening for door 58); a driver’s seat (central seat 61) is rotatably and removably mounted and can face forward in a first position (fig.1) where the seat is equidistant from right side of the vehicle body and a left side of the vehicle body (central seat 61, fig.1), and face toward the side door opening in a second position (driver seat 61 is rotatable), a side door (door 58) slidably couple to the vehicle body, to block the side door opening in a closed position and to allow passage through the side door opening in an open position (side door 58, figs.1-2). Augustin fails to disclose the driver’s seat is slidably coupled.
However, Kondrad discloses wherein the driver’s seat (seat assemblies 124) is slidably coupled (rail system 316 with tracks 324 to allow seat assemblies 124 to slide) to the vehicle body and movable between a first position where the driver’s seat faces the front side of the vehicle body (seat assemblies 124 face forwards, fig.6) and a second position where the driver’s seat is oriented to face a side door opening of the vehicle body (seat assemblies 124 rotate about vertical axis 168 and swivel assembly 260 and can turn to face side, figs.5 and 10) and is disposed closer to the side door opening in the second position than in the first position (when seat assembly 124 is turn to side the seat 236 is disposed closer to the side door, figs.5 and 10).
Augustin and Kondrad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the adjustable seating of Kondrad with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of more adjustability of the seats to accommodate different passengers or cargo.
Regarding claim 13, Augustin in combination with Kondrad discloses further comprising: a passenger seat (Augustin, seat 62 and 63; Kondrad, seat assemblies 124, fig.6) disposed behind and to a side of the driver’s seat (Augustin, figs.1-2), wherein the side door opening is configured to allow a person to enter the vehicle and sit in the driver’s seat or the passenger seat through the side door opening (Augustin, door 58).
Regarding claim 14, Augustin in combination with Kondrad discloses wherein the passenger seat is level with or higher than the driver’s seat (Augustin, seats 62 and 63 are level with seat 61; Kondrad, seat assemblies 124 are level, fig.5).
Regarding claim 15, Augustin in combination with Kondrad, Augustin discloses the side door includes an integrally formed B pillar (sliding door 58 implicitly comprises a pillar which is in the middle of the vehicle, fig.1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Augustin in combination with Kondrad, Kondrad discloses wherein the passenger seat comprises: a mounting frame () slidably coupled to the vehicle body (slidably coupled to the rail system 316 and tracks 324, fig.5); a seat base (seat 204, fig.5) coupled to the mounting frame such that the seat base is rotatable with respect to the mounting frame about a first rotation axis (seat coupling point 256 defines rotation axis 244, figs.5-7); and a seat back (seatback 200, fig.5) coupled to the seat base such that the seat back is rotatable with respect to the seat base about a second rotation axis parallel to the first rotation axis (seatback coupling point 252 defines rotation axis 232, figs.5-7).
Regarding claim 17, Augustin in combination with Kondrad, Kondrad discloses wherein the first and second rotation axes are oriented horizontally (rotation axes 232 and 244, fig.5).
Regarding claim 18, Augustin in combination with Kondrad, Kondrad discloses wherein: the passenger seat has a folded configuration (seat assembly 124 as in figures 11-12) and an unfolded configuration (seat assembly 124 as in figure 5); and when transitioning from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration, at least one of: the mounting frame is slidably moved towards the driver seat (fisg.11-12); the seat base is rotated about the first axis such that a bottom side of the seat base abuts the driver’s seat (figs.11-12); or the seat back is rotated about the second axis such that a front side of the seat back abuts a top side of the seat base.
Regarding claim 19, Augustin in combination with Kondrad, Augustin discloses further comprising: a pair of front wheels (front wheels 67) rotatably coupled to the vehicle body and defining a front rotation axis (rotation axis of wheels 67), wherein the driver’s seat is positioned in the first position such that a heel point of a driver sitting in the driver’s seat is located near the front rotation axis (pedals 43, 44, and 49 are in located at or in front of front wheel axis of wheels 67, figs.1-3).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Kondrad (US 12257932 B2), and in further view of Fukuta (US 20220332240 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Augustin in combination with Kondrad discloses the vehicle of claim 12 but fails to disclose a ramp.
However, Fukuta discloses a ramp (ramp 42, figs.1-2) coupled to a bottom side of the side door opening (door 36, figs.1-2).
Augustin and Fukuta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the ramp of Fukuta with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing easier access into the cabin of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Kondrad (US 12257932 B2), and in further view of Brady (US 20210141377 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Augustin in combination with Kondrad discloses the vehicle of claim 12, but fails to disclose further comprising: a user interface system disposed on the side door, the user interface system comprising: a display screen; a user input device; a camera; and a scanner.
However, Brady discloses further comprising: a user interface system disposed on the side door (user interface 211 as part of door 275, paragraph [0040]), the user interface system comprising: a display screen; a user input device; a camera; and a scanner (user interface 211 includes touch-screen display, input devices, a video camera, and a biometric scanner, paragraph [0035]).
Augustin and Brady are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the user interface disposed on the side of the door of Brady with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of the user interface
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustin (WO 03078192 A1) in view of Kondrad (US 12257932 B2), and in further view of Angermann (DE 102019202784 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Augustin in combination with Kondrad disclose the vehicle of claim 12, but fails to disclose the vehicle in combination with a trailer.
However, Angermann discloses in combination with a trailer (trailer 1) to form a vehicle trailer assembly (trailer 1 with vehicle 2), the trailer comprising: a trailer frame; a first wheel (wheels 4) rotatably coupled to the trailer frame; a second wheel (wheels 4) rotatably coupled to the trailer frame; a first electric motor (electric motors 5), coupled to the first wheel, to drive the first wheel; a second electric motor (electric motors 5), coupled to the second wheel, to drive the second wheel; and a plurality of batteries (batteries in energy storage 8), coupled to the trailer frame, to supply electrical power to the first and second electric motors (fig.2), wherein the first and second electric motors are independently controllable (control device 9, fig.2).
Augustin and Angermann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transport vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Augustin with the trailer assembly of Angermann with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of additional storage space in the trailer for delivering inventory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights