DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/11/2026 have been entered. No new matter has been added. Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Claims 1, 3, 5-15 are rejected. The drawing objection has been overcome.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/11/2026 have been entered. No new matter has been added.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues against the previous rejection to claim 4, because the limitations of that claim have been rolled up into claim 1 by amendment.
Applicant specifically argues against the tertiary reference Yokoyama teaching, “a middle cross member connecting the inner side members to each other.” Applicant correctly points out that the previous office action cited the frame bars 33 as the plurality of inner side members and the cover 3 as the middle cross member which connects the frame bars 33 together.
Applicant then argues that the cover 3 does not actually connect the frame bars together. Instead, applicant claims that the cover 3 “is merely positioned on top of the frame bars, as shown in Fig. 5 of Yokoyama . . . it only connects to the battery frame 30 to cover an internal space of the housing case 2” (emphasis in original). This argument is not persuasive. Figures 3-5 teach the cover connected to the frame bars through seat brackets 35 and insertion holes 7a. This is also taught by column 6 lines 8-12 “In the state in which the cover 3 is attached to the battery frame 30, the insertion holes 7a, 7a formed in the top surface portion 7 of the cover 3 are located directly above the attachment holes 35a, 35a of the seat brackets 35, 35 fixed to the middle bars 33Y, 33Y, respectively.” Figure 10 further teaches front attached portions 41a connecting insertion holes 7a and seat brackets 35. Thus, the argument that the cover is merely positioned on top of the frame bars is not persuasive.
Regarding claims 3, and 5-15, applicant argues that these claims are allowable at least because of their dependency on claim 1. Because claim 1 remains rejected, this argument is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawing objection to the “spaced apart frame side members provided at opposite lateral sides of the battery” of claim 1 has been overcome by adding element 20 to figure 3. This change does not constitute new matter as it was fully supported in the specification filed on 3/13/2023 “Next, the frame rear side members 100, which are portions of the opposite frame side members mentioned above, extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and may constitute rear ends 20 of the opposite frame side members” (paragraph 42).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge (GB 2287679 A) in view of Kim (US 20210061369 A1) and in further view of Yokoyama (US 12304294 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kosuge teaches a vehicle frame assembly, the vehicle frame assembly comprising:
a rear floor panel (6 “rear floor panel” taught in figure 1) extending in a transverse direction of a vehicle, located at a rear space (taught by figure 1), wherein opposite ends of the rear floor panel extend and are bent outward and a center portion of the rear floor panel is depressed downward to provide a boarding space (taught by figure 1); and
frame rear side members (13 “rear frames” taught in figure 1) extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, each of the frame rear side members having a front end and a back end connected to each other with the front end disposed lower than the back end (taught by figure 2);
an inner cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle, and connecting the front ends of the frame rear side members to each other, wherein the inner cross member is coupled to the frame rear side members by first rear mounting parts (14 “middle floor cross member” taught in figure 2);
a rear cross member (21 “cross member” taught in figure 2); and
wherein the front end has a height that is the same as a height of the boarding space depressed downward (taught by figures 1 and 2) and the back end is coupled to the rear floor panel in one direction to support the rear floor panel from below (taught by figures 1 and 2 and by 21-1 “flanges” taught in figures 4 and 5 and page 7 “Connection of the flanges 21-1, 21-1 to the bottom face of the rear floor panel 6 (see Fig. 3) forms a nearly rectangular cross section with its top closed”).
However, Kosuge does not teach that the rear floor panel located at a rear space rearward of a battery, nor
rear ends of spaced apart frame side members provided at opposite lateral sides of the battery.
Kim teaches that the rear floor panel is located at a rear space rearward of a battery (30 “battery” taught in figure 2), and
rear ends of spaced apart frame side members provided at opposite lateral sides of the battery (140 “rear cross reinforcement panel,” and 150 “intermediate floor upper panel” taught in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the battery with the spaced apart frame side members of Kim into the vehicle frame assembly of Kosuge, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a battery would enable the vehicle to be a hybrid or electric vehicle, and the spaced apart frame side members would make the battery less likely to be damaged in a car accident.
Neither Kosuge nor Kim teach a plurality of inner side members extending in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and connecting a rear cross member and the inner cross member to each other; and a middle cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle and connecting the plurality of inner side members to each other.
Yokoyama teaches a plurality of inner side members extending in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (33 “middle bars” taught in figure 3), and connecting a rear cross member (32 “second frame bar” taught in figure 3) and the inner cross member (31 “first frame bar” taught in figure 3) to each other; and a middle cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle and connecting the plurality of inner side members to each other (3 “cover” taught in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the inner side members and middle cross member of Yokoyama onto the rear cross member and inner cross member of Kosuge, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the addition of inner side members would increase the strength of the vehicle frame assembly, allowing it to better resist impacts during a car accident.
Regarding claim 3, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches wherein the inner cross member is coupled to the frame rear side members in a vertical bolted manner (39 “bolt” taught by figure 3 and by claim 15 “wherein a nut member is vertically inserted through a bottom plate of said bracket and a bottom plate of said side member for securing a said sub-frame”).
Regarding claim 5, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches a center floor panel (2 “front floor panel” taught in figure 1) located at a front space forward of the rear floor panel and an upper space above the battery (taught by figure 1), wherein the center floor panel and the rear floor panel have flat structures and are connected to each other in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (taught by figure 1 and paragraph 1 of page 5“The front wall 8 consists of a bottom flange 8-1 which is connected to the back end of the front floor panel 2”).
Regarding claim 6, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches a rear cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle and connecting the back ends of the frame rear side members to each other, wherein the rear cross member is coupled to the frame rear side members by second rear mounting parts (21 “cross member” taught in figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches wherein cross mounting parts provided at opposite ends of the rear cross member are respectively coupled to the second rear mounting parts in a vertical bolted manner (39 “bolt” taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches wherein opposite ends of the rear cross member extend are bent outward and a center portion of the rear cross member is depressed downward to support the rear floor panel from below (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches further comprising: a frame cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle and connecting middle parts of the frame rear side members to each other (14 “middle floor cross member” taught in figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge in view of Kim also teaches wherein the battery is provided between the opposite frame side members (the obviousness rejection to claim 1 above puts the battery between frame side members) and at a front space forward of the frame cross member (the obviousness rejection to claim 1 above puts the rear floor panel backward from the battery and the frame cross member 14 is towards the back of the rear floor panel).
Regarding claim 13, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge in view of Kim also teaches a battery rear cross member extending in the transverse direction of the vehicle and supporting the battery from behind (the obviousness rejection to claim 1 above incorporates Kim’s 140 “rear cross reinforcement panel,” taught in figure 4, into the vehicle frame assembly of Kosuge).
Regarding claim 14, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kosuge also teaches wherein a middle part of each of the frame rear side members extends in a diagonally upward direction to connect the front end and the back end thereof to each other so that the front end is lower than the back end and so that an upper surface of the front end and an upper surface of the rear end thereof are parallel to each other (taught by figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However Kosuge does not teach a reinforcement member protruding upward from the rear floor panel, and with an end that extends and is bent outward, wherein an upper end surface of the reinforcement member and the rear floor panel are parallel to each other.
Kim teaches a reinforcement member protruding upward from the rear floor panel, and with an end that extends and is bent outward, wherein an upper end surface of the reinforcement member and the rear floor panel are parallel to each other (taught by annotated figure 6 attached below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the reinforcement member of Kim onto the rear floor panel of Kosuge, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the reinforcement member could help support the battery of Kosuge in view of Kim, particularly from vertical forces in the case of a car accident.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge (GB 2287679 A) in view of Kim (US 20210061369 A1), in further view of Yokoyama (US 12304294 B2), and Yao (CN 107651021 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Kosuge also teaches wherein outer lateral portions of the rear cross member are respectively coupled to quarter D pillar parts in a sectional coupling manner, so that the rear cross member, the rear floor panel, and the frame rear side members constitute a load path with respect to a vehicle side collision.
Yao teaches wherein outer lateral portions of the rear cross member are respectively coupled to quarter D pillar (2-17 “vehicle D-pillar structure” taught in figure 6) parts in a sectional coupling manner, so that the rear cross member, the rear floor panel, and the frame rear side members constitute a load path with respect to a vehicle side collision (taught in figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the quarter D-pillar of Yao onto the vehicle frame assembly of Kosuge, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Kosuge does not teach any pillar structure for the vehicle, and a quarter D-pillar is typical of a station wagon or SUV structure, adding additional support for the roof and rear window.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge (GB 2287679 A) in view of Kim (US 20210061369 A1), and in further view of Yokoyama (US 12304294 B2), and Perlo (US 9649923 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Kosuge in view of Kim and in further view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle frame assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, neither Kosuge nor Kim teach spring seats supporting the frame rear side members from below and allowing the frame rear side members to be elastically supported in an upward direction; and shock absorbers each connected to the front end and the back end of each of the frame rear side members and configured to absorb a vertical impact of the vehicle.
Perlo teaches spring seats supporting the frame rear side members from below and allowing the frame rear side members to be elastically supported in an upward direction (38 “shock absorber device” taught in figures 2, 3, and 5b); and shock absorbers each connected to the front end and the back end of each of the frame rear side members and configured to absorb a vertical impact of the vehicle (34 “bottom arm” taught in figures 1, 2, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the spring seats and shock absorbers of Perlo onto the frame rear side members of Kosuge, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Kosuge does not teach any shock absorber structure. Shock absorbers are standard in most motor vehicles, providing a smoother ride and helping the vehicle absorb vertical impacts.
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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights