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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed on February 18, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on November 20, 2025 have been received and entered. Claim 1 was amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 3, which was cancelled. Claim 7 and 8 were amended to incorporate similar limitations as for claim 1. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-13 in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that regardless of the particulars of any preamble (electric vehicle or battery pack), the particulars of these claims to be searched and considered include the frame (as provided) and the battery pack (as provided). Independent Claim 8 implicates these exact same particulars - the frame (as provided) and the battery pack (as provided) - simply placed in the preamble context of the frame (for the electric vehicle). These are in no way mutually exclusive and, in fact, overlap essentially completely in scope. The exact same invention is stated, just in a different context - the electric vehicle, the battery pack, and the frame. In each case, all three components are recited and necessary to the claim at issue. In all of independent Claims 1, 7, and 8, the exact same components must be searched and considered in exactly the same manner (see Remarks page 6 and 7).
The above arguments were not found persuasive because independent claim 1 discloses an electric vehicle which comprises a frame with two spaced-apart longitudinal members and a battery pack which can be connected to such frame by bolt connections between the battery pack’s longitudinal impact absorption structure and the frame longitudinal member(s) upper and lower wall member(s). Independent claim 7 discloses a battery pack which can be connected by bolts to an upper and lower part of a longitudinal sill member. Argued independent claim 8 discloses a frame for an electric vehicle comprising two spaced-apart longitudinal members and a battery pack which can be connected to such frame by bolt connections between the battery pack’s longitudinal impact absorption structure and the frame longitudinal member(s) upper and lower wall member(s). Since the electric vehicle of independent claim 1 and the battery pack of independent claim 7 are different from frame for an electric vehicle of argued independent claim 8, as presented on the Final Office Action mailed on August 5, 2026, claims 8-13 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Because of the above reason, the restriction applied to claims 8-13 is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Independent claims 1 and 7 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) and Volz, K. (US 20160006008 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, the applicant argues (see page 7 and 8) that nothing in Kawase or Volz discloses, teaches, or fairly suggests this bolted connection between the upper part of the reinforcement section and the overhanging upper wall of the longitudinal member, which serves to transfer forces at this location from the longitudinal member to the reinforcement section to the casing top plate, as provided in [0024] of the Application as filed. Related to Kawase, the figures provide no bolted connection through the overhanging upper wall of the longitudinal member, the bolt 69 used being disposed beneath and separate from, not through, the overhanging upper wall of the longitudinal member. Related to Volz, the figures likewise provide no bolted connection through the overhanging upper wall of the longitudinal member (and no bolted connection at all). In fact, the figures illustrate that the connection between the longitudinal member and the reinforcement section is made at the side facing surface of each, where these two structures contact each other. No connection is provided at the top of the reinforcement section and the bottom of the overhanging upper wall of the longitudinal member. In Volz, these areas are shown as being separated.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 and 8, filed on February 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2 and 4-6 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Kellner et al. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Kellner et al. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Kawase teaches in a third embodiment, a vehicle lower portion structure (10) which is encompass within two rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) extending along the vehicle front-rear direction at both ends of the floor panel (12) in the vehicle width direction, and a floor cross member (18) extends along the vehicle width direction between the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) above the floor panel (12) (same configuration as the first embodiment) [par. 0079-0081, 0118 and Fig. 1-2, 7-8]. The above lower portion structure (10) description can be considered a frame. The rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) have a partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) which is located at a vertical distance from the bottom plate which can be considered analogous to the vertical distance Hu [par. 0119]. In addition, the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) have a bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) which is nearer the bottom plane than the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) but separated from the bottom plane [par. 0141 and Fig. 8].
Inside the vehicle lower portion structure (10) is contained a battery pack (20) comprising battery modules (20A) (array of battery cells) (features “defining an array top surface, an array bottom surface and an array side surface” inferred). The battery pack (20) have a battery case (64) comprising a peripheral wall (66) (side wall), top plate (68) and bottom plate (70). Because it is stated that the battery pack (20) serves as a drive force supply device for supplying electric power to a power unit such as a motor, the described embodiment can be comprised by an electrical vehicle [par. 0082 and 0175].
The feature “a casing top plate contacting the array top surface, a casing bottom plate contacting the array bottom surface and a casing side wall, connected to the top and bottom plates and contacting the array side surface” is inferred [par. 0124-0125]. The case top plate (68) is situated a vertical distance Hct from the bottom plane that substantially corresponds with the distance Hu (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
507
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated version of Kawase’s Fig. 8 to identify interpreted bottom plane and vertical distances Hu and Hct.
The peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is configured to be an impact absorption member, it has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S) which extends outwardly from the inner peripheral wall portion (66B) towards the adjacent rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) [par. 0129, 0152 and Fig. 8]. The lower wall portion (66D) (lower part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70), which is connected to the rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal members) member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member (below the distance Hu) [par. 0127 and Fig. 8]. The upper part portion (66C) (upper part) is spaced apart from the spaced apart from an inner surface of the rocker panel (63 or 65) (longitudinal members).
Kawase does not teach the feature wherein the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct, wherein the upper part of the reinforcement section extends below an upper wall of the longitudinal member and is connected to the upper wall via a bolt connection through the upper part and the upper wall”.
Kellner teaches a vehicle (1), which can be driven electrically or partially electrically, having a vehicle body (2) which, arranged in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (1), has a body structure (4) on the side and a traction battery (3) further inside, and at least one mounting element (7) for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2) [Abstract and Fig. 1 and 3]. The mounting element is suitable for transferring loads in a side crash from the vehicle body, in particular the body structure, to those areas of the traction battery that can support these loads without major deformation [0008]. In the area of each body sill (5), a mounting element (7) extending essentially over the length of the traction battery (3) in the X direction is provided for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2), specifically the body structure (4) [0031]. A screw (10) passes through a through hole (13) in the mounting element (7), a through hole (14) in the traction battery (3), specifically a housing (15) of the traction battery (3), and a through hole (16) in the extension (6) [0033 and Fig. 1]. The previously described connection is identified as the detachable connection (8) [0031]. It is taught that the described screw detachable connection is advantageous because these connections are relatively lightweight and makes the assembly of both the respective mounting element and the traction battery much easier [0015].
Kawase is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a vehicle comprising a frame with two spaced-apart longitudinal members having an upper transversely oriented wall member that is situated a vertical distance Hu from a bottom plane and a lower transversely oriented wall member that is situated nearer the bottom plane than the upper transversely oriented wall member but separated from the bottom plane; a battery pack with an array of battery cells and a casing, wherein the casing top plate being situated a vertical distance Hct from the bottom plane that substantially corresponds with the distance Hu; the battery pack comprising a longitudinal impact absorption structure comprising the casing side wall and a reinforcement section extending outwardly from the side wall towards the adjacent longitudinal member and having a lower part, connected to the longitudinal member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member below the distance Hu.
Kellner is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electric vehicle having a frame and a traction battery detachably connected to an extending part of a sill member.
If a detachable connection (8) as taught by Kellner is implemented between the impact absorption member, upper wall portion (66C) and the upper hanging portion of the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) right over it, the claimed limitation will be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle frame of Kawase to include the feature wherein the upper part is “connected to the longitudinal member adjacent to the upper wall member at the distance Hct, wherein the upper part of the reinforcement section extends below an upper wall of the longitudinal member and is connected to the upper wall via a bolt connection through the upper part and the upper wall”, because Kellner teaches that that the described screw detachable connection is advantageous because these connections are relatively lightweight and makes the assembly of both the respective mounting element and the traction battery much easier.
Regarding claim 2, Kawase and Kellner teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kawase further teaches that the peripheral wall (66) (side wall and impact absorption member) has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S). The lower wall potion (66D) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70) by welding or riveting and it extends below the bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) of the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members). The lower wall potion (66D)-bottom plate (70) piece is connected to the bottom wall portion (24E) (lower transversely oriented wall member) via a bolt connection (32) through its end (30) [0088, 0127 and Fig. 8].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Kellner et al. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rawlinson et al. (US 20120153682 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kawase and Kellner teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kawase further teaches that the battery case (64) has a top plate (68) to which the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) of the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) extends over its plane [0125 and Fig. 8].
Kawase does not teach where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm”.
Rawlinson teaches a single piece vehicle rocker panel, which may be configured to provide a mounting surface for a battery pack enclosure, where the rocker panel is configured to allow the battery pack enclosure to be bolted to the rocker panel [0008, 0013 and Fig. 1-2]. On Fig. 3, is taught a rocker (301) (longitudinal member analogous) preferably having a height between 200-275 mm (20-27 cm) [par. 0024]. Based on the example shown on Fig. 6, the rocker (301) (longitudinal member analogous), has a mounting flange (319) (upper part analogous) which extends partially from internal wall (313) above the battery pack (205) (top plate feature inferred) [0029-0030]. It would be reasonably to infer that the feature where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm” is an easy to meet design parameter, considering the battery and car frame fixing properties of such rockers and the preferential height range. It is taught that the vehicle rocker panel having a mounting flange (319) (upper part analogous) which extends partially over the battery pack (205), may be configured to provide a mounting surface for the vehicle's floor panel, wherein the floor panel may be bolted or welded to the mounting flange [0011].
Rawlinson is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a single piece vehicle rocker panel, which may be configured to provide a mounting surface for a battery pack enclosure, where the rocker panel is configured to allow the battery pack enclosure to be bolted to the rocker panel.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle frame of Kawase and Kellner to include the feature where the “upper part of the longitudinal members extends a distance Hwc above the plane of the top plate that is not higher than 10 cm”, because Rawlinson teaches a rocker configuration with a preferential heigh range which can met the referred feature and may be configured to provide a mounting surface for the vehicle's floor panel, wherein the floor panel may be bolted or welded to its mounting flange.
Regarding claim 5, Kawase, Kellner and Rawlinson teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. From claim 1 discussion and Fig. 8, no cross beams extend between the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal members) at the level of the top plate (68).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Kellner et al. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of He et al. (CN 111009629 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 6, Kawase and Kellner teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except where “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively”.
He teaches a battery pack employable on an electrical vehicle [Abstract]. In one embodiment, single cells (203) are arranged as a battery assembly (200) which is then disposed in a shell (100) (case). The bonding between the single cells (203) and between the single cells (203) and the shell (100) (case) is optimized by using a structural adhesive, preferably by glue injection, so that the inside of the battery pack (300) is firmly formed into a whole [Abstract, 0150 and Fig. 12-13]. In addition, by gluing the top and bottom surfaces of the plurality of single cells (203) to the inner surface of the shell (100) (case) respectively, the battery pack (300) can be designed as an integral structure [par. 0172]. Based on the above descriptions, the feature “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively” can be reasonably considered met. It is taught that by achieving an integral structure, the battery pack (300) is designed to be a structural member with extremely high rigidity, thereby greatly improving the rigidity and strength of the battery pack (300) and enhancing the mechanical safety and reliability. When in use, the structural strength of the integral battery pack (300) is used as part of the structural strength of the entire vehicle.
He is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery pack employable on electrical vehicles having its battery array adhesively connected to its housing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Kawase and Kellner to include the feature “the top plate, bottom plate and side walls being adhesively connected to the array top surface, the array bottom surface and the array side surfaces, respectively”, because He teaches that it can achieve an integral structure for the battery pack, thereby greatly improving the rigidity and strength of the battery pack and enhancing the mechanical safety and reliability. When in use, the structural strength of the integral battery pack is used as part of the structural strength of the entire vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (US 20180312200 A1) in view of Kellner et al. (DE 102018130068 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 7, Kawase teaches in a third embodiment, a vehicle lower portion structure (10) which is encompass within two rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal sill members) extending along the vehicle front-rear direction at both ends of the floor panel (12) in the vehicle width direction, and a floor cross member (18) extends along the vehicle width direction between the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal sill members) above the floor panel (12) (same configuration as the first embodiment) [par. 0079-0081, 0118 and Fig. 1-2, 7-8]. The rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal sill members) have a partition wall (25) (upper wall) which is located at a vertical distance from the bottom plate [par. 0119]. In addition, the rocker panels (63 and 65) (longitudinal sill members) have a bottom wall portion (24E) (lower wall) which is nearer the bottom plane (see Figure 1 below) [par. 0141 and Fig. 8].
Inside the vehicle lower portion structure (10) is contained a battery pack (20) comprising battery modules (20A) (array of battery cells) (features “defining an array top surface, an array bottom surface and an array side surface” inferred). The battery pack (20) have a battery case (64) comprising a peripheral wall (66) (side wall), top plate (68) and bottom plate (70). Because it is stated that the battery pack (20) serves as a drive force supply device for supplying electric power to a power unit such as a motor, the described embodiment can be comprised by an electrical vehicle [par. 0082 and 0175].
The feature “a casing top plate contacting the array top surface, a casing bottom plate contacting the array bottom surface and a casing side wall, connected to the top and bottom plates and contacting the array side surface” is inferred [par. 0124-0125].
PNG
media_image1.png
507
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated version of Kawase’s Fig. 8 to identify interpreted bottom plane and vertical distances Hu and Hct.
The peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is configured to be an impact absorption member, it has a reinforcement structure formed by wall portions (66A-66S) which extends outwardly from the inner peripheral wall portion (66B) towards the adjacent rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal sill members) [par. 0129, 0152 and Fig. 8]. The lower wall portion (66D) (lower part) of the peripheral wall (66) (side wall) is fixed to the vehicle lower portion structure (10) bottom plate (70), which is connected to the rocker panels (63 and/or 65) (longitudinal sill members) member at a height adjacent to bottom plane [par. 0127 and Fig. 8]. The upper part portion (66C) (upper part) is spaced apart from the spaced apart from an inner surface of the rocker panel (63 or 65) (longitudinal sill members) and extends below the partition wall (25) (upper wall) (see Figure 1 above).
Kawase does not teach the feature wherein the upper part have “a connection member that is adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate, wherein the upper part is connected to the upper wall via a bolt connection through the upper part and the upper wall”.
Kellner teaches a vehicle (1), which can be driven electrically or partially electrically, having a vehicle body (2) which, arranged in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (1), has a body structure (4) on the side and a traction battery (3) further inside, and at least one mounting element (7) for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2) [Abstract and Fig. 1 and 3]. The mounting element is suitable for transferring loads in a side crash from the vehicle body, in particular the body structure, to those areas of the traction battery that can support these loads without major deformation [0008]. In the area of each body sill (5), a mounting element (7) extending essentially over the length of the traction battery (3) in the X direction is provided for fastening the traction battery (3) to the vehicle body (2), specifically the body structure (4) [0031]. A screw (10) passes through a through hole (13) in the mounting element (7), a through hole (14) in the traction battery (3), specifically a housing (15) of the traction battery (3), and a through hole (16) in the extension (6) [0033 and Fig. 1]. The previously described connection is identified as the detachable connection (8) [0031]. It is taught that the described screw detachable connection is advantageous because these connections are relatively lightweight and makes the assembly of both the respective mounting element and the traction battery much easier [0015].
Kawase is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a vehicle comprising a frame with two spaced-apart longitudinal members having an upper transversely oriented wall member that is situated a vertical distance Hu from a bottom plane and a lower transversely oriented wall member that is situated nearer the bottom plane than the upper transversely oriented wall member but separated from the bottom plane; a battery pack with an array of battery cells and a casing, wherein the casing top plate being situated a vertical distance Hct from the bottom plane that substantially corresponds with the distance Hu; the battery pack comprising a longitudinal impact absorption structure comprising the casing side wall and a reinforcement section extending outwardly from the side wall towards the adjacent longitudinal member and having a lower part, connected to the longitudinal member at a height adjacent to the lower wall member below the distance Hu.
Kellner is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electric vehicle having a frame and a traction battery detachably connected to an extending part of a sill member.
If a detachable connection (8) as taught by Kellner is implemented between the impact absorption member, upper wall portion (66C) and the upper hanging portion of the partition wall (25) (upper transversely oriented wall member) right over it, the claimed limitation will be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle frame of Kawase to include the feature wherein the upper part have “a connection member that is adapted to be connected to the longitudinal sill member adjacent to the top plate at a height of the top plate, wherein the upper part is connected to the upper wall via a bolt connection through the upper part and the upper wall”, because Kellner teaches that that the described screw detachable connection is advantageous because these connections are relatively lightweight and makes the assembly of both the respective mounting element and the traction battery much easier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights