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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 3, it is believed “an impact beam” should be changed to --the impact beam--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the stabilizer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the impact beam" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Armbruster et al. (US Pat 7,156,448).
Regarding claim 1, Armbruster et al. disclose a rigidity-improved vehicle panel door 2 comprising: an external panel 7 positioned in the door 2 of a vehicle toward an outside of the vehicle; an internal panel 6 positioned in the door 2 of the vehicle toward an interior of the vehicle, wherein an external edge portion of the internal panel 6 is joined to the external panel 7 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 30-41); and a structure 10 including a plurality of support members 37, 38 and a plurality of reinforcement members 35, 36 (see Figure 2; Col. 2, line 64-Col. 3, line 6), wherein the plurality of support members 37, 38 are disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and coupled to the plurality of reinforcement members 35, 36 to form a shape of a quadrangle (see Figure 2), the plurality of reinforcement members 35, 36 being provided on a front end portion of the door and a rear end portion of the door 2 (see Figure 2; Col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the support members include a stabilizer 38 and an impact beam 37 that are disposed in a height direction of the vehicle in the door to be spaced from each other (see Figure 2; Col. 2, line 64-Col. 3, line 6).
Regarding claim 3, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement members include: a hinge upper reinforcer 35 to which an upper hinge 13 connecting the door 5 to a body 15 of the vehicle is fastened and to which a front end portion of a stabilizer 38 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); a hinge reinforcer which is positioned on a lower portion of the hinge upper reinforcer, to which a lower hinge 13 connecting the door 5 to the body 15 of the vehicle is fastened under the upper hinge 13, and to which a front end portion of an impact beam 37 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); a latch reinforcer 36 on which a latch 14 is provided in the rear end portion of the door 5 and to which a rear end portion of the stabilizer 38 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); and a latch lower reinforcer to which a rear end portion of the impact beam 37 is coupled under the latch reinforcer (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 3, wherein the hinge upper reinforcer and the hinge reinforcer are connected to each other in the height direction of the vehicle in the front end portion of the door in the door (see annotated Figure 2 above Col. 3, lines 1-6), wherein the latch reinforcer and the latch lower reinforcer are connected to each other in the height direction of the vehicle in the rear end portion of the door (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6), wherein the stabilizer 38 connects the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer to each other in a belt line in the door (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6), and wherein the impact beam 37 connects the hinge reinforcer and the latch lower reinforcer to each other under the stabilizer 38 (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement members 35, 36 are provided on the front end portion 8 of the door and on the rear end portion 9 of the door, to form a shape of a quadrangle together with the external panel 7 and the internal panel 6 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 30-41, 64-67).
Regarding claim 6, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement members 35, 36 are coupled to the internal panel 6 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 11, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 2, includes a connection member connecting the stabilizer 38 and the impact beam 37 to each other (see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 11, wherein an upper end portion and a lower end portion of the connection member are formed to surround outsides of the stabilizer 38 and the impact beam 37, respectively (see annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 15, Armbruster et al. disclose a vehicle 1 including the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door 2 of claim 1 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 16, Armbruster et al. disclose the vehicle 1 of claim 15, wherein the support members include a stabilizer 38 and an impact beam 37 that are disposed in a height direction of the vehicle in the door to be spaced from each other (see Figure 2; Col. 2, line 64-Col. 3, line 6), and wherein the plurality of reinforcement members include: a hinge upper reinforcer 35 to which an upper hinge 13 connecting the door 5 to a body 15 of the vehicle is fastened and to which a front end portion of a stabilizer 38 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); a hinge reinforcer which is positioned on a lower portion of the hinge upper reinforcer, to which a lower hinge 13 connecting the door 5 to the body 15 of the vehicle is fastened under the upper hinge 13, and to which a front end portion of an impact beam 37 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); a latch reinforcer 36 on which a latch 14 is provided in the rear end portion of the door 5 and to which a rear end portion of the stabilizer 38 is coupled (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6); and a latch lower reinforcer to which a rear end portion of the impact beam 37 is coupled under the latch reinforcer (see Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 2 below; Col. 2, lines 42-50; Col. 3, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Armbruster et al. disclose the vehicle 1 of claim 16, wherein the hinge upper reinforcer and the hinge reinforcer are connected to each other in the height direction of the vehicle in the front end portion of the door in the door (see annotated Figure 2 above Col. 3, lines 1-6), wherein the latch reinforcer and the latch lower reinforcer are connected to each other in the height direction of the vehicle in the rear end portion of the door (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6), wherein the stabilizer 38 connects the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer to each other in a belt line in the door (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6), and wherein the impact beam 37 connects the hinge reinforcer and the latch lower reinforcer to each other under the stabilizer 38 (see annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 20, Armbruster et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 17, further including a connection member connecting the stabilizer 38 and the impact beam 37 to each other (see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valentage et al. (US PG Pub 2007/0222256).
Regarding claim 1, Valentage et al. disclose a rigidity-improved vehicle panel door comprising: an external panel 310 positioned in the door of a vehicle toward an outside of the vehicle (see Figure 3; Paragraph 34); an internal panel 330 positioned in the door of the vehicle toward an interior of the vehicle (see Figures 3 and 11B; Paragraph 34), wherein an external edge portion 320 of the internal panel 330 is joined to the external panel 310 (see Figures 3 and 11B; Paragraphs 36 and 55); and a structure 340 including a plurality of support members 348A, 348B and a plurality of reinforcement members 350, 355, wherein the plurality of support members 348A, 348B are disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle and coupled to the plurality of reinforcement members 350, 355 to form a shape of a quadrangle, the plurality of reinforcement members 355 being provided on a front end portion of the door and a rear end portion of the door (see Figure 9; Paragraphs 50-52).
Regarding claim 2, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the support members 348A, 348B include a stabilizer 348A and an impact beam 348B that are disposed in a height direction of the vehicle in the door to be spaced from each other (see Figure 9; Paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 5, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement members 355 are provided on the front end portion of the door and on the rear end portion of the door, to form a shape of a quadrangle together with the external panel 310 and the internal panel 330 (see Figures 3, 9 and 11A; Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 6, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement members 350, 355 are coupled to the internal panel 330 (see Figure 11A; Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 8, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 2, wherein the stabilizer 348A and the impact beam 348B are formed so that lengths thereof correspond to a length of the door (see Figure 11A; Paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 10, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 2, wherein the stabilizer 348A and the impact beam 348B are disposed to be parallel with each other (see Figure 9; Paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 11, Valentage et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 2, includes a connection member 348C, 348D connecting the stabilizer 348A and the impact beam 348B to each other (see Figure 9; Paragraph 51).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbruster et al. in view of Ando (US PG Pub 2018/0264919).
Regarding claim 7, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1.
Armbruster et al. fail to disclose a seating groove on which an end portion of the support members is accommodated is formed in each of the plurality of reinforcement members.
Ando discloses a vehicle structure having door with a support member 30 and a plurality of reinforcement members 40, 41 (see Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 47-48). The plurality of reinforcement members 40, 41 have a seating groove 44 in which an end of the support member 30 is a accommodated (see Figures 3-4; Paragraphs 51 and 56-57). The seating groove 44 ensures contact with the support member 30 and the parts are welded together (see Paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the plurality of reinforcement members of Armbruster et al. having a seating groove on which an end portion of the support members is accommodated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure a greater contact area is established between the reinforcement member and the support member to more securely fasten the support member, as taught by Ando.
Regarding claim 19, Armbruster et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 16.
Armbruster et al. fail to disclose a seating groove on which an end portion of the support members is accommodated is formed in each of the plurality of reinforcement members.
Ando discloses a vehicle structure having door with a support member 30 and a plurality of reinforcement members 40, 41 (see Figures 1-4; Paragraphs 47-48). The plurality of reinforcement members 40, 41 have a seating groove 44 in which an end of the support member 30 is a accommodated (see Figures 3-4; Paragraphs 51 and 56-57). The seating groove 44 ensures contact with the support member 30 and the parts are welded together (see Paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the plurality of reinforcement members of Armbruster et al. having a seating groove on which an end portion of the support members is accommodated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure a greater contact area is established between the reinforcement member and the support member to more securely fasten the support member, as taught by Ando.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbruster et al. in view of Kawabe et al. (US Pat 9,902,240).
Regarding claim 9, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 3.
Armbruster et al. fail to disclose the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer extend over a predetermined distance upwards from a belt line in the door.
Kawabe et al. disclose a vehicle door 10 having a stabilizer 26 positioned near a belt line of the vehicle door 10 (see Figure 2). The stabilizer 26 is positioned in the door by reinforcement members 34, 36 (see Figure 2). The front reinforcement member 34 is a hinge upper reinforcer and reinforces the upper hinge 40 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, lines 50-56). The rear reinforcement member 36 is a latch reinforcer and reinforces the latch 42 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, lines 42-48). The hinge upper reinforcer 34 and the latch reinforcer 36 extend over a predetermined distance 38F, 38R upwards from the belt line in the door 10 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 3; Col. 8, line 60-Col. 9, line 8). The rigidity of the door 10 is improved by positioning the hinge upper reinforcer 34 and latch reinforcer 36 at a distance above the belt line while also controlling the weight of the door 10 (see Col. 9, lines 9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer to extend over a predetermined distance upwards from a belt line in the door of Armbruster et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve the rigidity of the door while also controlling the weight of the door, as taught by Kawabe et al..
Regarding claim 18, Armbruster et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 17.
Armbruster et al. fail to disclose the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer extend over a predetermined distance upwards from a belt line in the door.
Kawabe et al. disclose a vehicle door 10 having a stabilizer 26 positioned near a belt line of the vehicle door 10 (see Figure 2). The stabilizer 26 is positioned in the door by reinforcement members 34, 36 (see Figure 2). The front reinforcement member 34 is a hinge upper reinforcer and reinforces the upper hinge 40 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, lines 50-56). The rear reinforcement member 36 is a latch reinforcer and reinforces the latch 42 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, lines 42-48). The hinge upper reinforcer 34 and the latch reinforcer 36 extend over a predetermined distance 38F, 38R upwards from the belt line in the door 10 (see Figure 2; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 3; Col. 8, line 60-Col. 9, line 8). The rigidity of the door 10 is improved by positioning the hinge upper reinforcer 34 and latch reinforcer 36 at a distance above the belt line while also controlling the weight of the door 10 (see Col. 9, lines 9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the hinge upper reinforcer and the latch reinforcer to extend over a predetermined distance upwards from a belt line in the door of Armbruster et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to improve the rigidity of the door while also controlling the weight of the door, as taught by Kawabe et al..
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armbruster et al. in view of Djavairian et al. (US Pat 5,325,632).
Regarding claims 13, Armbruster et al. disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 1.
Armbruster et al. fail to disclose one of the external panel and the internal panel is made of plastic material, and another thereof is made of metal material.
Djavairian et al. disclose a vehicle door 10 having an inner panel 12 and an outer panel 14 (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 58-64). The outer panel 14 is made of a plastic material and the inner panel 12 is made of steel, a metal (see Col. 2, lines 58-64). The door structure reduces the overall weight of the door and increases fuel efficiency (see Col. 2, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the external panel of Armbruster et al. from plastic material and the internal panel of metal material, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the weight of the door structure and increase fuel efficiency, as taught by Djavarian et al..
Regarding claim 14, Armbruster et al., as modified by Djavairian et al., disclose the rigidity-improved vehicle panel door of claim 13, wherein the external panel is made of plastic material, and the internal panel is made of metal material (see claim 13 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kovie et al. (US Pat 11,660,939) disclose a vehicle door having a stabilizer and an impact beam. Kovie et al. (US Pat 11,608,659) disclose a vehicle door having a stabilizer and an impact beam. Holt (US Pat 5,417,470) discloses a structural module for a vehicle door having a plurality of support members, including a stabilizer and an impact beam, and a plurality of reinforcement members, including hinge reinforcers and a latch reinforcer. Drysdale et al. (US Pat 6,302,474) disclose a vehicle door having a structure including a plurality of support members and a plurality of reinforcement members that are coupled to form a shape of a quadrangle. Omori et al. (US PG Pub 2005/0001448) disclose a vehicle door having a structure with a stabilizer and an impact bar attached to a plurality of reinforcement members. Patel et al. (US Pat 11,052,733) disclose a structure for a vehicle door having a stabilizer and an impact beam attached to reinforcement members near a latch and hinges of the door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612