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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of first extruded members having a hollow rectangular cross sectional shape that is a vertical to an extrusion direction of the first extruded member” it is unclear as to what applicant means by a rectangular cross sectional shape being vertical to an extrusion direction of the first extruded member, as the term vertical is known to be at a right angle to a horizontal plane, and applicant does not define the horizontal plane, so it is unclear as to how the cross sectional shape is arranged, which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets “a plurality of first extruded members having a hollow rectangular cross sectional shape that is vertical to an extrusion direction of the first extruded member” as a plurality of first extruded members having a portion wherein a cross section shows a hollow body with a rectangular shape that extends in a direction orthogonal to the extrusion direction of the first extruded member. Claim 1 also recites “a notch having a plate shape,” it is unclear as to if the plate shape refers to a shape which is entirely planar or if it can differ in thickness, as it is not defined in the claims or the instant specification. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets a notch having a plate shape as a notch having a planar portion.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther (US 20220297524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Günther teaches a frame structure part of a battery housing (R, Figure 1, 7, [0001]) which corresponds to the claimed battery casing bottom structure;
The profiled hollow-chamber sections 17, 17.1 shown in FIG. 7 ([0040]) which correspond to the claimed combination of extruded members,
the attachment of the battery housing or the frame structure to the vehicle ([0010] Lines 21-22) and the frame structure (which corresponds to the claimed battery casing) of which is connected to that of the lower part ([0010] Lines 24-25) which corresponds to the claimed battery casing mounted in a lower part of a vehicle;
The frame structure typically comprising four hollow-chamber sections connected to each other forming corners (Günther, [0009]),
Profiled hollow-chamber sections 17 (which corresponds to the claimed plurality of first extruded members), and because the frame structure is arranged in a vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the frame structure necessarily follows the claimed structure of a plurality of first extruded members arranged along a vehicle length direction of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle length direction of a vehicle is interpreted as any direction in which the vehicle has a length,
And 17.1 (which corresponds to the claimed second extruded member) that form the corners of a frame structure of a battery housing (Günther, Fig. 7, [0040]), hollow-chamber sections 17 have hollow rectangular cross sectional shapes orthogonal to the extrusion direction of the profiled hollow-chamber section 17 as shown below;
PNG
media_image1.png
871
1427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, figure 3 shows another rectangular cross sectional shape of another hollow-chamber section 3.1,
PNG
media_image2.png
808
1428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 shows the notch of hollow-chamber section 17.1 having a planar portion at an end of the hollow-chamber section 17.1 in its extrusion direction, which corresponds to the claimed notch having a plate shape at an end of the first extruded member in the extrusion direction, furthermore, figure 7 shows 19.1 which is defined as one of three end face portions (Günther, [0040]),
Note that the limitation “a notch being a cut portion shaped by cutting a top face portion and a side face portion of the hollow rectangular cross sectional shape with only an undersurface portion of the hollow rectangular cross sectional shape being left” is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed product-by-process limitation to merely impart a structure of a first extruded member having a notch portion extruding in the extrusion direction of the first extruded member wherein the height of the notch portion is smaller than a corresponding height of the first extruded member wherein the height is measured in the vehicle’s upward direction, and Günther teaches Figure 7 showing one profiled hollow-chamber section 17 having a three-step design on its end face 18 (Günther, [0040]), wherein the lowermost step 19.1 has a smaller height than the total height of the hollow-chamebr section 17, which corresponds to the claimed notch and undersurface portion, and the undersurface of the undersurface portion being a lowermost surface of the battery casing bottom structure as shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
871
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Günther teaches figure 7 which shows hollow-chamber section 17.1 (Günther, [0041]) which corresponds to the claimed second extruded member having a hollow shape, the second extruded member including a rib connecting a top face portion and an undersurface portion of the second extruded member;
Figure 8 shows the two profiled hollow-chamber sections 17, 17.1 assembled to form a corner (Figs.7, 8, [0042]) and because Günther teaches that the corner of Figure 7 and 8 are further developments of Günther’s invention, the substitution of the corners of figure 8 for the corners of figure 1 suggests the claimed structure of each of the plurality of first extruded members and the second extruded member are joined to each other by covering the notch of the first extruded member with the undersurface portion of the second extruded member from above, furthermore, the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (See MPEP 2144.04 VI)
Günther teaches that each profiled hollow-chamber section is supported with an end face portion on a lateral surface portion of the other profiled hollow-chamber section involved in the corner construction, a positive fit is created in the x-direction and the y-direction (Günther, [0010]), wherein the x-direction is the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and the y-direction is the lateral direction of the vehicle (Günther, [0008]), the profiled hollow chamber sections can be either of the hollow-chamber sections 17 or 17.1, which corresponds to the claimed extrusion direction of the first extruded member being a vehicle width direction of the vehicle and an extrusion direction of the second extruded member being the vehicle length direction, wherein the vehicle length direction and vehicle width direction are not defined by the instant specification and are interpreted as a direction in which the vehicle has a length and a direction in which the vehicle has a width, respectively, thus, any direction in which Günther’s hollow-chamber sections 17 and 17.1 extrude can be interpreted as the vehicle length direction or vehicle width direction,
Figure 7 shows the extrusion direction of the hollow-chamber section 17 and the extrusion direction of the hollow-chamber section 17.1 being perpendicular to each other, furthermore, the corners are formed at 90 degrees (Günther, [0009]),
Figure 7 shows the rib extending in an extrusion direction of the hollow-chamber section as shown below, and Figure 7 shows the claimed structure of the rib is positioned immediately above a portion where the first extruded member and the second extruded member are joined.
PNG
media_image4.png
871
1427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Günther teaches that due to the engagement of leg 20 (which corresponds to the claimed undersurface portion of the second extruded member) in the U-shaped receptacle under the end face portion 19.2 (which corresponds to the claimed first portion with the notch and a second portion located at a lower level than the first portion), both profiled hollow chamber sections 17, 17.1 are positively interlocked in the z-direction in both directions ([0041]) which corresponds to the claimed undersurface portion of the second extruded member comprising a first portion joined with the notch and a second portion located at a lower level than the first portion in a vertical direction,
PNG
media_image5.png
869
1429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 shows the hollow-chamber sections 17 and 17.1 interlocked which show the claimed structure where the second portion that is a lowermost face of the second extruded member and the undersurface of each of the plurality of first extruded members are disposed to provide a horizontally planar shape, wherein the limitation “each of the first extruded members are disposed to provide a horizontally planar shape” is addressed above where the corners illustrated in figure 7 can be used for the corners of figure 1, providing multiple first extruded members which provide a horizontally planar shape combined with the second extruded members.
Regarding claim 3, Günther teaches figure 7 which illustrate the hollow-chamber section 17.1 having a flange portion protruding towards the hollow-chamber section 17 (which corresponds to the claimed second extruded member comprising a flange portion protruding towards the plurality of extruded members),
And figure 8 shows the hollow chamber sections 17 and 17.1 joined, in which, the flange of hollow-chamber section 17.1 is joined with a top face of the hollow chamber section 17, which corresponds to the claimed flange portion joined with a top face of each of the plurality of first extruded members,
Wherein, as discussed above, the structure suggested by the corners of figure 7 replacing the corners of figure 1 would have the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Günther teaches figure 8 which shows the claimed structure of the second portion overlapping the undersurface portion of the hollow rectangular cross sectional shape in the vertical direction, wherein examiner interprets overlapping to mean any section in which the second portion and the hollow sectional shape share a vertical component, and because the undersurface of the undersurface portion of the hollow-chamber section 17.1 and the second portion of the hollow-chamber section 17 form a planar surface, as shown in figure 8, and the undersurface of the undersurface portion of the hollow-chamber section 17.1 extends from the rectangular cross sectional shape, the second portion of the hollow-chamber section 17 overlaps with the hollow rectangular cross sectional shape of the hollow-chamber section 17.1.
PNG
media_image6.png
871
1427
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of applicant's remarks, filed 08/18/2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of 06/24/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 regarding the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the rib being disposed on the plate-shaped notch) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Günther does not teach the newly added claimed amendments, examiner does not concur as shown in the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oishi et al. (US 2022-0320662 A1) teaches a similar device
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 JAMES M CLEVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3156. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs | 9:00am-4:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights