CTFR 19/045,099 CTFR 95536 DETAILED ACTION 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. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Endres fails to disclose "an opening in the conductor part is arranged to connect the conductor part to an electrical source and/or load to form an electric circuit," asserting that Endres merely discloses conductor ends extending out of the support component rather than an opening in the conductor part. Applicant further argues that the extending conductor ends are "the opposite" of the claimed openings and that there would be no rational to replace extending conductor ends with opening. The arguments are not persuasive. Endres discloses a chassis carrier component having conductors embedded within the carrier component material, wherein the conductors are completely surrounded by the material except at end regions configured for electrical connection to the vehicle electrical system. Specifically, Endres discloses that "the conductor end ends at one and preferably both end sides which extend out of the support component and form a contact surface outside the support component," and that the contact surface provides "a connection option for further connection into the rest of the vehicle's electrical system." see Endres English translation page 3, para. 07, Endres further discloses conductor end regions and contact surfaces extending from the support component for electrical connection to additional conductive elements see end of page 6 – page 7 and Fig. 1-2. Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed "opening in the conductor part" reads on an exposed access region or interruption in the otherwise insulated and embedded conductor structure that permits electrical connection to an electrical source and/or load. Claim 1 does not require the opening to possess any particular geometry, such as a through hole, recessed aperture, internal port, or flush mounted connector arrangement. Nor does claim 1 exclude conductor terminal regions. Endres discloses conductor regions exposed from the otherwise embedded conductor arrangement for the express purpose of electrically connecting the conductor to other portions of the electrical system. Accordingly, the exposed conductor end/contact regions of Endres reasonably correspond to the claimed opening arranged to connect the conductor part to an electrical source and/or load to form an electric circuit. Applicant's argument that Endres discloses the "opposite" of the claimed opening is unpersuasive because the claim does not positively recite any structural limitation requiring the opening to be recessed, internal, non-projecting or formed through the conductive material itself. Applicant's argument improperly imports unclaimed limitation from the specification into the claims. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F. 3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (fed. Cir. 1997) Applicant additionally discusses advantages relating to improved packaging efficiency, increased battery capacity, elimination of separate high-voltage cables, and increased available space. However, such alleged advantages are not recited in claim 1 and therefore do not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Attorney argument unsupported by the claim language is not persuasive of patentability . 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 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Endres (EP-4234372-A1, English translation provided as NPL) . In regards to claim 1, Endres discloses a chassis frame beam (4), wherein at least a part of the beam is conducting and comprises a conductor part (6) comprising a conductive material (10) and an insulation layer (fiber composite material of chassis support component and layer 12) surrounding the conductive material (10) to prevent current from flowing from the conductor part to the remainder of the beam (see English translation, abstract), wherein an opening in the conductor part is arranged to connect the conductor part to an electrical source and/or load ("The power strands 6 are embedded in the fiber composite material. This means that they - are completely surrounded by the material of the carrier component 4 - except for end sections." The exposed end sections/contact regions define access regions in the otherwise embedded conductor structure for electrical connection to the vehicle electrical system. Endress discloses conductor ends extending from the support component and forming contact surfaces for connection to the remainder of the vehicle electrical system and describes exposed conductor end/contact regions extending from the embedded conductor arrangement to provide electrical connection points. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed opening in the conductor part reads on the exposed access/contact regions of the otherwise embedded and insulated conductor, thereby providing an opening where the conductor ends 16 extend out of the carrier component 4) to form an electric circuit ("the wiring harness (2) connects a voltage source such as a battery or a generator to one or more consumers"), wherein the conductor part (6) of the beam (4) carries current in the electric circuit (transmit electrical power from battery 24 to consumers, i.e. inverter 28, see fig.4). In regards to claim 2, Endres discloses wherein the chassis frame beam (4) further comprises insulated beam openings (openings for the ends 16 of the conductors 6, the beam is made of a fiber composite material that provides insulation therein) to install mechanical loads without creating electrical contact between the insulated beam openings and the conductor part (6)(see fig.1). In regards to claim 3, Endres discloses wherein the chassis frame beam (4) comprises one conductor part (10, at least 1 and optionally 2). In regards to claim 4, Endres discloses wherein the chassis frame beam (4) comprises at least two conductor parts (10, or the pair of conductors A, see fig.3). In regards to claim 5, Endres discloses wherein the chassis frame beam (4) comprises a positively charged conductor part and a negatively charged conductor part (positive and negative pole of the respective electrical component 24, 28). In regards to claim 7, Endres discloses a chassis frame beam (4) wherein the conductor part (6) is arranged on the outside of the chassis frame beam(4) (see fig.1, at least the ends of the conductor 6 extends outside of the beam 4 in order to form a contact surface outside of the carrier component). In regards to claim 8, Endres discloses a chassis comprising a chassis frame beam (4) according to claim 1 (see fig.4). In regards to claim 10, Endres discloses wherein a cross beam comprises the conductor part (the chassis support component 4 is understood to mean a body component of a motor vehicle specifically the chassis support, i.e. cross beam). In regards to claim 11, Endres discloses a vehicle (see fig.4, 22) comprising a chassis (4, FIG.1) according to claim 8 (see above). In regards to claim 14, Endres discloses wherein the vehicle (22) is an electric vehicle (motor vehicle 22, specifically a fully electrically powered motor vehicle 22). In regards to claim 16, Endres discloses a system (2) comprising a chassis frame beam (4) according to claim1 (see above) and an electrical source and/or load (battery 24) arranged to connect to the conductor part (6) to form an electric circuit (see fig.1-4). In regards to claim 17, Endres discloses wherein the chassis frame beam (4) further comprises insulated beam openings (openings for the ends 16 of the conductors 6, the beam is made of a fiber composite material that provides insulation therein) to install mechanical loads, wherein the electrical source and/or load (24) is arranged in the mechanical load and wherein the insulated beam openings are arranged such that electrical contact between the beam openings and the conductor part cannot be created (see fig.1-4) . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endres (EP-4234372-A1, English Translation provided) . In regards to claim 6, Endres discloses wherein the positively charged conductor part is arranged in a front part of the chassis frame beam and the negatively charged conductor part is arranged in a rear part of the chassis frame beam or vice versa (see fig.4). Since Endres already provides a positive and negative conductor within the chassis member, the exact position of these conductors (one at the front and one at the rear) would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to accommodate routing of the high voltage supply (from the battery) to the components located at different ends of the vehicle (see fig.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a positive charged conductor in the front and a negative charged conductor in the rear, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In regards to claim 9, Endres discloses the chassis frame beam (4) but fails to explicitly teach wherein a left chassis frame beam and or a right chassis frame beam comprises a conductor part. Endres teaches "In so far as a chassis support component is mentioned here, this is understood to mean a body component of a motor vehicle which is also designed in particular to absorb forces. In particular, it is part of the supporting body structure or also part of a paneling or other supporting element. Specifically, the chassis support component is a (vehicle) floor, for example a floor of a passenger compartment. In electric vehicles, the battery storage is typically arranged in a sandwich floor below the passenger compartment.". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the chassis support member comprising the conducting part (as taught by Endres) to be that of a left and/or right chassis frame beam since Endres teaches the member can be that of any supporting element, with a reasonable expectation of success. In regards to claim 12, Endres discloses wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to apply the same chassis integrated electrical conductor configuration to other common vehicle types such as trucks, buses, or construction equipment since these are well known classes of road or offroad vehicles sharing the same needs as the road vehicle Endres teaches. In regards to claim 13, Endres discloses a chassis carrier component with integrated conductors for a road vehicle, but fails to teach the vehicle is a boat, ship, or marine vessels. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the same integrated conductor system to other vehicles, including marine vessels, because boats and ships likewise require conductive pathways and benefit from weight reduction and space optimization Endres' provides. Such a modification to the vehicle Endre’s teaches with a marine vessel would have been a simple substitution of known equivalents, adapting a known vehicle power distribution structures to a boat or ship would be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). The recitation of "boat, ship or other marine vessel" merely defines the environment of use and does not by itself impart a structural distinction absent evidence of marine-specific adaptation. In regards to claim 15, Endres discloses the chassis according to claim 8, although Endres fails to explicitly teach an industrial machine comprising the chassis, this limitation merely specifies the environment in which the chassis is used. It does not impose any structural or functional difference on the claimed chassis itself. Such a statement of intended use or field of use is not entitled patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.02; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3rd 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the known chassis of Endres into an industrial machine with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date, since industrial machines employ structural frames or chassis that are known equivalents to that Endres discloses, and adapting a known electrified chassis structure for a machine environment would be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (KSR v Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est). 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 2 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 3 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 4 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 5 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 6 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 7 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 8 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 9 Art Unit: 3614 Application/Control Number: 19/045,099 Page 10 Art Unit: 3614
Prosecution Insights