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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Nuessle discloses a modular system using standardized modules for a drive arrangement and not a cross-design floor assembly. This is not found persuasive because clearly, the vehicle designs disclosed by Nuessle would each inherently include a floor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the design variation of Fig. 4 only includes batteries 14 which are at a lower height than the fuel tank 28/battery 14 combination of Fig. 2 the floor used in the Fig. 4 design could be designed at a lower height that that of the floor of Fig. 2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/15/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 40 (as mentioned in paragraph [0045] and in the list of reference signs in Applicant’s specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 11, Applicant recites a first design variant in which an energy storage device extends below the main floor and the rear floor and a second design variant in which a n energy storage extends only below the main floor and fa fuel tank extends below the rear floor. Thus, the second design variant fails to include all the limitations of the first design variant.
Claim 20 has a similar problem.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0105991).
With respect to claim 11, Kim discloses a modular system for an energy storage device floor assembly for an electrically operatable passenger car, comprising: a cross-design floor assembly comprising a main floor 10 and a rear floor 20, wherein:
in a first design variant for a passenger car with an exclusively electric drive, an energy storage device extends below both the main floor and the rear floor, and (this variant is directed to a non-elected invention)
in a second design variant for a passenger car with a hybrid drive, an energy storage device 30b extends only below the main floor 10, and a fuel tank 50 extends below the rear floor 20 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Kim).
With respect to claims 20, Kim discloses method for producing an energy storage device floor assembly for an electrically operatable passenger car via a modular system, the method comprising:
equipping in a cross-design variant floor assembly having a main floor 10 and a rear floor 20:
(i) either in a first design variant for a passenger car with an exclusively electric drive, an energy storage device which extends below both the main floor and the rear floor, (this variant is directed to a non-elected invention) or
(ii) in a second design variant for a passenger car with a hybrid drive, an energy storage device 30b which extends only below the main floor 10, and with a fuel tank 50 which extends below the rear floor 20 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Kim).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0105991) in view of Park (KR 2020-0094387).
With respect to claim 12, Kim discloses the claimed modular system except that they are silent on the inclusion of an exhaust system. However, Park teaches a similar modular system for an energy storage device floor assembly including an energy storage device and a fuel tank, and further including , in the region of a main floor 5, a tunnel 8, and an exhaust system 15 that extends at least over a length portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Park) in the second design variant for the passenger car with the hybrid drive.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Park with the modular system disclosed by Kim for the advantage of exhausting any waste gasses from the internal combustion engine to the rear of the vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0105991) in view of Salz-Breuer et al. (US 2017/0246943).
With respect to claim 14, Kim discloses the claimed modular system except for the tunnel formed in the energy storage device. However, Salz-Breuer et al. teach a similar hybrid vehicle including an energy storage device 4 wherein a tunnel 15 is formed in the energy storage device 4 (Salz-Breuer et al.; paragraph [0049]; Figs. 6-7).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Salz-Breuer et al. with the modular system disclosed by Kim for the advantage of an exhaust system that does not protrude beyond the underside of the traction battery, which guarantees an improved ground clearance of the motor vehicle (Salz-Breuer et al., paragraph [0049]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0105991) in view of Breu et al. (US 2022/0281543).
With respect to claim 18, Kim discloses the claimed modular system except for the shear panel and front subframe. However, Breu et al. disclose a similar modular system including a design variant-specific shear panel 75 arranged at a front end of a respective energy storage device 60 (Breu et al., paragraph [0189]; Fig. 7), the design variant-specific shear panel 75 being fastened to the floor assembly 12a/12b (via battery 60, Breu et al., Fig. 2b) and the respective energy storage device 60 (at brackets 66) and to a front subframe 70a/70b (Breu et al., paragraph [0189]; Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the struts are provided which are connected, on the one hand, to corresponding side sills and to the energy storage device and, on the other hand, to a rear subframe.
The closest prior art to claim 17 is Yamaguchi. However, Yamaguchi does not disclose an energy storage device extending below the main floor, or struts which are connected to the energy storage device.
Claim 19 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for shear panel having a cutout for an exhaust system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612