CTFR 18/356,678 CTFR 81155 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 – 20 have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Landgraf (9,579,963). In regard to claim 1 , Landgraf discloses a vehicle comprising a motor (column 2, lines 7 – 10), a first accommodation member configured to accommodate a first cell configured to supply electric power to the motor (Fig. 2, right and left instances of item 4), and a second accommodation member configured to accommodate a second cell configured to supply electric power to the motor, the second accommodation member being disposed so as to cover at least a part of the first accommodation member (Fig. 2, right and left instances of item 3 in right and left instances of zone 6), wherein a strength of the first accommodation member is greater than a strength of the second accommodation member (column 5, lines 21 – 29), and wherein the second accommodation member includes left and right laterally spaced side members that extend longitudinally in a front-to-rear direction of the vehicle, and wherein the first cell occupies a laterally central region located between the left and right laterally spaced side members (Fig 2) . In regard to claim 2 , Landgraf discloses wherein the first accommodation member comprises a vehicle frame (Fig. 2, item 5), wherein the first cell is mounted inside the vehicle frame (Fig. 2), and wherein the second cell is mounted outside the vehicle frame (Fig. 2) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 – 4, 6 – 9, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landgraf (9,579,963) as applied to claim s 1 – 2 above, and further in view of Taniuchi et al. (11,527,785). Landgraf does not disclose members located between second cells and between first and second accommodation members. In regard to claim 3 , Taniuchi discloses wherein a second accommodation member accommodates second cells including a second cell (Fig. 3A, item 102), and wherein the vehicle further comprises first energy absorption members that are each provided between the second cells (Fig. 3C, item 106) . In regard to claim 4 , Taniuchi discloses a second energy absorption member provided between a first accommodation member and the second accommodation member (Fig. 3B, unnumbered members located between items 102 and 32). In regard to claims 6 – 9 , Taniuchi discloses wherein the second cell is an all-solid-state cell (Fig. 3A, item 102 & column 4, lines 10 – 11). In regard to claims 11 – 14 , Taniuchi discloses wherein the first cell is a liquid cell (Fig. 3A, item 32 & column 4, lines 12 – 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the energy absorption members taught by Taniuchi, to the vehicle of Landgraf, in order to increase operator and vehicle safety by providing buffering material between cells which keeps the cells separated during an impact . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 16 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landgraf (9,579,963) in view of Taniuchi et al. (11,527,785) as applied to claim s 3 – 4, 6 – 9, and 11 – 14 above, and further in view of Li et al. (10,434,894). In regard to claim Landgraf in view of Taniuchi does not disclose a front member. In regard to claim 16 , Li discloses a vehicle including wherein a second accommodation member, in addition to having the left and right side members, includes a front member (Figs. 1 and 5, item 24) that is contiguous with the left and right side members in surrounding the periphery of a first accommodation member (Figs. 1 and 5, item 26). In regard to claim 18 , Li discloses wherein the first accommodation member accommodates first cells including the first cell, and all of said first cells are located laterally between the first and second side members (Figs. 1 and 5). The addition of these features would result in a predictable variation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which has been held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex Parte Smith , 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BAPI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 5, 10, and 15 are allowed. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Landgraf (9,579,963) discloses a vehicle similar to the instant invention; however Landgraf, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a vehicle wherein ( in regard to claim 5 ) the second accommodation member is configured to, when the second accommodation member receives a collision load, rotate such that the second accommodation member is inclined with respect to a direction of the collision load, and ( in regard to claim 19 ) wherein the second accommodation member is further configured to, when the second accommodation member receives a collision load, rotate such that the second accommodation member is inclined with respect to a direction of the collision load. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states, “A review of the FIG. 2 embodiment of Landgraf reveals that the Office Action relied upon "first accommodation members 4" (with associated first cell members) are positioned as to be an integrated part of the longitudinally extending left and right vehicle side frame members 5. The Office Acton relied upon lower strength second accommodations members 3 are shown positioned laterally external to the relied upon first accommodations members 4. Between the set of first accommodation members 4 (in a central region of the Landgraf vehicle) there is provided additional second type accommodation members 3 with their associated second type cells. Accordingly, the arrangement of Landgraf fails to disclose or suggest the arrangement featured in the above bolded excerpt from amended claim 1.” The Office disagrees. As Applicant states, both the first accommodation members 4 and a second type of accommodation members 3 are located laterally centrally between the left and right side members. As Applicant currently uses inclusive claim language, the inclusion of the second type of accommodation members 3 does not violate the current limitations. The first accommodation members are clearly in the laterally central region between the right and left side members. For this reason, the rejections stand. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT). 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, 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. /JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613 Application/Control Number: 18/356,678 Page 2 Art Unit: 3613 Application/Control Number: 18/356,678 Page 3 Art Unit: 3613 Application/Control Number: 18/356,678 Page 4 Art Unit: 3613 Application/Control Number: 18/356,678 Page 5 Art Unit: 3613
Prosecution Insights