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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.102021109894.7, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. This application, which is in German, does not appear to show (in any of the drawing figures) the rear structure currently claimed. The effective filing date of the current invention will be taken to be 2/4/22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932 (DE 102004062932) in view of JPS 674 (JPS 6288674) and CN 998 (CN 217892998).
For claim 11, DE 932 discloses a rear structure for a motor vehicle, comprising:
two longitudinal members (4,5);
a front crossmember (7); and
a rear crossmember (6),
wherein the front crossmember and the rear crossmember each connect the two longitudinal members to one another (FIG.2), and
PNG
media_image1.png
307
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the front crossmember (7) and the rear crossmember (6) each extend in a motor vehicle transverse direction and together (FIG.3) with the longitudinal members define a first cutout configured to receive a luggage compartment floor,
the first cutout being free of connection webs (where a “web” is defined, using a dictionary definition as the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a “complex system of interconnected elements”) extending from the longitudinal members and/or the crossmembers into the first cutout, and
wherein the rear structure is a single-piece aluminum die-cast component ([0021]) comprising, integrally, rear spring supports (17c).
For claim 20, DE 932 further discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: the rear structure set forth above.
DE 932 lacks the die-cast component including integrally at least parts of rear wheelhouses, wherein the rear wheelhouses comprise curved body portions that surround and provide clearance for rear wheels of the motor vehicle.
JPS (JPS6288674A) teaches a structure for a motor vehicle, and specifically discloses:
an integrally cast structure comprising a rear covering member 38, a spring support member 42a, 42b and/or at least a portion of the wheel cover 40a, 40b. Moreover, the role of the above features in JPS 674 is the same as that in the present application, which is to optimize the assembly at the wheel cover. JPS 674 provides the suggestion to employ the above features in the rear structure DE 932 to solve the technical problem.
PNG
media_image2.png
292
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the integrally die cast rear structure of DE 932 with parts of a rear wheelhouse as taught by JPS 674 in order to optimize assembly and increase precision.
CN 998 teaches an integrally cast structure for a motor vehicle comprising a rear longitudinal wheel cover and rear longitudinal beam, which are high vacuum die-cast from aluminum alloy. The wheel cover (FIG.2) comprises curved body portions that surround and inherently provide clearance for rear wheels of the motor vehicle.
PNG
media_image3.png
489
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the integrally die cast wheel housing of DE 932, as modified, with curved body portions that surround and provide clearance for rear wheels as taught by CN 998 in order to add strength and protection from debris.
For claim 14, the rear structure of DE 932, as twice modified, further comprising:
extensions (towards 13, 19, 20, FIG.9) of the two longitudinal members which, in a functional installation state of the rear structure on the motor vehicle,
each adjoin a respective one of the two longitudinal members to the rear in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction,
wherein the extensions of the two longitudinal members and the rear crossmember define a second cutout (FIG.9) in which a luggage compartment tray of the motor vehicle is arrangeable, the second cutout being open toward the rear in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 15, the extensions of the two longitudinal members each comprise an integrally formed connection element (13) to which a rear covering support (19) of the motor vehicle is fixable and connects the extensions of the two longitudinal members to one another, and by which the second cutout is delimited to the rear in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 17, a rear covering (20) is provided as part of the rear structure (FIG.9).
PNG
media_image4.png
290
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932 (DE 102004062932) in view of JPS 674 (JPS 6288674) and the admitted prior art (as set forth in the remarks of 3/19/26).
For claim 11, DE 932 discloses a rear structure for a motor vehicle, comprising:
two longitudinal members (4,5);
a front crossmember (7); and
a rear crossmember (6),
wherein the front crossmember and the rear crossmember each connect the two longitudinal members to one another (FIG.2), and
PNG
media_image1.png
307
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the front crossmember (7) and the rear crossmember (6) each extend in a motor vehicle transverse direction and together (FIG.3) with the longitudinal members define a first cutout configured to receive a luggage compartment floor,
the first cutout being free of connection webs (where a “web” is defined, using a dictionary definition as the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a “complex system of interconnected elements”) extending from the longitudinal members and/or the crossmembers into the first cutout, and
wherein the rear structure is a single-piece aluminum die-cast component ([0021]) comprising, integrally, rear spring supports (17c).
For claim 20, DE 932 further discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: the rear structure set forth above.
DE 932 lacks the die-cast component including integrally at least parts of rear wheelhouses, wherein the rear wheelhouses comprise curved body portions that surround and provide clearance for rear wheels of the motor vehicle.
JPS (JPS6288674A) teaches a structure for a motor vehicle, and specifically discloses:
an integrally cast structure comprising a rear covering member 38, a spring support member 42a, 42b and/or at least a portion of the wheel cover 40a, 40b. Moreover, the role of the above features in JPS 674 is the same as that in the present application, which is to optimize the assembly at the wheel cover. JPS 674 provides the suggestion to employ the above features in the rear structure DE 932 to solve the technical problem.
PNG
media_image2.png
292
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the integrally die cast rear structure of DE 932 with parts of a rear wheelhouse as taught by JPS 674 in order to optimize assembly and increase precision.
Applicant admits on the record (see the Remarks of 3/19/26 at page 6, first full paragraph; and page 7, lines 1-3) that wheelhouses of the ordinary automotive art comprise a curved structural body portion that encloses and provides clearance for a vehicle wheel. Applicant makes clear that this is the ordinary meaning of a wheelhouse of the prior art.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the integrally die cast wheel housing of DE 932, as modified, with curved body portions that surround and provide clearance for rear wheels as taught by the admitted prior art in order to add strength and protection from debris.
For claim 14, the rear structure of DE 932, as twice modified, further comprising:
extensions (towards 13, 19, 20, FIG.9) of the two longitudinal members which, in a functional installation state of the rear structure on the motor vehicle,
each adjoin a respective one of the two longitudinal members to the rear in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction,
wherein the extensions of the two longitudinal members and the rear crossmember define a second cutout (FIG.9) in which a luggage compartment tray of the motor vehicle is arrangeable, the second cutout being open toward the rear in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 15, the extensions of the two longitudinal members each comprise an integrally formed connection element (13) to which a rear covering support (19) of the motor vehicle is fixable and connects the extensions of the two longitudinal members to one another, and by which the second cutout is delimited to the rear in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 17, a rear covering (20) is provided as part of the rear structure (FIG.9).
PNG
media_image4.png
290
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above.
For claim 16, the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, further comprising:
extensions (FIG.9) of the two longitudinal members which, in a functional installation state of the rear structure on the motor vehicle,
each adjoin a respective one of the two longitudinal members to the rear in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction; and
a rear covering support (19) which connects the extensions of the two longitudinal members to one another,
wherein the extensions of the two longitudinal members, the rear crossmember and the rear covering support define a second cutout in which a luggage compartment tray of the motor vehicle is arrangeable.
DE 932, as modified, lacks the rear covering support (19) being integrally formed with the single-piece die-cast component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the rear covering support (19) of DE 932 as an integral component (integrally formed component) because the courts have held "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in” a prior art reference “would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice". In this instance, the use of a one-piece integral construction in DE 932 for the rear structure and rear covering support would have been a mere matter of obvious engineering choice” based on ease of manufacturing, materials criteria, and time. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above, in view of JPS 674.
For claim 16, the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, further comprising:
extensions (FIG.9) of the two longitudinal members which, in a functional installation state of the rear structure on the motor vehicle,
each adjoin a respective one of the two longitudinal members to the rear in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction; and
a rear covering support (19) which connects the extensions of the two longitudinal members to one another,
wherein the extensions of the two longitudinal members, the rear crossmember and the rear covering support define a second cutout in which a luggage compartment tray of the motor vehicle is arrangeable.
DE 932, as modified, lacks the rear covering support (19) being integrally formed with the single-piece die-cast component.
JPS (JPS6288674A) teaches a structure for a motor vehicle with integrally cast rear structure comprising rear covering support (38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the rear covering support (19) of DE 932 as an integral component (integrally formed component) of the die cast component as doing so is taught by JPS 674 in order to optimize assembly and increase precision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
DE 932 Does Not Disclose Rear Wheelhouses
Applicant states that, although DE 932 discloses attachment points (17a-e) for suspension components such as control arms, longitudinal links, and spring supports, DE 932 fails to disclose “at least part of rear wheelhouses” as these discloses components are merely mounting locations for separately installed components. The examiner agrees which is why the rejection set forth above is a 103 combination rejection as opposed to a 102 anticipatory rejection.
JPS 674 Does Not Remedy the Deficiencies of DE 932 and Teaches Away
Applicant argues examiner’s characterization of JPS 674 is not accurate and overlooks the fundamental architecture of JPS 674. The examiner disagrees. No support or explanation is provided as to why examiner’s characterization if JPS 674 is in error.
JPS 674 teaches a TWO-PIECE vehicle body structure, not a single-piece integrated rear structure and JPS 674 is incompatible with and teaches away from the claimed structure
Applicant argues JPS 674 expressly discloses dividing a vehicle body support structure into two separately cast skeleton structures (12 and 14) separately manufactured and then joined together by bolts at predetermined locations. Applicant goes on to argue that this two-piece structure is incompatible with and teaches away from Applicant's claimed single-piece rear structure. Examiner is not persuaded by this argument.
Examiner’s use of JPS 674 is to teach only the desirability of incorporating a wheel cover (wheel housing) into an integrally cast rear structure. The mere fact that JPS 674 discloses an additional component (14) is immaterial to the rejection at hand. The focus is on structure (12), specifically the rear structure of JPS 674 which is formed integrally cast and includes among other components a rear covering member 38, a spring support member 42a, 42b and/or at least a portion of the wheel cover 40a, 40b. Examiner then applies this teaching to the rear structure of DE 932.
Applicant argues because JPS 674 discloses a divided vehicle body with a two piece skeleton structure (12,14) of separate front and rear casting which is then assembled together, JPS 674 teaches away from integrated single-piece structures like that of the current invention. Examiner disagrees. Here again, it is immaterial that JP 674 discloses two separate front and rear castings when what is being taught from JPS 674 is only directed to the rear casting itself. The rear casting alone provides an integrated structure like that of the current invention. It is unclear how such a disclosure could teach away from the current invention. Moreover, nothing in DE 932 vitiates adding to the integrated structure a wheel housing as taught by JPS 674 and set forth above.
Applicant goes on to argue one of ordinary skill would not look to JPS 674 for motivation to integrate more components into a single rear casting as this runs counter to JPS 674’s core teaching. The examiner disagrees and is not persuaded by this argument. Integrating components into a single rear casting is a core teaching of JPS 674. The entirety of structure (12) constitutes a single integrated casting. Specifically, JPS 674 teaches integrating a wheel covering (wheel housing) into a rear structure (12). The wheel covering (wheel housing) is already present in the teaching reference and JPS 674 discusses motivation to incorporate such a wheel covering as seen in [0001] in its entirety.
The Combination Lacks Articulated Reasoning with Rational Underpinning
Applicant’s final argument is that the motivation to combine is conclusory.
The burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness falls on the Examiner. Ex parte Wolters, 214 USPQ 735 (BPAI 1979). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). However, a claimed invention composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The KSR court stated that “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does ... because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” Id. Specifically, there must be some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness; a conclusory statement will not suffice. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, the factual inquiry determining whether to combine references must be thorough and searching, and it must be based on objective evidence of record. In re Lee, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1436 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the instant rejection, support for the motivation is found in JPS 674 at [0001] which discusses at length the deficiencies (“various difficulties”) present in structures of the prior art. Specifically, with regard to weight and rigidity, steel plates, typically used to form vehicle bodies, need to be thin but are difficult to press form and “impossible” to join with FRP components used for components requiring lower strength. Additionally, providing a structure with a plurality of components of differing materials reduces the rigidity of the vehicle body. JPS 674 goes on noting in order to manufacture monocoque structures, “high precision” is needed for accurate positioning requiring special jigs which complicates a work process and increases cost ([0001]).
Further, JPS 674 notes many of these problems are solved by providing a tubular body (pipe members) formed by extrusion molding and assembling exterior members thereto, but notes this requires not only “high precision” but a necessary step of welding the connecting portions together. This welding which leads to extreme thermal strain at the connecting portions and reduces the rigidity of the body frame. All this then leads to the present invention of JPS 674, which overcomes the disadvantages ([0001]).
JPS 674 overcomes the disadvantages of the prior structures by forming a vehicle body support structure integrally by “casting a light alloy” which is later discussed to be aluminum alloy or magnesium alloy or the like. Providing a casting in light alloy obtains a structure having “high rigidity and high accuracy”, and which can be “easily manufacture[d]”, has “an extremely light weight and various shapes” ([0001]).
As set forth in the rejection above, examiner has identified that JPS 674 recognizes integrating wheelhouse portion into a rear structure and teaches the desire for integrating.
Examiner’s reason with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of DE 932 and JPS 674 is “to optimize assembly and increase precision” where the support for the motivation is directly from JPS 674 as set forth above. Examiner contends there is not persuasive argument nor objective evidence to show error in that reasoning.
Hindsight
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B