DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/22/2024, and 9/4/2024 have been entered.
Priority
The foreign priority claim to DE102023113444.2 filed on 5/23/2023 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 10, 14, and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 4 as set forth in the anticipation rejection below.
However, Kumagi does not teach wherein the at least one structural element extending along the longitudinal axis (X) includes a first end connected to one of the plurality of holding elements, and a second end contacting one of the structural elements extending along the vehicle transverse axis (Y). Indeed its not clear how the structural elements of Kumagi could be modified to teach such a structure, or why Kumagi would want structural elements to be connected to one another.
Upon additional searching, Jeong (US 11400986 B2) was found to be the closest prior art. Jeong teaches a structural element extending along the longitudinal axis with a first end connected to a holding element, and a second end contacting a structural element extending along the vehicle transverse axis (see figure 7). However, Jeong does not teach a plurality of holding elements, and the structural element extending along the vehicle transverse axis does not include an installation gap as required by claim 1, which this claim depends upon. Thus Jeong does not teach all the structural elements of claim 5. Furthermore, it is not obvious how Jeong could be combined with Kumagi to teach all the elements of claim 5. Thus, claim 5 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.
Regarding claims 7-8, these claims appropriately depend upon claim 5 and thus contain similarly allowable subject matter by merit of their dependency.
Regarding claim 10, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 9 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi does not teach wherein the plurality of structural elements, the plurality of holding elements, and the vehicle seat substructure include mutually aligned through holes configured to fasten the vehicle seat substructure, to corresponding structural elements and holding elements. Indeed, while the structural elements as taught by Kumagi are able to be secured to a vehicle seat substructure as required by claim 9, the vehicle seat substructure is positively claimed in claim 10, and Kumagi does not teach a vehicle seat substructure.
Upon additional searching, the closest reference found was Jeong. Jeong teaches a vehicle seat substructure with holes aligned between the substructure, the structural elements, and the top plate, but not aligned with holes in a holding element (see figure 11). Thus, no reference was found that could teach all the limitations of claim 10 on its own, and no obvious combination of references were found that could teach all the limitations of claim 10, and claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, this claim includes similar subject matter to claim 5 and is similarly 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.
Regarding claim 17, this claim includes similar subject matter to claim 5 and is similarly 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected for minor informalities.
Regarding claim 16, this claim includes the limitation “wherein an edge alone each side.” This is grammatically incorrect but it is clear that “alone” is supposed to be “along.” Thus the claim is considered below as though it said “along,” in order to advance compact prosecution. Correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Kumagi (US 20250360808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumagi teaches an electric vehicle floor assembly, comprising:
a frame surrounding a frame interior (21 “side rails” taught by figure 3);
a battery module (4 “battery pack” taught by figure 1) having a horizontally extending top plate configured to cover a top of a traction battery (45 “upper face” taught by figure 1), the top plate fastened around a perimeter to a lower region of the frame and forming a vehicle floor within the frame interior (taught by figure 3), the top plate having a plurality of structural elements secured to the top plate and extending across the frame interior toward the frame (6 “frame-side brackets” taught by figure 3), each of the plurality of structural elements spaced from the frame by an installation gap at one or both ends of the structural element (taught by figure 3); and
a plurality of holding elements, each holding element bridging a respective installation gap and connected to both a respective structural element and the frame (taught by annotated figure 3 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 1 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein an edge along each side of the top plate contacts the frame from below the frame (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 2 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of structural elements extend along a vehicle transverse axis (Y) relative to a vehicle longitudinal axis (X) that extends in a direction of vehicle travel (taught by figure 3), the plurality of structural elements each including at least one end connected to a respective one of the plurality of holding elements by a plurality of fasteners (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 3 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of structural elements extends along the vehicle longitudinal axis (X) (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 4 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein the plurality of holding elements each comprise a horizontally extending top portion arranged on top of an associated structural element (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 4 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein at least two of the structural elements are configured for securing a vehicle seat substructure to the at least two structural elements (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kumagi teaches an electric vehicle floor assembly, comprising:
a battery module (4 “battery pack” taught by figure 1) having a horizontally extending top plate configured to cover a top of a traction battery (45 “upper face” taught by figure 1), the top plate configured for fastening around a perimeter to a lower region of a vehicle frame and forming a vehicle floor within a frame interior (taught by figure 3); and
a plurality of structural elements secured to the top plate and extending across the frame interior toward the frame, each of the plurality of structural elements sized to be spaced from the frame by an installation gap at one or both ends of the structural element after installation, wherein each of the plurality of structural elements extends in a transverse direction (Y) relative to a longitudinal axis (X) along a direction of travel after installation in an electric vehicle (taught by annotated figure 3 attached above), at least two of the plurality of structural elements adapted to secure a seat substructure (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 11 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches further comprising: a vehicle frame, wherein the vehicle frame includes a plurality of holding elements, each holding element bridging a respective installation gap and connected to both a respective structural element and the vehicle frame (taught by figure 3), and wherein an edge along each side of the top plate contacts the frame from below the frame (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 11 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein each of the holding elements comprises a horizontally extending surface connecting two vertically extending sides (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 13 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of structural members are configured for securing a vehicle seat substructure (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 13 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein an edge along each side of the top plate contacts the vehicle frame from below the vehicle frame (taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 17 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches an electric vehicle comprising the electric vehicle floor assembly (taught by the abstract “A support device for a drive battery mounted on an electric vehicle”).
Regarding claim 19, Kumagi also teaches the electric vehicle floor assembly of claim 13 as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Kumagi also teaches wherein the vertically extending sides of each holding element are spaced from side portions of an associated structural element (taught by figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights