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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art is to use the invention. A “group of vehicles” has not been clearly defined in the claims. The specification describes a motor vehicle group as “entirety of motor vehicles of one vehicle type, regardless of the drive concept” (paragraph [0004]). It is unclear how such a group is to be used or how such a broadly stated group constitutes a single invention. Since it is unclear how many vehicles are claimed, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill is to use the claimed components to assemble one or more vehicles.
Claims 12 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 12, it is unclear how many vehicle are claimed. 35 U.S.C. 101 provides for one patent for one invention. Applicant appears to be claiming three distinct inventions (a combustion drive vehicle, an electric drive vehicle, and a hybrid drive vehicle). The claim recites a “ motor vehicle group” though it is unclear how the vehicles are usable together.
Claim 12 recites “two floor panel assemblies” (i.e., not two types of floor panel assembly”) and goes on to recite multiple vehicles having the same floor panel assembly, which implies multiple vehicle sharing the same structural element. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein each floor panel assembly has an identical installation position in the motor vehicle relative to the front longitudinal members” is indefinite. As above, it is unclear how many motor vehicles are claimed. It is unclear how two floor panel assemblies may have “identical installation position[s]” on three or more vehicles.
Claim 16 recites “wherein at least some of the same bolting points of the plurality of bolting points are utilized for connecting the different batteries”. The claims do no positively recite batteries, nor what constitutes “different batteries”, or whether the “different batteries” are bolted to the cross members at the same time, or if one type of battery is replaced with another.
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) 12 – 14 and 17 – 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dzemal (DE 10 2011 012 496 A1) in view of Ashraf et al. (US 2017/0001507 A1).
As best understood, Dzemal and Ashraf meet all the limitations of the claimed invention.
As for claim 12, Dzemal discloses three different drive concepts comprising: an internal combustion engine ("combustion drive", Fig. 5b), an electric motor ("electric drive", Fig. 3), and a combination of an internal combustion engine and at least one electric motor ("hybrid drive", Fig. 5a). A motor vehicle group of motor vehicles may be formed, each motor vehicle having one of said drive concepts in combination with a uniform front end assembly (see Fig. 3).
Said uniform front end assembly comprises front longitudinal members (Fig. 3). Each drive concept comprises one of two floor panel assemblies, a height of which is identical in an installation position in the motor vehicle (see Figs. 5a – 5c). Body-in-white structures of the "electric drive" motor vehicles have a first of the two floor panel assemblies. Body-in-white structures of the "internal combustion engine" motor vehicles and the "hybrid drive" motor vehicles each have a second of the two floor panel assemblies. (Note that the first and second floor panel assemblies, as claimed, need not be structurally different).
The motor vehicles with "electric drive" and the motor vehicles with "hybrid drive" have at least one battery (21) arranged over a large area under the floor panel assembly. Each floor panel assembly comprises two side longitudinal members (13), a front cross member (15) connecting front end portions of the side longitudinal members, a rear cross member (15) connecting rear end regions of the side longitudinal members, and at least one middle cross member (17) connecting the two side longitudinal members. The middle cross member is arranged between the front and rear cross members so as to form at least two frame portions (7a, 7b) delimited by the side longitudinal members and the cross members.
Dzemal is silent with respect to the connecting region between the front cross member and the front longitudinal members. Ashraf et al. disclose a motor vehicle floor pan assembly wherein the front cross member (158) and its connecting region with the front longitudinal members (120, 122) are formed in such a way that forces are introduced from the front longitudinal members into the front cross member without overlap of the connecting region with the side longitudinal members of the floor panel assemblies. Frame portions are stiffened by at least one battery and/or a stiffening add-on component (160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Dzemal as taught by Ashraf et al. to provide additional structural stability.
As for claim 13, Ashraf et al. disclose a stiffening add-on component connected to longitudinal members (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to use bolts, as bolting is an old and well-known means of connecting vehicle frame components.
As for claim 14, Dzemal discloses a flat closure component (9).
As for claim 17, Dzemal discloses a fuel tank (43).
As for claims 18 – 20, Dzemal discloses a fuel tank and batteries extending over part of, and virtually the entire, width of the floor panel assembly (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to arrange the fuel tank and battery side by side as a matter of obvious design choice, as the floor panel assembly of Dzemal is designed to be modular. Dzemal further discloses arranging an exhaust system in a free space between the batteries and fuel tank (see page 5 of the attached translation).
As for claims 21 – 23, the batteries of Dzemal extend to a region below the rear seats and have a greater height in the rear region (Fig. 2).
As for claim 24, Dzemal discloses a housing for vehicle components of a combustion drive (see Fig. 5b).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dzemal (DE 10 2011 012 496 A1) in view of Ashraf et al. (US 2017/0001507 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lionel (WO 2012/117204 A1).
Dzemal and Ashraf et al. meet all the limitations of the claimed invention but are silent with respect to the means of fastening the batteries to the floor. Lionel teaches a hole pattern with a plurality of bolting points for fixing different batteries (Figs. 4B and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the assembly of Dzemal to include the bolt hole pattern of Lionel in order to accommodate a variety of batteries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation “motor vehicle group” is not indefinite. The presence of the limitation in distinct claims in other patents does not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). A “group” of patentably distinct vehicles does not constitute a single invention. The vehicles are not usable together and are not obvious of variants of one another. Applicant argued that the claims are comparable to a kit claim. The claims are not comparable to a kit claim, as the claims do not recite a kit, nor do they recite a plurality of components which may be assembled into a single vehicle. Rather, the present claims attempt to encompass multiple vehicles. The specification does not describe the “kit” of components or the group of vehicles in such a way to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention. Applicant has provided no explanation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art is to use multiple vehicles (which happen to have some uniform components) as a single invention. The invention appears to be directed to a kit of components which may be assembled into one of three body-in-white structures, but this is not reflected in the claims as written.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the nature or construction of the front end assembly, accommodations for a drive shaft, construction/configuration of floor panel assemblies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 12 does not recite any details of the front end assembly apart from “longitudinal members”. Therefore, the only part of the front end assemblies of the prior art that need be “uniform” are the longitudinal members. Additionally, the floor panel assemblies may be considered “structurally different” if they comprise, for example, different mounts for the associated components of each drive concept.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ashraf et al. are relied upon to disclose the connecting region between a floor panel assembly and front longitudinal members.
As noted above, and in the interview on October 10, 2025, the claims are written broadly and indefinitely. The prior art cited meets the limitations as claimed, at least as far as they are understood given the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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 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.
/Katy M Ebner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613