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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 4/13/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Kim and claim 11 and 20, Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose a modular system or a cross-design floor assembly. However, these are terms Applicant has used without any further structure recited to give them meaning. Applicant has recited the claim language as two different design variants, but makes no mention of cross-design floor assembly being configured to selectively receive an energy storage extending below both the main floor and the rear floor or both an energy storage device extending only below the main floor and a fuel tank extending below the rear floor.
The phrase “modular system” also has no meaning without further explanation in the body of the claims. Modular could be interpreted as the floor receiving fuel tank modules and battery modules.
As currently recited, Applicant is simply indicating that variations in design are conceivable. Hence, the interpretation of the claims as including non-elected inventions. Applicant is suggested to use language other than “design variant” to indicate a real-world application of the invention in terms of meaningful structural limitations. The examiner suggests language such as “configured to” (as used above) or “adapted to” in order to structurally recite the limitations Applicant appears to be attempting to recite.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(d) rejection have been considered and found to be persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights