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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendment filed on 2/4/2026 failed to make persuasive arguments regarding independent claim 12 and the previous rejection is maintained. Claims 13-25 depend therefrom and are rejected based on dependency. 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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 (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.
1. Claims 12-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kempf (US PG PUB NO 2016/0039462).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Kempf discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle body
comprising a first side sill (Kempf, FIG 1) positioned across from a second side sill
(Kempf, FIG 1), the vehicle body having a passenger cabin floor (Kempf paragraph
[0017] discloses that the crossmembers and floor interface with each other and
inherently mate at final assembly) between the first and second side sills; a battery pack
(Kempf, paragraph [0014] discloses combining the vehicle with an energy store)
mounted below the passenger cabin floor (Batteries are conventionally mounted
beneath the vehicle body), the battery pack having a side-to-side valley (Any desired
shape can be used for the exemplary battery to conform with the floor orientation such
as footwell and non-footwell applications); and a structural crossmember (3 and 5)
configured to extend between the first and second side sills (Kempf, FIG 1), wherein at
least part of the structural crossmember is positioned within the side-to-side valley (The
crossmember can be made to conform with the battery shape).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the
crossmember further comprises a first mating interface (Vehicle driver side area
includes interfaces) configured for interfacing with a first floor component, and a second
mating interface (Vehicle passenger and rear are include interfaces) configured for
interfacing with a second floor component, the first and second floor components being
alternatives to each other for the vehicle (Kempf paragraph [0017] discloses that the
crossmembers and floor interface with each other and inherently mate at assembly and
can include separate floor sheet metal if desired for particular vehicle applications with
footwells or non-footwell configurations).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the
battery pack is configured for the vehicle to have a non-cavity footwell, and wherein the
first floor component corresponds to the non-cavity footwell (Kempf paragraph [0017]
discloses that the crossmembers and floor interface with each other and inherently mate
at assembly and can include separate floor sheet metal if desired for particular vehicle
applications with non-footwell configurations and the battery can be formed to have a
mating shape for assembly).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the
battery pack is configured for the vehicle to have a cavity footwell, and wherein the
second floor component corresponds to the cavity footwell (Kempf paragraph [0017]
discloses that the crossmembers and floor interface with each other and inherently mate
at assembly and can include separate floor sheet metal (First and second) if desired for
particular vehicle applications with footwells configurations. Kempf, paragraph [0014]
discloses combining the vehicle with an energy store (battery) that interfaces with the
particular vehicle floor).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the
structural crossmember further comprises a first mount for a passenger cabin
component, the first mount positioned on a first side of the crossmember facing toward
a passenger cabin of the vehicle (Kempf, FIG 1, 21 and 23 are exemplary mount
features which will face the body at assembly and can be duplicated for additional
components).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 16, wherein the
first mount comprises first and second seat rail mounts (Kempf, paragraph [0034]
discloses the feature 23 to attach seat rails).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 17, wherein first
and second mating interfaces are positioned between the first and second seat rail
mounts (Crossmembers 3 and 5 are spaced and adapted to mate with the vehicle floor
when assembled with corresponding seat mounts).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the
structural crossmember comprises a first linear portion (Kempf, FIG 1) with a distal end
at the first sill, a second linear portion (Kempf, FIG 1) with a distal end at the second
side sill, and an arched portion (Kempf, FIG 1) that couples respective proximate ends
of the first and second linear portions to each other (Kempf, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 19, wherein the
vehicle body further comprises a first floor panel (Kempf paragraph [0017] discloses that
the crossmembers and floor interface with each other and will inherently mate at
assembly), and wherein the structural crossmember further comprises a flange for
interfacing the first floor panel (Kempf, annotated FIG 1 shows flanged attachment).
[CLAIM 21] Regarding claim 21, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 20, wherein the
flange comprises respective single flanges on the first and second linear portions
interfacing the first floor panel (Kempf, annotated FIG 1 shows flanged attachment to
the sills which when assembled are attached to the floor structure. Any desired
configuration of flange can be employed based on vehicle application).
[CLAIM 22] Regarding claim 22, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 20, wherein the
vehicle body further comprises a second floor panel (Kempf discloses a floor in
paragraph [0017] where the crossmembers and floor interface with each other and can
include separate floor portions depending on footwell and non-footwell vehicles) and
wherein the flange comprises a dual flange on the arched portion, the dual flange
comprising a first flange interfacing the first floor panel, and a second flange interfacing
the second floor panel (The arch curves on each end at the Kempf tunnel area extend
laterally to the vehicle sills and can if desired include flanges if the arch and extensions
are formed separately in order to connect them rather than a single forged member).
[CLAIM 25] Regarding claim 25, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the
structural crossmember further comprises mounts for the battery pack, and wherein
battery pack further comprises fixing points corresponding to the mounts (Kempf,
paragraph [0014] discloses combining the vehicle with an energy store which can have
any desired mounting holes which align with corresponding holes in the crossmembers
as the sheet metal floor would not provide a structural connections like crossmembers).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf (US PG PUB NO 2016/0039462) in view of Erlacher (US PG PUB NO 2018/0334196).
[CLAIM 23] Regarding claim 23, Kempf discloses the vehicle of claim 12.
-However, it fails to disclose further comprising one of a receptacle or pin configured for
the structural crossmember to serve as a master datum for the battery pack, wherein
the battery pack has the other of the receptacle or the pin.
-Nevertheless, Erlacher discloses in FIG 2, a receptacle and bolt arrangement to
connect component 1 to rod 6 which can be inverted if desired to provide plural
mounting options for ease of assembly.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was effectively filed to have modified Kempf to have a receptacle and pin
arrangement as taught by Erlacher with a reasonable expectation of success in order to
provide for a robust and quick connect for battery to subframe.
[CLAIM 24] Regarding claim 24, Kempf/Erlacher disclose the vehicle of claim 23, wherein the structural crossmember has two receptacles for two respective pins on the
battery pack (Erlacher, FIG 3 illustrates exemplary mounting receptacles 2 to the body
and can be arranged in a similar orientation to penetrate rod 6), one of the receptacles
being a circular opening and the other receptacle being an elongated opening oriented
in a y-direction of the vehicle (Erlacher discloses use of exemplary slots in paragraphs
[0019-0020, 0036 and 0048] useful for having a degree of freedom in any direction
including a "y-direction" for assembly of the battery to the vehicle and can employ holes
as shown in FIG 3 and circular holes in FIG 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant respectfully argues that in finding the subject matter of independent claim 12 to be disclosed by Kempf, the Office Action in part stated, regarding the claim feature of "the battery pack having a side-to-side valley": Any desired shape can be used for the exemplary battery to conform with the floor orientation such as footwell and non-footwell applications. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The reference does not anticipate because it does not teach the claimed feature. See Verdegaal Bros. or Richardson or any other binding authority cited at MPEP § 2131. Kempf is silent about "the battery pack having a side-to-side valley" as evidenced by the Office Action merely arguing that any shape "can be used" rather than pointing to anything Kempf actually discloses. The section 102 rejection lacks merit for at least this reason and should be withdrawn
Examiner respectfully argues: Kempf may not specifically teach a “valley” side to side in the detailed description but clearly illustrates a lower surface for mounting the batteries (9 and 11) between the rockers and tunnel. Kempf FIG 1 and annotated FIG 2 illustrates s a “side-to-side valley” with respect to the raised vehicle tunnel and the side rocker panels each of the valleys receives one of batteries 9 and 11. The examiner’s position stands that Kempf is exemplary and each “valley” retains a battery module as claimed by Applicants. The “valley” is adaptable to be deeper or less than Kempf if desired based on vehicle application which can alter the vehicle body without altering the battery function.
PNG
media_image1.png
781
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
764
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims are 1-9 are allowed. Kempf (US PG PUB 2016/0039462) represents the most similar prior art reference as claimed by Applicant but fails to disclose each limitation of amended claim 1. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615