DETAILED ACTION
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 17-20, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1).
Regarding claims 17, 32 Viaux discloses a motor vehicle (abstract) comprising a rear underfloor structure for a motor vehicle, the rear underfloor structure comprising: a first (10) and a second side (12) member and at least one cross member (23) linking the first and second side members (fig 1),
Viaux is silent regarding the fact that the rear underfloor structure is made by stamping a single tailor welded blank including at least two sub-blanks.
Kim teaches stamping a single tailor welded blank including at least two sub-blanks (page 4 paragraph 9 discloses the use of an heterogeneous joining method by joining parts 50 and 60 by welding into one blank before stamping).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Viaux to include stamping a single tailor welded blank including at least two sub-blanks in order to improve the strength and reduce the number of parts (page 4 paragraph 13)
Regarding claim 18 ,Viaux further discloses that the stamping is a hot stamping (page 9, line 32-page 10 line 7).
Regarding claim 19, Viaux further discloses that the at least one cross member includes at least two cross members (23, 25) (fig 1).
Regarding claim 20, Viaux further discloses that each of the first and second side members includes:-a horizontal wall (annotated fig 3) and an inner wall (annotated fig 3) linked by an inner radius (portion between horizontal and inner wall, figs 2-3), -at least one cross-member attachment zone (zone between (10, 12) and (23, 25)), corresponding to a portion of the first or second side member on to which the corresponding cross-member is attached (figs 1-3), wherein the inner radius extends along at least part of the cross-member attachment zone (figs 1-3).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (EP2832887A1)
Regarding claim 21, Viaux is silent the at least two sub-blanks is coated with an aluminum based metallic coating.
Miyazaki teaches the use of an aluminum based metallic coating in order to ensure favorable workability and corrosion resistance ([0065]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Miyazaki and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include an aluminum based metallic coating as taught by Miyazaki in order to ensure favorable workability and corrosion resistance ([0065]).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Machado (US 20180223386).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Viaux and Kim is silent regarding at least one of the at least two sub-blanks is coated with an aluminum based metallic coating, comprising from 2.0 to 24.0% by weight of zinc, from 1.1 to 12.0% by weight of silicon.
Machado teaches blanks with an aluminum based metallic coating, comprising from 2.0 to 24.0% by weight of zinc, from 1.1 to 12.0% by weight of silicon ([0008]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Machado and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include an aluminum based metallic coating, comprising from 2.0 to 24.0% by weight of zinc, from 1.1 to 12.0% by weight of silicon as taught by Machado in order to obtain a part which does not have LME issues generated by the hot-forming ([0007]).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sommer (DE102017110864B3).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Viaux and Kim is silent regarding the fact that at least one of the at least two sub-blanks includes an emissivity increasing top layer on at least one side
Sommer further teaches the fact that at least one of the at least two sub-blanks includes an emissivity increasing top layer on at least one side ([0042]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Viaux to include the fact that at least one of the at least two sub-blanks includes an emissivity increasing top layer on at least one side as taught by Sommer in order to harmonize the heating rate ([0044]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bolar et al. (US 20220371662)
Regarding claim 24, Viaux is silent regarding at least one of the at least two sub-blanks is made of a press-hardening steel having an ultimate tensile strength after hot stamping above 1800MPa.
Bolar teaches blanks made of a press-hardening steel having an ultimate tensile strength after hot stamping above 1800MPa (abstract).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Bolar and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include a press-hardening steel having an ultimate tensile strength after hot stamping above 1800MPa as taught by Bolar in order to meet strength and ductility requirements with no or minimal increases in weight ([0006]).
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1)as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rana (US 20210156012)
Regarding claim 25, Viaux is silent regarding least one of the at least two sub-blanks is made of a press-hardening steel having a yield strength after hot forming comprised between 700 and 950MPa, an ultimate tensile strength after hot forming comprised between 950MPa and 1200MPa and a bending angle after hot forming above 75°.
Rana teaches blanks made of a press-hardening steel having a yield strength after hot forming comprised between 700 and 950MPa (table 3, abstract), an ultimate tensile strength after hot forming comprised between 950MPa and 1200MPa (table 3, [0007]) and a bending angle after hot forming above 75° ([0082], abstract).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Rana and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include of a press-hardening steel having a yield strength after hot forming comprised between 700 and 950MPa, an ultimate tensile strength after hot forming comprised between 950MPa and 1200MPa and a bending angle after hot forming above 75° as taught by Rana in order to meet the automotive industry's requirements in terms of improved mechanical properties ([0003]).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Marquez (US 20230027898).
Regarding claims 26-27, the combination of Viaux and Kim teaches an emissivity increasing top layer ( Kim [0042]). The combination is silent regarding at least one metallic patch.
Marquez teaches at least one metallic patch (abstract) in order to withstand compressive crash forces in case of a crash situation of the vehicle (abstract).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Marquez and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include one metallic patch as taught by Marquez in order to withstand compressive crash forces in case of a crash situation of the vehicle (abstract).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Caliskan et al. (US20160339965)
Regarding claims 28-29, the combination of Viaux and Kim is silent regarding at least one weld seam reinforcing patch applied on an area having a weld seam.
Caliskan teaches at least one weld seam reinforcing patch (14) applied on an area having a weld seam (area @ 14) ([0025], fig 2a).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Caliskan and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include least one weld seam reinforcing patch applied on an area having a weld seam as taught by Caliskan in order to enhancing in-service structural performance of a sheet metal component ([0005]).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (WO 2017098306) and Kim (KR101836735B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (CN108588612).
Regarding claim 30-31, the combination of Viaux and Kim is silent regarding a thickness of an interdiffusion layer in an Aluminum based metallic coated area of the rear underfloor structure is between 3 microns and 15 microns.
Yi teaches a thickness of an interdiffusion layer in an Aluminum based metallic coated area of the rear underfloor structure is between between 3 microns and 10 microns (abstract).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Viaux, Yi and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Viaux and Kim to include an interdiffusion layer in an Aluminum based metallic coated area of the rear underfloor structure is between 3 microns and 10 microns as taught by Yi in order to meet collision safety requirement (background section).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 22, the examiner will assume that the limitations recited after the term “optionally” are not required and the claim is essentially defined by “the non-optional” limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
05/08/2026
Prosecution Insights