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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered.
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. Reciting “comprising a kit of interchangeable components for assembling motor vehicles” does not clarify the invention. A “group of vehicles . . . comprising a kit” is indefinite and could be read as multiple vehicles in addition to a kit of components distinct from said group of vehicles. The claim does not recite a comprehensive list of components (as would be expected in a “kit” claim). Rather, the claim language attempts to limit the way in which some of the listed components may be arranged into different drive concepts, which would be appropriate in a method claim.
The limits of the alleged “kit of components” is unclear. The dependent claims recite further vehicle components (e.g., fuel tank, seats, rear axle, housing), not as components of the “kit” but as part of distinct vehicles in the group of vehicles.
It is unclear how the limitation “the motor vehicle group comprises a standardized platform architecture for manufacturing vehicles of a single vehicle type” relates to the structure that is actually claimed. The limitation appears to refer to a group of distinct vehicles, not to a kit of interchangeable components.
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”. It is unclear if a battery (or multiple different batteries?) is part of the claimed “kit of components”. The claims do not define 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 April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims still recite “a motor vehicle group” and “a standardized platform architecture for manufacturing motor vehicles of a single vehicle type” in addition to “a kit of components”. The claims do not recite a plurality of components which may be assembled into a single vehicle. Rather, the claims list an assortment of some of the components required to assemble a variety of motor vehicles. Applicant’s arguments of the inventive concept appear to be directed to a method of selecting from said components in order to assemble an undefined number of vehicles.
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 step of substituting a stiffening add on component for battery stiffening in a different floor panel assembly) are not required by the apparatus claims. The claims are not directed to a method of selecting from a group of floor panel assemblies based on a drive concept, determining if frame stiffness is lacking based on the absence of a battery, and substituting an add-on component. As applicant argues, the claims are merely directed to a “kit” or list of components. The prior art discloses said components and need not teach a method of comparing different components and determining which component to use or not.
The claims are written broadly and indefinitely. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The prior art cited meets the limitations as claimed, at least as far as they are understood given that the claims do not clearly define how said components are used together.
Conclusion
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, 9 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
Prosecution Insights