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 § 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) 19, 20, and 23 – 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 10,099,546) in view of Czech et al. (DE 10 2016 222 824 B4).
As for claims 19 and 20, Hara et al. disclose an electric vehicle comprising: a chassis comprising a beam (67); a traction battery (21); and a housing (89) coupled to the beam of the chassis (Fig. 9), the housing holding the traction battery and comprising a lateral flange section (96) protruding from the housing. Hara et al. do not disclose a projection and recess in form-fitting engagement.
Czech et al. disclose an electric vehicle comprising a battery housing (12) having a recess (46) with a shape complementary to a shape of a projection (44) of a support (16) such that the recess and the projection are brought into a form-fitting engagement. 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 engagement between the battery housing and support beam of Hara et al. (see 98/99) to include the projection and recess of Czech et al. to ensure proper alignment before fastening every screw.
As for claims 23 and 29, Czech et al. disclose a projection having an internal thread for receiving a screw (see screw 20 and internally-threaded end 34).
As for claims 24, 27, 30 and 33, Czech et al. disclose a frustoconical projection with a conical outer surface and complementary frustoconical recess and conical inner surface (Figs. 2 and 3). While the top surface of the projection is occupied by the central passage opening, the overall shape of the protrusion is frustoconical; therefore, the projection functions in the same was as a solid frustoconical projection having a flat top surface.
As for claims 25 and 31, Hara et al. disclose a longitudinal beam of the chassis (see “side sill” 67).
As for claims 26 and 32, Czech et al. disclose a recess defining a passage for receiving a screw (20).
As for claims 28 and 34, Czech et al. disclose a free end of a hollow cylinder opening to the recess (Figs. 2 and 3).
As for claims 35 and 36, it would have been obvious to form the projection integrally with the beam as a matter of obvious design choice. Czech et al. disclose a blind rivet nut which is fixed to a supporting surface, and therefore functions as an integral unit. It has been held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of a multi-piece structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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). Applicant argues that Czech does not disclose forming a projection on a beam of a chassis. However, Hara et al. is relied upon to teach the relative locations of the chassis beam, battery housing, and screw passage. Czech is relied upon to teach the shape of the projection and recess located at a screw passage connecting a battery housing to a support surface. Applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence that forming a projection integrally on a chassis beam (rather than on a nut attached to a chassis beam) solves a stated problem or provides an unexpected result.
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