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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebihara (US 20150183467 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Ebihara discloses a back panel assembly (Fig. 1-2, the panel assembly is at the back of the vehicle), which forms a lower portion (Fig. 1-2) of a tailgate opening (61 in Fig. 2) at a rear side (Fig. 1, as indicated by the referencing arrows) of a vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle of 11), the back panel assembly comprising: a back panel (34 in Fig. 3) extending from the lower portion of the tailgate opening at the rear side of the vehicle in a horizontal direction (Fig. 3 and paragraph 38, in the width direction) of a vehicle body (11 in Fig. 1) and coupled to the vehicle body (Fig. 1); a rear transverse assembly member (23 in Fig. 3) disposed in the horizontal direction (Fig. 3-4) of the vehicle body and coupled to cover a center portion (Fig. 3-4, covering central portion 35) of the back panel; a rear transverse side reinforcement (29 in Fig. 3) coupled to a lateral portion (Fig. 4) of the rear transverse assembly member and extending to the outside (Fig. 3-4 shows extending to left outer side) of the vehicle; and a rear transverse extension member (28 in Fig. 3) coupled to an upper portion of the rear transverse side reinforcement (Fig. 2 and 4). Regarding claim 2, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, further including: a side floor panel (42 in Fig. 4) coupled to a side end portion (Fig. 4, side end portion 92c) of the rear transverse side reinforcement. 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. Claim s 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katou et al. (US 20140159428 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, wherein upper and lower end portions ( Ebihara , Fig. 3, upper end portion 47 and lower end portion 51) of the rear transverse assembly member are coupled to upper ( Ebihara , 36 in Fig. 3) and lower ( Ebihara , 38 in Fig. 3) portions of the back panel . Ebihara fails to disclose welding. Katou teaches welding ( Katou , 113 in Fig. 7) . Katou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Katou with a reasonable expectation of success and use welding . Doing so allows a permanent joint to form between the parts such that a strong structure is formed; also allows application in small spots such as the connecting regions between the members and the panels. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ebihara in view of Katou teaches the back panel assembly of claim 3, wherein an upper end portion ( Ebihara , 96 in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse side reinforcement is coupled to the upper portion ( Ebihara , 36 in Fig. 3-4; coupling also shown in Fig. 7) of the back panel by welding ( Katou , 113 in Fig. 7), and wherein a lower end portion ( Ebihara , 101b in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse side reinforcement is coupled ( Ebihara , paragraph 70 and Fig. 4) to the lower portion ( Ebihara , 39b in Fig. 3-4) of the back panel by welding ( Katou , 113 in Fig. 7). Katou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Katou with a reasonable expectation of success and use welding to couple the parts . Doing so allows a permanent joint to form between the parts such that a strong structure is formed; also allows application in small spots such as the connecting regions between the members and the panels. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ebihara in view of Katou teaches the back panel assembly of claim 4, wherein a lower end portion ( Ebihara , 85a in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse extension member is coupled to ( Ebihara , Fig. 4-5) a center portion ( Ebihara , 92a in Fig. 4-5) of the rear transverse side reinforcement between the upper end portion of the rear transverse side reinforcement and the lower end portion of the rear transverse side reinforcement by welding. Regarding claim 6, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, wherein an upper end portion ( Ebihara , 96 in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse side reinforcement is coupled to an upper portion ( Ebihara , 36 in Fig. 3-4; coupling also shown in Fig. 7) of the back panel, and wherein a lower end portion ( Ebihara , 101b in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse side reinforcement is coupled ( Ebihara , paragraph 70 and Fig. 4) to a lower portion ( Ebihara , 39b in Fig. 3-4) of the back panel . Ebihara fails to disclose welding. Katou teaches welding ( Katou , 113 in Fig. 7) . Katou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Katou with a reasonable expectation of success and use welding to couple the parts . Doing so allows a permanent joint to form between the parts such that a strong structure is formed; also allows application in small spots such as the connecting regions between the members and the panels. Regarding claim 8, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, wherein an internal end portion ( Ebihara , Fig. 4, internal end or right end of portion 83 of extension member 28) of the rear transverse extension member is coupled to the rear transverse assembly member ( Ebihara , Fig. 3-4, coupled through reinforcement 29 at 96a), and wherein a lower end portion ( Ebihara , 85a in Fig. 4) of the rear transverse extension member is coupled to ( Ebihara , Fig. 4-5) a center portion ( Ebihara , 92a in Fig. 4-5) of the rear transverse side reinforcement. Ebihara fails to disclose welding. Katou teaches welding ( Katou , 113 in Fig. 7) . Katou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Katou with a reasonable expectation of success and use welding to couple the parts . Doing so allows a permanent joint to form between the parts such that a strong structure is formed; also allows application in small spots such as the connecting regions between the members and the panels. Regarding claim 9, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, wherein an upper end portion ( Ebihara , 84b/85c in Fig. 4 and 2) of the rear transverse extension member is coupled to the vehicle body ( Ebihara , Fig. 2) . Ebihara fails to disclose bolting. Katou teaches welding ( Katou , 11 4 in Fig. 6 ) . Katou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Katou with a reasonable expectation of success and use bolting to couple the parts . Doing so allows unscrewing the bolt for releasing when desired; easier to check for damages and wearing; and allows usage of bolts, which is a common joining technique, when other methods are unavailable. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (US 20210362571 A1) and Inagaki (US 20230294771 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Ebihara discloses the back panel assembly of claim 1, wherein there is an external surface of a side floor panel ( Ebihara , Fig. 1 shows a side floor next to left frame 12 and adjacent pillar 16 ) . Ebihara fails to disclose attached and coupled to a D-pillar reinforcement of the vehicle body by a bonding agent for a structure. Kang teaches attached and coupled to a D-pillar reinforcement ( Kang, 120 in Fig. 2; attached and coupled by a side floor panel 210) of the vehicle body . Kang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle body rear structure as Ebihara . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara to incorporate the teachings of Kang with a reasonable expectation of success and have a D-pillar reinforcement couple to the side floor . Doing so increases vehicle structural integrity and provides enhanced safety to occupants. Inagaki teaches a bonding agent for a structure ( Inagaki, paragraph 107-108, structural adhesive) . Inagaki is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle structural joints as Ebihara in view of Kang . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Ebihara in view of Kang to incorporate the teachings of Inagaki with a reasonable expectation of success and use a structural bonding agent . Doing so provides a high toughness joint ( Inagaki, paragraph 108) and allows coupling at locations where other attachment methods are not accessible ( Inagaki, paragraph 143). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 7 and 11-12 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a lower portion of an external end portion of the rear transverse side reinforcement are coupled to a surface of the side floor panel by welding as claimed in claim 7 and the side floor panel is coupled to a side end portion of the rear transverse side reinforcement as claimed in claim 11 . Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Ebihara , which teaches the limitations of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 2 above), where a side floor panel (42 in Fig. 4) coupled to a side end portion (Fig. 4, side end portion 92c) of the rear transverse side reinforcement . However, claim 11 depends on claim 10, which requires that the side floor panel is attached to a D-pillar reinforcement by a bonding agent for a structure. The side floor panel 42 mapped in claim 2 that couples to the rear transverse side reinforcement does not attach to a pillar. Instead, Ebihara teaches a pillar 16 that has other side floor panels adjacent and attach to it ; therefore, rejecting claim 10 requires a different side floor panel that does not meet the limitation in claim 11. Regarding claim 7, Ebihara teaches a lower portion 101b, but it does not join to the side floor panel 42 and it is not of the external end portion of the reinforcement 29. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle back panel assemblies . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5564 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /WENWEI ZHUO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612