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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the attachment points of claim 23; the chassis of claim 23; the spring struts of claim 23; the side rocker panel of claim 26; the two longitudinal members each adjoined to a side rocker panel of claim 26; a rocker panel of claim 27; the rocker panel connected to a rear spring support of claim 27; the longitudinal members being the means by which the connection of the rocker panel and rear spring support occur of claim 27; the aperture, embossing, and rib of claim 35 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 18, “and” should be inserted after the final comma on this line so that it is clear that the rear covering support (line 19) is included in the list of components making up the single-piece die-cast component.
Claim 20, line 14, “and” should be inserted after the last comma on this line so that it is clear the rear covering support is included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the added limitations to the claims are repeated from the specification, lack of detail therein with regard to the specific way in which the shape of the aperture, embossing, or rib is optimized raises questions as to whether applicant had possession, at time of filing, of the features.
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 35 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 35 recites the limitation that the rear structure is shape-optimized by “adapting a shape” of an aperture, embossing, or rib. It is unclear how the shape of each of the elements (aperture, embossing, rib) is adapted and therefore the metrics of the claim are not particularly pointed out in such a way to determine infringement. For the purposes of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 17, 20, 24-30, 32-33, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932 (DE 102004062932) or, alternatively DE 932 in view of JPS 674.
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]) that integrally comprises the two longitudinal member (4,5), the front crossmember (7), the rear crossmember (6), the extensions (18,12,13) of the two longitudinal members, and rear spring supports (17c), and
wherein extensions (18,12,13) 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,
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 (19) define a second cutout (FIG.9) in which a luggage compartment tray of the motor vehicle is arrangeable (that is, capable of being arranged), the second cutout being open toward 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_image2.png
290
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 20, DE 932 further discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: the rear structure set forth above.
For claim 24, the first cutout has an approximately rectangular shape in a top view (as seen in FIG.3).
For claim 25, the rear structure is a constituent part of a body of the motor vehicle (that is, the rear structure is a part of the whole of the body of the motor vehicle).
For claim 26, in a functional installation state of the rear structure on the motor vehicle, the two longitudinal members (4,5) each adjoin (via crash boxes 13) a side rocker panel (sill, not shown but disclosed at [0023] and [0025]) to the rear structure in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 27, a rocker panel (sill, not shown, disclosed at [0023] and [0025]) of the motor vehicle is connected to a rear spring support (42a,42b, as taught by JPS 674 above) of the motor vehicle by means of the longitudinal members (4,5).
For claim 28, the first cutout is at least approximately cuboidal (in that the first cutout is approximately shaped as a rectangular cuboid or prism).
For claim 29, the first cutout is open to the top and bottom in a motor vehicle vertical direction.
For claim 30, the front crossmember and the rear crossmember extend orthogonally to the two longitudinal members (FIG.2).
For claim 32, the second cutout is situated behind the first cutout in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
DE 932 fails to disclose the rear covering support (19) as an integral part of the 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 formed the rear covering support (19) of DE 932 as an integral component (integrally formed, one-piece component) of the rear structure (1) 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 die-cast 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). Additionally, DE 932 sets forth “for the expert” ([0053]) it goes without saying that components can be integrated. DE 932 further sets forth why this is advantageous noting it is beneficial to treat the “entire rear area” ([0041]) as a whole to allow for graduated stiffness and improved deformation.
Alternatively, JPS 674 (JPS6288674A) teaches a structure for a motor vehicle with integrally cast rear structure comprising rear covering support (38).
Alternatively, 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.
For claim 33, the second cutout is free from connection webs extending from the extensions of the two longitudinal members (4,5), the rear crossmember (6), and/or the rear covering support (19).
For claim 36, the rear covering support (19) extends in the motor vehicle transverse direction and adjoins a rear end of the extensions (18,12,13) of the two longitudinal members in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 37, the rear covering (20) adjoins the rear covering support (19) to the rear in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction.
For claim 38, the single-piece aluminum die-cast component (as set forth above of DE 932, as modified,) further integrally comprises two front wheelhouse subregions (generally opposite laterally spaced front “regions” on either side of the structure (1, such as those areas in front of 17d near 8)) and two rear wheelhouse subregions (generally opposite laterally spaced rear “regions” on either side of the structure (1, such as those area near behind 17d near 6)).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above with respect to claim 11 and further in view of Yuksel or Engineering Product Design.
For claim 22, DE 932, as modified, fails to disclose optimizing the rear structure.
Topology optimization is known from the prior art. As set forth in the “An Overview on Topology Optimization Methods employed in Structural Engineering” (Yuksel, 12/31/2019), topology optimization is defined as the determination of optimum material distribution in a design space which minimizes (or maximizes) an objective function while satisfying some constraints or more succinctly determining which pixels will include material and which will be void for optimized design.
Likewise, or alternatively, as set forth in Engineering Product Design’s “Introduction to Topology Optimization” (12/18/2021), topology optimization is a process that optimizes material layout and structure to maximize performance by mathematically modelling in order to make a product lighter in weight.
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 applied topology optimization known from Yuksel or Engineering Product Design for use with the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, in order to optimize the same allowing for improved functionality (as described in DE 932 with regard to stiffness and deformation/deformation zones) as desired while minimizing material used.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above with respect to claim 11, and further in view of DE 102008062008 (DE 008).
For claim 23, DE 932, as modified, fails to disclose the rear spring supports each form an attachment point to a chassis, and wherein spring struts of the motor vehicle are fastenable to the rear spring supports, a feature taught by DE 008.
DE 008 teaches a rear spring support (FIG.2) designed such that each form an attachment point (at 9,9’) to a chassis, wherein spring struts (not shown) of the motor vehicle are fastenable to the rear spring supports (see [0015] which discloses strut mount 9,9’ is integrated into the respective side wall element 6,6’ of the side walls 2,2’).
PNG
media_image3.png
511
687
media_image3.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 modified the design of the rear spring supports of DE 932, modified above, to include attachment points as taught by DE 008 an obvious matter of engineering choice in order to allow for the integration and ease of connection of vehicle struts.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above with respect to claim 11 and further in view of DE 102006014979 (DE 979).
For claim 23, DE 932, as modified, fails to disclose the rear spring supports each form an attachment point to a chassis, and wherein spring struts of the motor vehicle are fastenable to the rear spring supports, a feature taught by DE 008.
DE 979 teaches a rear spring support (10, as seen in the figures) designed such that each form an attachment point (at 11, ‘connection points’) to a chassis, wherein spring struts (not shown) of the motor vehicle are fastenable to the rear spring supports (10).
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 modified the design of the rear spring supports of DE 932, as modified, to include strut mount attachment points as taught by DE 979 an obvious matter of engineering choice in order to allow for the integration and ease of connection of vehicle struts (at attachment points 11 as taught by DE 979).
For claim 26, DE 979 additionally teaches a rear structure (1) cast from a light metal alloy and including two longitudinal members (9) each adjoining a side rocker panel (4) to the rear structure (2) in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction (LE) (claim 26).
For claim 27, DE 979 further teaches a rocker panel (4) of the motor vehicle is connected to a rear spring support (10,11) of the motor vehicle by means of the longitudinal members (9).
PNG
media_image4.png
433
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 31 and 35, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above with respect to claim 11 and further in view of Applicant’s admission on the record and Hojjat et al.
DE 932, as modified, fails to disclose shape-optimizing the rear structure.
Applicant admits on the record that “apertures, embossings, and/or ribs” are “generic structural features” of die-cast components (Remarks, page 11 of 20, lines 3-7).
Applicant further admits on the record that shape optimization is a well-known engineering technique (Remarks, page 12 of 20, line 14).
The vertex morphing method for shape optimization is well known from the prior art. As set forth in “The Vertex Morphing method for node-based shape optimization” (Hojjat et al., 01/01/2014), vertex morphing is a node-based shape optimization technique used in computational engineering and computer graphics to modify and optimize shapes by moving mesh vertices according to a set of control parameters.
The geometry of a shape is represented by a mesh of nodes/vertices connected by elements) where a group of vertices is moved based on design variables ensuring both surface smoothness (smooth shape changes) and mesh regularity criteria (thus preserving mesh quality).
Hojjat et al. notes vertex morphing leads to the richest design space possible for optimization of a discrete geometry and ‘success in performance, efficiency and robustness’ even for problems with extreme geometrical complexities and millions of design parameters for applications in structural as well as fluid mechanics and their combinations.
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 included apertures, embossings, and/or ribs as taught by Applicant’s own admission on the record with the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, because as these are “generic structural features” of die-cast components of which the rear structure applies (see at least ribs (18) in FIG.2).
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 applied vertex morphing shape optimization as taught by Hojjat et al. for use with “generic structural features” of the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, in order to optimize the same allowing for improved performance, efficiency and robustness.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 932, as modified above with respect to claim 17.
For claim 34, DE 932, as modified, lacks the rear covering and rear covering support formed in one piece. However, the courts have held "that the use of a one-piece construction” would be “merely a matter of obvious engineering choice".
So too in this instance 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 components in one piece as an obvious matter of engineering choice in order to improve the ease of manufacturing and reduce manufacturing time. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New rejections set forth are based on amendments applicant made.
Drawing Objections
Applicant argues the features objected to are standard motor vehicle components and not features of the rear structure itself therefore need not be separately illustrated. Examiner disagrees. Though the components in isolation are known, the particular configuration of this current invention is not. Applicant has not even shown the attachment points to which the features are adjoined. Thus, these features should be shown as per the regulation above.
Regarding claim 35, Applicant submits that apertures and ribs are common structural features inherently present in die-cast components and therefore do not require separate illustration. Here again, the examiner disagrees. Though the features alone may be common, the particulars of this invention are not. The claimed subject matter recited (apertures, embossings, and/or ribs) must be shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. section 112
For the 112(a) rejection, Applicant argues that paragraph [0045] explicitly described shape optimization "carried out to achieve specific target values" by "adapting the shape of the rear structure, in particular the shape of at least one aperture, at least one embossing and/or at least one rib, for example to minimize stress peaks in the structural mechanics of the rear structure." This language is vague at best and does not describe specifically how shape optimization is used for this particular invention.
Applicant goes on to argued that "geometric parameters of local regions of the rear structure are deformed in such a way that the stresses are distributed more uniformly and thus the stress peaks are minimized" and that this statement provides sufficient written description to convey possession of the claimed feature. Examiner disagrees. Where on the invention are the stress peaks? Which “region”? How, specifically, has stress been minimized? What has been done to the current invention to allow stress to be minimized? Applicant has provided no further information nor has applicant shown in any drawing figure an “aperture, embossing, or rib” which is capable of being shape optimized. As such, the rejection is maintained.
For the 112(b) rejection, applicant argues the limitation "shape-optimized by adapting a shape of at least one of an aperture, an embossing, or a rib" is sufficiently definite because shape optimization is a well-known engineering technique. The examiner understands that it is a known technique but that does not mitigate the fact that the language is indefinite because is it unclear how the rear structure is adapted as recited. It is unclear how an aperture (not shown), an embossing (not shown), or a rib (not shown) is optimized. It is unclear how one would determine infringement for this claim. As such, the rejection is maintained.
DE 932 Does Not Disclose the Claimed Single-Piece Integral Construction
Applicant argues DE 932 does not disclose or suggest a single-piece die-cast component that integrally comprises all of the recited structural elements.
Examiner disagrees. The rejection set forth above is not a 102 rejection. Applicant’s arguments do not address the entirety of the 103 combination rejection but dissect the references individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on 103 combination type rejections. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, DE 932 specifically discloses:
PNG
media_image5.png
82
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And:
PNG
media_image6.png
114
575
media_image6.png
Greyscale
DE 932 discloses a single-piece die-cast component (1) where the combination rejection teaches the integration of the rear cover support.
Applicant goes on to argue that DE 932 teaches away from the claimed single-piece integral construction by deliberately providing separate, replaceable components for the rear portion of the structure to allow adaptation to different vehicle types and tolerance compensation. The examiner is not persuaded by this line of argument. If alternatives are present, this does not negate the fact that the reference provides the claimed invention.
The current invention likewise anticipates alternatives. Specifically, providing the rear covering support as a separate member is anticipated by the current application as a suitable alternative thus illustrating that this feature is not critical to the invention.
Providing alternatives does not ‘teach away’ from what is already presented.
In re Larson is misplaced
Applicant argues In re Larson is misplaced because the claimed invention is not merely making two generic parts integral but is providing a complex, large-scale die-cast component requiring sophisticated tooling and manufacturing considerations, not a simple integration of two parts. The examiner is not persuaded by this line of argument. Specifically, DE 932 already provides support for a complex, large-scale die-cast component requiring sophisticated tooling but for the remaining rear covering support. Modifying DE 932 to further include that one additional component is not outside the scope of what DE 932 is already accomplishing.
Applicant goes on to cite the Federal Circuit in Schenck v. Nortron Corp. where the court held that “a single integral and gapless continuous piece” was patentable despite the argument that the invention was merely "making integral" (In re Larson) what had been made in multiple bolted pieces because the insight (making the piece integral) eliminated the need for damping.
Here, no such insight is found. Looking to the application as a whole, one can see that forming the rear covering support integrally is optional. Namely, the current invention discloses that making the components separate (for example in the alternative embodiment disclosed) would work just as well. There is no criticality or apparent need for forming the components integrally. Applicant discloses at [0028]:
PNG
media_image7.png
197
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Specifically, in at least one embodiment, the rear covering support is “not a constituent part of the rear structure” but is instead fixed to connection elements of the extensions. Applicant has not shown that providing the rear covering support eliminates a particular problem in the prior art or is for any particular reason. Applicant has provided no support that making the rear covering support integral provides any “insight” as was present in the Schenck case. The particulars of Schenck have not been matched with that of the current application. By applicant’s own admission, the rear covering support can be provided separable, making clear on the record that this component of the invention is not critical.
The argument presented by applicant is not persuasive of impermissible error by the examiner.
Arguments against JPS 674
Furthermore, the well known prior art of JPS 674 (JPS6288674A) teaches the exact feature upon which applicant believes is novel, that is, a structure for a motor vehicle with integrally cast rear structure comprising rear covering support (38).
Applicant argues JPS 674 does not disclose a rear covering support integrally formed with longitudinal members, crossmembers, extensions, and spring supports in a single aluminum die-cast component. Examiner disagrees noting JPS 674 indeed provides a single-piece integrally formed aluminum alloy casting as seen in FIG.1 having longitudinal members (32a,b), crossmembers (26c,d), extensions (36a,b), spring supports (42a,b), and an integral rear covering support (38).
PNG
media_image8.png
267
493
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The combination of DE 932 and JPS 674 teaches all of the features as broadly recited and interpreted and as such, the rejection set forth above is maintained.
The Combination Does Not Teach the Claimed Second Cutout
Applicant argues the combination of DE 932 and JPS 674 does not teach or suggest the claimed second cutout. Examiner disagrees and notes that DE 932 provides the second cutout as set forth above.
Applicant argues DE 932's cross member 19, crash box 13, and absorber 20 are separate components that serve crash energy management functions-they are not integral extensions and a rear covering support that together with the rear crossmember define a second cutout for a luggage compartment tray. Examiner notes that DE 932, as modified, discloses these features.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on 103 combination type rejections. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant then reiterates arguments with respect to In re Larson which are addressed above.
Applicant further argues DE 932 does not disclose a rear covering or a rear covering support, let alone forming them in one piece as part of a single die-cast component. Examiner disagrees.
DE 932 does disclose a rear covering (20) and a rear covering support (19). And as set forth in the combination rejection the rear covering support is integrated into the one-piece die-cast rear structure.
Applicant then argues JPS 674's rear frame member 38 is part of a skeletal frame, not a rear covering support formed in one piece with a rear covering as part of a single-piece aluminum die-cast rear structure. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on 103 combination type rejections. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
No articulated reason/motivation to combine
Applicant goes on to state that the Examiner has not articulated a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the rear covering and rear covering support in one piece as part of the comprehensive die-cast structure recited in the claims.
Examiner wholeheartedly disagrees. As set forth above, motivation to integrate can come from common sense because a PHOSITA understands that doing so would allow for ease of manufacturing, reduced materials and waste, and would save assembly time. Motivation is further gleaned from DE 932 itself which discusses that component integration is advantageous for allowing graduated stiffness and improved deformation of the structure when the entire rear area is taken as a whole. Finally, yet another articulated reasoning is provided by JPS 674 which discusses that casting components to form an integral body frame provides a high-rigidity and high-precision and enable the manufacture of lightweight and variously-shaped bodies ([0001]).
Conclusory statement with Hojjat et al.
Applicant argues examiner’s statements with regard to Hojjat et al. are conclusory and the rejection fails to articulate a specific motivation. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the rejection above. Motivation comes from Hojjat et al. itself which discusses that vertex morphing leads to the richest design space possible for optimization of a discrete geometry and ‘success in performance, efficiency and robustness’ even for problems with extreme geometrical complexities and millions of design parameters. Applying this technology to DE 932, as modified, would provide the same; it would allow the rear structure of DE 932, as modified, to have improved performance, efficiency and robustness. It would be obvious to apply the technology to a rib (known from 18 of DE 932, as modified) or equally well to an aperture or embossing which applicant admits are “generic structural features” of die-cast components.
Hojjat et al. discloses optimizing shapes (represented by a mesh or nodes/vertices of an element) and a PHOSITA understands this can encompass an aperture, embossing, and/or rib as these elements fall within the scope.
Yuksel and Engineering Product Design (EPD)
Applicant argues against the references alone stating Yuksel and Engineering Product Design (EPD) both fail to include topology optimization of a single-piece aluminum die-cast rear structure that integrally comprises the two longitudinal members, front and rear crossmembers, extensions of the longitudinal members, rear spring supports, and a rear covering support.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on 103 combination type rejections. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
DE 932, as modified, discuss the rear structure with regard to stiffness and deformation/deformation zones where the topology optimization as described by Yuksel or EPD would further aid in this endeavor.
No new arguments presented for claim 23
Applicant presents no additional comments beyond those presented above.
Claim 27
Applicant argues that DE 932 fails to include the recited " rocker panel” connected to a rear spring support. Examiner pointed to paragraphs [0023] and [0025] which disclose this feature.
PNG
media_image9.png
165
714
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
175
700
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As set forth above, the sill corresponds to the rocker panel as broadly recited and interpreted. Regarding JPS 674’s rear spring supports (42a,b), the elements satisfy the claim language as broadly recited and interpreted. No additional limitations are provided for the rear spring support.
No new arguments presented for claims 25, 26, 28-31, 32, and 33
Applicant presents no additional comments beyond those presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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_image11.png
489
664
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights