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
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanemare (JP 2005306299 A) in view of Natsume et al. (US 20220379967 A1).
Re Claim 1, Sanemare discloses A vehicle lower portion structure, comprising:
a pair of side sills (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 2 – pair of left and right side sills; Para 0011) extending along the longitudinal direction of a vehicle between a front wheel house (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a rear wheel house (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the side sills are respectively disposed on both ends, in the vehicle width direction, of the vehicle;
a front frame member (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 4 – center pillar; Para 0011) connected to a first side sill (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the pair of side sills and extending upward from the first side sill along a front edge of a door opening defined in a side surface of the vehicle (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a rear frame member (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 5 – rear pillar; Para 0011) connected to the first side sill and extending upwardly from the first side sill along a rear edge of the door opening (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below);
a front floor cross member (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 12; Para 0018) extending along the vehicle width direction; [[and]]
a rear floor cross member extending along the vehicle width direction (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 13; Para 0018)[[,]]; and
the front floor cross member is forward of the front edge of the door opening and connected at an end, in the vehicle width direction, of the vehicle so as to span an upper portion of [[to]] the first side sill and a lower portion of the front frame member (Sanemare: see Fig. 1 below – front floor cross member 12 is connected at the end in the vehicle width direction and it spans the top edge of the side sill 2 and the lower part of the front frame member 4 as seen by the boxed outline in the figure),
the rear floor cross member is rearward of the rear edge of the door opening and connected at the end, in the vehicle width direction, of the vehicle so as to span the upper portion of [[to]] the first side sill and a lower portion of the rear frame member (Sanemare: see Fig. 1 below – rear floor cross member 13 is connected at the end in the vehicle width direction and it spans the top edge of the side sill 2 and the lower part of the rear frame member 5), and
a region below a lower edge of the door opening includes no floor cross member extending along the vehicle width direction to connect the pair of side sills (Sanemare: see annotated Fig. 1 below).
However, Sanemare does not teach a battery disposed between the pair of side sills.
Natsume et al. teaches a battery and it is placed between a pair of side sills (Natsume et al: as seen in the Fig. 3: 18 – battery; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a vehicle lower portion structure, as disclosed by combination of Sanemare and Natsume et al., to place a battery between the pair of side sills in the vehicle body structure, as further taught by Natsume et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a battery for an electric drive train to reduce vehicle emissions.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Sanemare (JP 2005306299 A)
PNG
media_image2.png
615
1142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Natsume et al. (US 20220379967 A1)
Re Claim 3, Sanemare does not disclose a floor panel. However, Natsume et al. teaches a floor panel (Natsume et al: Fig. 3: 8 – floor panel), wherein the floor panel has a portion defining [[a]] the lower edge of the door opening (Natsume et al: Fig. 3: 3), the portion being connected to an upper end of the first side sill (Natsume et al: see annotated Fig. 3 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a vehicle lower portion structure, as disclosed by Sanemare, to place a floor panel adjacent to the side sills where the upper end of the floor panel sits above the upper edge of the side sill, as taught by Natsume et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, such that during a side-collision, the load will be transmitted in the opposite direction properly while suppressing the deformation of the battery unit (Natsume et al: Para 0008-0010).
Re Claim 6, Sanemare discloses the front frame member is a B-pillar of the vehicle (Sanemare: Fig. 1: 4 – center pillar).
Re Claim 9, Sanemare discloses the first side sill has a same top edge height from a front end to a rear end of the first side sill (Sanemare: as seen in Fig. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanemare (JP 2005306299 A) in view of Natsume et al. (US 20220379967 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Tatsuwaki et al (US 20220161855 A1).
Sanemare in view of Natsume et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the first side sill has a rear portion along the lower edge of the door opening having a lower top height than a front portion of the first side sill.
Tatsuwaki et al. teaches the variation in height of the side sill as seen annotated in Figure below (Tatsuwaki et al: Fig. 2: 31; Para 0014; front portion of the side sill has height higher than the rear portion of the side sill).
PNG
media_image3.png
812
1152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Tatsuwaki et al. (US 20220161855 A1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle lower portion structure, such as that disclosed by Sanemare in view of Natsume et al. above, to have a side sill that has a rear portion along the lower edge of the door opening having a height lower than the front portion of the side sill, as taught by Tatsuwaki et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for an increase in a height of the battery pack in an up-down direction and furthermore to facilitate the getting on and off of the occupant (Tatsuwaki et al: Para 0037).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanemare (JP 2005306299 A) in view of Natsume et al. (US 20220379967 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Line et al. (US 20200331366 A1).
Sanemare in view of Natsume et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the front seat being able to pivot and configured to be forward-facing or rear-facing. Line et al. teaches a front seat pivotably attached to a vehicle body and configured to be forward-facing or rear-facing (Line: Figure 1 and 2; Para 0043).
PNG
media_image4.png
832
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 2 of Line et al. (US 20200331366 A1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle lower portion structure, such as that disclosed by Sanemare in view of Natsume et al. above, to have a front seat pivotably attached and configured to be forward-facing or rear-facing, as taught by Line et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase passenger comfort.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanemare (JP 2005306299 A) in view of Natsume et al. (US 20220379967 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 9 above, and further in view of Mildner et al. (US 8398158 B2).
Sanemare in view of Natsume et al. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, but is silent about the arrangement of the floor cross members placed under the floor panel as mentioned in the claim. Sanemare disclose a floor portion under the floor cross members but do not mention a battery. Natsume et al., on the other hand, mentions the battery under the floor panel but does not mention front or rear floor cross members. Mildner et al., however, teaches the front and rear floor cross members placed under the floor panel (Mildner: Fig. 1: 24, 26 – front and rear floor cross members; Fig. 2: 30 – floor panel; Para 15)
PNG
media_image5.png
579
766
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of the Mildner et al. (US 8398158 B2)
PNG
media_image6.png
569
822
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of the Mildner et al. (US 8398158 B2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle lower portion structure, such as that disclosed by the combination of Sanemare and Natsume et al, to incorporate the arrangement of the floor cross members under the floor panel, as taught by Mildner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, such that it reinforces the torsional stiffness of the floor structure while protecting the integrity of the battery in the event of a collision (Mildner et al.: Para 12-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed [06/10/2026] have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With regards to Claim 1, applicant argues that every element of Claim 1 is not anticipated by Sanemare. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sanemare discloses each element as seen in the Figure 1 of Sanemare above. Each claim element is labeled for reference of the applicant.
With regards to the amended Claim 1, the combination of Sanemare and Natsume et al. teaches all the limitations of the claim as amended. While Sanemare does not teach a battery, Natsume et al. teaches a battery disposed between the pair of side sills. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness 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).
The applicant’s amended claim language is not fully clear as to what the front floor cross member “connected at an end, in the vehicle width direction, of the vehicle so as to span an upper portion of the first side sill and a lower portion of the front frame member” and rear floor cross member “connected at the end, in the vehicle width direction, of the vehicle so as to span the upper portion of the first side sill and a lower portion of the rear frame member” refers to. The examiner has interpreted that the front floor cross member of Sanemare is connected to the first side sill and the front frame member (as seen in the 103 rejection above) and the rear floor cross member of Sanemare is connected to the first side sill and the rear frame member (as seen in the 103 rejection above). The phrases “at an end”, “span an upper portion”, and “lower portion” are broad that the examiner has interpreted the “at an end” as the front and rear floor cross member connecting the side sills in the vehicle width direction and “span an upper portion” as the top portion/edge of the side sill and “lower portion” as the bottom part of the frame member or B-pillar. Therefore, the reference fully reads on the amended claim.
Regarding the amended limitation “a region below a lower edge of the door opening includes no floor cross member extending along the vehicle width direction to connect the pair of side sills” is fully taught by Sanemare (see Figure 1 of Sanemare). There is no cross member in the section below the lower edge of door opening extending along the vehicle width direction to connect the pair of side sills. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The battery deficiency of Sanemare is cured by the battery structure in Natsume et al., and therefore, considered a proper 35 U.S.C 103 rejection.
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 JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights