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
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 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (DE 102004027783 B4) in view of Hamilton et al. (Patent No. 9,926,017).
Re: claim 9, Fischer teaches a motor vehicle body for an electrically drivable motor vehicle, comprising: a front wall (Fig. 1 - 7) at a front end of a passenger compartment (Fig. 1 - 8); a vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 14) which merges into the front wall (Fig. 1 - 7) at the front end of the passenger compartment (Fig. 1 - 8); respective longitudinal members (Fig. 1 - 5 & 6) of a front-end structure (Fig. 1 - 2) which are attached at their rear ends (Annotated Fig. 1 - 5E & 6E) thereof to the front wall (Fig. 1 - 7) and to the vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 14) at respective connection points (Annotated Fig. 1 - 7C), wherein the vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 14) has a respective embossment (Fig. 1 - 16) formed upwardly in a vertical vehicle direction (Annotated Fig. 1 - Z) behind the respective connection points (Annotated Fig. 1 - 7C) to the rear ends (Annotated Fig. 1 - 5E & 6E) of the longitudinal members (Fig. 1 - 5 & 6), the embossment (Fig. 1 – 16) being configured so that deformation of the vehicle floor (14), when a respective longitudinal member (5 & 6) rotates about a vehicle transverse axis in an event of an accident-related application of force and moment, does not contact the underside of the vehicle floor (See Note below), and/or the respective connection points (Annotated Fig. 1 - 7C) of the rear ends (Annotated Fig. 1 - 5E & 6E) of the longitudinal members (Fig. 1 - 5 & 6) to the vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 14) have a targeted weakened portion (Fig. 1 - 15). Fischer fails to teach an energy store arranged below the vehicle floor, said energy store being arranged with a front end below the rear ends of the longitudinal members.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hamilton et al. teaches having an energy store (Fig. 4 - 22) arranged below the vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 24), this energy store being arranged with a front end (Annotated Fig. 4 - 22F) below the rear ends (Annotated Fig. 1 – 52E & 54E) of the longitudinal members (Fig. 3 - 52 & 54).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
270
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fischer and Hamilton et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fischer’s apparatus with those of Hamilton et al.’s battery pack in order to provide for a more diverse system (i.e., the application of a battery of an electric car would allow the art of Fischer to be used with electric cars).
It is noted that the amended limitation, “the embossment being configured so that deformation of the vehicle floor, when a respective longitudinal member rotates about a vehicle transverse axis in an event of an accident-related application of force and moment, does not contact the energy store” is merely functional language indicating a desired result due to an impact force being applied in a specific manner. The cited prior art would have the capability to perform this action should an impact force be applied in that specific manner.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Hamilton et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (Patent No. 6,460,918).
Re: claim 10, Fischer in view of Hamilton et al. teaches claim 9. Fischer and Hamilton et al. fail to teach claim 2.
However, Sato et al. teaches a respective flange (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9) at the rear end (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9E) of a corresponding longitudinal member (Annotated Fig. 3 - 10) has targeted recesses or reductions (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9R) for connection to the vehicle floor (Fig. 3 - 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fischer, Hamilton et al., and Sato et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fischer’s apparatus with those of Sato et al.’s flange portion in order to provide for a safer and durable system (i.e., the flange portion being incorporated into the art of Fischer would strengthen the vehicle body around the floor and vertical portion, while also allowing for the vehicle to still compress in a safe manner should a collision happen due to the built in recessed area/targeted weakening points).
Re: claim 11, Fischer teaches a joint in a region of the respective connection point (See Annotated Fig. 1 - 7C) between the rear end (Annotated Fig. 1 - 5E & 6E) of the corresponding longitudinal member (Fig. 1 - 5 & 6) and the vehicle floor (Fig. 1 - 14) exhibits targeted weakening (Fig. 1 – deformation regions 15) (See Paragraph 0018 – Lines 14-16).
Re: claim 12, Fischer and Hamilton et al. teach claim 9. Fischer and Hamilton et al. fail to teach claim 12.
However, Sato et al. teaches the embossment (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9R) is arranged behind a transitional area of a main floor (Fig. 3 - 1) and a pedal floor (Fig. 3 - 5A).
Fischer, Hamilton et al., and Sato et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fischer’s apparatus with those of Sato et al.’s embossment in order to provide for a safer system (i.e., the embossment being incorporated into the art of Fischer would allow for the vehicle to compress in a safe manner should a collision happen).
Re: claim 13, Sato et al. teaches the transitional area is configured as a corner area (Fig. 3 - 1).
Re: claim 14, Sato et al. teaches the embossment (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9R) is arranged in the vertical vehicle direction (Annotated Fig. 3 - Z) overlapping the front end (Annotated Fig. 3 – 1BF) of the frame (Fig. 3 – 1B). Sato et al. fails to teach a front end of an energy store.
However, Hamilton et al. teaches a front end (Annotated Fig. 4 - 22F) of an energy store (Fig. 4 - 22).
Fischer, Hamilton et al., and Sato et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fischer’s apparatus with those of Hamilton et al.’s battery pack in order to provide for a more diverse system (i.e., the application of a battery of an electric car would allow the art of Fischer to be used with electric cars).
Re: claim 15, Fischer and Hamilton et al. teach claim 9. Fischer and Hamilton et al. fail to teach claim 15.
However, Sato et al. teaches respective connecting elements (Fig. 2 - 9AL & 9AR) are connected to the outer (Annotated Fig. 2 - Outside) and inner (Annotated Fig. 2 - Inside) sides of the rear ends (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9E) of the longitudinal members (Annotated Fig. 3 - 10), via which connecting elements (Fig. 2 - 9AL & 9AR) [of] the front wall (Fig. 3 - 6) is connected to the floor element (Fig. 3 – 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
448
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fischer, Hamilton et al., and Sato et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicle bodies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Fischer’s apparatus with those of Sato et al.’s arms in order to provide for a more durable and positively connected system (i.e. the side arms allow for a greater area of attachment for the arms to the vertical portion, which increases the durability of the arms when the body is under normal stress/strain).
Re: claim 16, Sato et al. teaches the connecting elements (Fig. 2 - 9AL & 9AR) of the front wall (Fig. 3 - 6) are arranged to a side of the connection point (10S) of the rear ends (Annotated Fig. 3 - 9E) of the longitudinal members (Annotated Fig. 3 - 10) to the vehicle floor (Fig. 3 - 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: claim 9, the applicant argues that the embossment of the prior arts does not teach the amended limitation and that the prior art would not have a reason to protect an energy store. The examiner disagrees in that the limitation is merely functional language indicating a desired result due to an impact force being applied in a specific manner. The cited prior art would have the capability to perform this action should an impact force be applied in that specific manner.
The applicant also argues that the cited longitudinal members of the prior art do not attach to both the front wall and vehicle floor. The examiner disagrees in that the longitudinal members directly attach to the front wall which is attached to the vehicle floor; thus, the longitudinal members are attached to the front wall and vehicle floor (Seen in Figure 1).
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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612