DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 1 December 2025, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-4 are currently presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 December 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendment filed 1 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the additional language in paragraph [0042] which recites “and is located rearward of the rear axle, without removing the rear axle” includes a negative limitation not previously supported by the Specification as filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “without removing the rear axle.” The MPEP instructs that “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure” (MPEP 2173.05(i) and that “any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 USC 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0216113 to Kiser et al. (hereinafter “Kiser”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0256827 to Watters (hereinafter “Watters”) and further in view of United States Patent 5,448,856 to Moore et al. (hereinafter “Moore”).
Regarding claim 1, Kiser teaches a method for providing a vehicle (100) having a rear axle (see paragraph [0031]) and a hatch (102; see Fig. 1) at a rear of the vehicle, defining a cargo area (see Fig. 1). Kiser teaches installing a wheelchair ramp (106) at the rear of the vehicle, such that the wheelchair ramp can be in an upright or stowed position (see Fig. 10) and an open or lowered position (see Fig. 8) such that the ramp (106) extends between the cargo area of the vehicle and a ground (not shown in Fig. 8). Kiser teaches that the wheelchair ramp module (220) may include plates secured of a vehicle floor and may have an uneven surface so as to not interfere with vehicle components such as the rear axle, transmission, and engine (see paragraph [0031]). Kiser teaches mounting a pan (220) at the rear of the vehicle (coupling; see paragraph [0031]) with an extender (302) that is movable between a lowered position (300) which defines a wheelchair ramp (see Fig. 3) and extends to a wheelchair receiver (interior of pan 220 adjacent 208) and a raised position (stowed position; see Fig. 2) where the extender lies within the cargo area (see Fig. 1).
Kiser appears to be silent regarding the structure of the vehicle, including the frame thereof. Accordingly, Kiser does not explicitly disclose removing from the vehicle a portion of the body that lies above a notional wheelchair ramp, that portion including a mating component, and a portion of the frame rearward of the axle that lies above the notional wheelchair ramp.
Watters discloses a method for use with a body on frame vehicle, the vehicle (see Fig. 20) being of the type having a hatch (66) at the rear of the vehicle (see Fig. 20), the hatch having a closed position (see Fig. 19) that occludes a cargo area (46) of the vehicle and an open position (see Figs. 19, 20) that provides egress to the cargo area (46; see Fig. 19), the cargo area having a substantially horizontal cargo floor (at 40, 46) that extends, when the hatch is in the closed position (see Figs. 17 and 18), from the hatch (66) to a position overlying the rear axle (see Fig. 10a; floor area 40 extends over wheel wells, unnumbered, and thus the axles therethrough), the method comprising: removing from the vehicle (see paragraph [0074]; body removed at floor 40 to accommodate wheelchair and ramp components) that portion of the body that lies above a notional wheelchair ramp (68) that extends from the ground (see Fig. 19) to the position overlying the rear axle (location of rear wheels; see Figs. 10a and 19), and that portion of the frame that lies above the notional wheelchair ramp (vehicle body at 40); mounting a pan (installing replacement floorpan 40 and chassis frame, understood to include ramp portion 68; see paragraph [0078]) to the body to define a wheelchair receiver (see Fig. 19; recessed portion shown) that lies in the cargo area and is congruent with the notional wheelchair ramp (68); pivotably mounting, to the rearward end of the pan (see paragraphs [0074] and [0078]; ramp portion understood be mounted as part of pan 40), an extender (68) that is movable between a lowered position (see Fig. 19), whereat it defines a wheelchair ramp that is congruent with the notional wheelchair ramp and extends to the wheelchair receiver (connected to 40; see Fig. 19); and a raised position (see Fig. 17), whereat it lies within the cargo area (see Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to modify the method taught by Kiser to include the steps of removing portions of the vehicle body and the vehicle frame from the vehicle, as taught by Watters. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to remove the portions of the vehicle which allow for the module taught by Kiser to be placed in a vehicle. Because Kiser teaches that its pan can be designed to not interfere with vehicle structures such as the rear axle, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the method taught by the combination would be used without requiring removal of the rear axle.
The combination of Kiser and Waters does not explicitly discloses that the hatch has a component that, when in the closed position, engages a mating component on the body to maintain the hatch in the closed position. However, such closing mechanisms are conventional. Kiser appears to be silent regarding securing the hatch (102), and Watters teaches that the tailgate (66) may be maintained in a closed position (see paragraph [0078]) allowing a driver to see while driving, however is silent as to the closure or securing mechanisms.
Moore teaches a vehicle (10) having a rear hatch (26) which pivots open upwardly (compare Fig. 1 and 3; opens in the same manner shown as Watters). The hatch may be secured in a closed position (Fig. 1) using a component (32, 34; see Col. 4, lines 20-31) on the hatch and a mating component (36) on the vehicle body (see Col. 4, lines 27-31). The vehicle hatch may be opened and closed (see Col. 4, lines 27-31) by a powered actuator which allows powered and manual opening and closing, with a conventional latch mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Kiser and Watters to include a conventional securing or latching mechanism for the hatch, as taught by Moore. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably allow for securing the hatch in a closed position, allowing for a wheelchair within the vehicle to be retained within the vehicle, without modification of the principles of operation. The latching mechanism of Moore is described as conventional such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the latch and thus connecting components would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, the combination of Kiser, Watters, and Moore teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kiser, Watters, and Moore teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Watters teaches reinforcing the frame with a U-shaped support (38; see Fig. 5 at least U-shaped portion at end of support member) that is spaced-apart from the pan (40), the U-shaped support being fixed to portions of the frame that extend rearward of the rear axle (see Fig. 5; U-shaped portion touching lead line 38 extends out of the page or leftward with respect to axle portions 10).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kiser, Watters, and Moore teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Kiser teaches that that extender (302) has a component (306) that, when the extender is in the raised position (see Fig. 10) and the hatch (202) is in the closed position, functions in the manner of the mating component (see paragraph [0032]; latch member 306 defines an opening which mates with a pin 310 for securing).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kiser, Watters, and Moore teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Watters teaches that the wheelchair receiver (recessed portion at 40, 46; see Fig. 19) is shaped and dimensioned to receive a wheelchair (58) and a seated user of the wheelchair (56), and the extender is shaped and dimensioned to permit the wheelchair and a seated user of the wheelchair to be wheeled to the wheelchair receiver when the hatch (66) is in the open position and the extender is in the lowered position (see paragraph [0082] and Fig. 11).
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the Objection to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 29 July 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the Objection to the Claims 2-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of 29 July 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the Rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 29 July 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kiser.
Claims 1-2 and 4 were previously rejected over Watters in view of Moore.
Claim 3 was previously rejected over the combination of Watters, Moore, and Kiser.
Applicant notes that claim 1 has been amended to recite “removing from the vehicle that portion of the frame, rearward of the rear axle, that lies above the notional wheelchair ramp, without removing the rear axle.” Applicant asserts Watters does not disclose such, and that Watters teaches removing a rear axle to facilitate conversion.
The examiner agrees that Watters teaches removing a rear axle. A new rejection is presented in view of Kiser, which teaches that its wheelchair ramp module components may be designed to avoid interference with vehicle components such as the rear axle.
Applicant separately argues that Watters does not disclose a U-shaped support being fixed to portions of the original vehicle frame that extend rearward of the rear axle. Applicant points to Figure 25 as showing the support frame “is clearly not fixed to portions of the original vehicle frame that extends rearward of the rear axle.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Frame 38 is shown in Figure 5, with a U-shaped portion thereof extending around a floor portion 40 in a rearward direction (out of the page in Figure 5) relative to the axle portion (10) of the vehicle. Figure 6 appears to show a supplemental frame portion 38a which also extends rearwardly of the rear axle. The examiner agrees that Figure 25 illustrates a support frame which is not attached to the vehicle, however the Figure was cited for showing more clearly the geometry of the frame, not for showing the frame relative attached to a rear axle.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the additional language in paragraph [0042] which recites “and is located rearward of the rear axle, without removing the rear axle” includes a negative limitation not previously supported by the Specification as filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/12/2025