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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, “a first patch edge” (line 2) should be changed to
--a second patch edge-- since the claim is about the second patch.
“the first patch edge” (line 4) should be changed to --the second patch edge-- since the claim is about the second patch.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second patch" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada et al. US 20160083016 A1 in view of Bohner et al.
US 20150353146 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Imada et al. discloses a structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2) for a vehicle framework
(as shown in Figure 1), the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2) being at least partially configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B), comprising: a main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) with a substantially U-shaped cross-section (outer panel 11 may be formed to have a substantially hat-like cross-sectional shape in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) comprising a bottom (11b as shown in Figure 6), a first side wall
(sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6) and a second side wall (sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6); wherein the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) comprises a region (lower region A and a
middle-to-upper region B in paragraph [0026] as shown in Figure 7A) configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B), and a first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) having a first patch edge (edge of reinforcement 13 as shown in Figure 6) and an opposite second patch edge (edge of reinforcement 13 as shown in Figure 6), wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) is attached to the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) by laser welding (outer panel 11 and the reinforcement 13 are welded along the lateral weld lines Wp and the vertical weld lines Wt, with use of any welding method such as, but not limited to, spot welding, laser welding, or friction stir welding (FSW) in paragraph [0027] as shown in Figure 6), wherein the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6; outer panel 11 and the inner panel 12 each may be formed through bending (i.e., press forming) of a steel plate in paragraph [0024]) and wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) formed of a steel plate (in paragraph [0024]).
However, Imada et al. does not show wherein the first patch is attached to the main piece by continuous laser welding inside the first patch substantially along the first patch edge and along the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads; wherein the main piece is made of hardened steel and wherein the first patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel.
Bohner et al. teaches the strain-hardened blank that is initially provided is provided as a naturally hard blank or a strain-hardened blank. Within said blank there is a dislocation density in the crystal lattice which possesses an initial strength or initial yield strength of between 400 MPa and 500 MPa. The thermal treatment, in particular the mutually different thermal treatment, reduces the dislocation density in the crystal lattice, whereby in turn, the yield strength of the originally provided blank is reduced, and owing to the, in part, mutually different action of temperature, it is also the case that, in part, mutually different yield strengths are generated. In particular, a relatively soft or relatively ductile material characteristic and a relatively low yield strength is provided in a connection region of the motor vehicle component, such that here, the motor vehicle component is prevented from being broken off or torn away in the event of a crash (in paragraph [0015]). Inner reinforcement may for example be applied in the form of a patch to the motor vehicle component that has been produced. In the context of the invention, it is however also possible for a corresponding hollow component to be produced by way of the coupling to the inner reinforcement and/or to the outer reinforcement. The reinforcements are in particular also aluminum components. The reinforcement may however also be in the form of a steel component, or applied in the form of a fiber composite material (in paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the laser welding of Imada et al. with continuous laser welding inside the first patch substantially along the first patch edge and along the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads, the claimed continuous laser welding would have been obvious in light of the welding of the prior art.
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as modified, wherein the main piece is made of hardened steel and wherein the first patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel, as taught by Bohner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent from being broken off or torn away in the event of a crash.
Regarding claim 2, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a
so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) is attached to the region (lower region A and a middle-to-upper region B in paragraph [0026] as shown in Figure 7A of Imada et al.) configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B of Imada et al.) of the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) by continuous laser welding inside the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) substantially along all the edges of the patch (edge of reinforcement 13 as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Imada et al., as twice modified, disclose the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a
so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) extends over the bottom (11b as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.), the first side wall (sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) and the second side wall (sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) of the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 3 but does not show wherein the first patch extends over the first side wall at least 10% of a height of the first side wall, and the first patch extends over the second side wall at least 10% of a height of the second side wall.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first patch of Imada et al., as twice modified, extends over the first side wall at least 10% of a height of the first side wall, and the first patch extends over the second side wall at least 10% of a height of the second side wall, because limitations relating to the size of the patch were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 5, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, wherein the first patch edge (edge of 13 as shown in Figure 6) substantially extends along a first junction of the first side wall (sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) and the bottom portion (11b as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) of the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.), and the second patch edge (edge of 13 as shown in Figure 6) extends along a second junction of the second side wall (sides walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) and the bottom portion 11b as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.) of the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6 of Imada et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, but does not show further comprising: a second patch having a first patch edge and an opposite second patch edge, wherein the second patch is attached to the main piece by continuous laser welding inside the second patch along the first patch edge and the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as twice modified, with a second patch having a first patch edge and an opposite second patch edge, wherein the second patch is attached to the main piece by continuous laser welding inside the second patch along the first patch edge and the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads, although the reference did not disclose a second patch, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 7, Imada et al., as thrice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 6, but does not show wherein the first patch extends over the bottom and the first side wall of the main piece and the second patch extends over the bottom and the second side wall of the main piece.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as thrice modified, wherein the first patch extends over the bottom and the first side wall of the main piece and the second patch extends over the bottom and the second side wall of the main piece, because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 8, Imada et al., as thrice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 6 but does not show wherein the first patch extends over the first side wall more than over the bottom and the second patch extends over the second side wall more than over the bottom.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as thrice modified, wherein the first patch extends over the first side wall more than over the bottom and the second patch extends over the second side wall more than over the bottom, because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 9, Imada et al., as thrice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 6, but does not show wherein the first patch extends along a first junction of the first side wall and the bottom of the main piece, and the second patch extends along a second junction of the second side wall and the bottom of the main piece.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as thrice modified, wherein the first patch extends along a first junction of the first side wall and the bottom of the main piece, and the second patch extends along a second junction of the second side wall and the bottom of the main piece, because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 10, Imada et al., as thrice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, but does not wherein the second patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel of the main piece.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as twice modified, with a second patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel of the main piece, although the reference did not disclose a second patch, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Since the first patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel, the second patch is a duplication of parts of the first patch, therefore the second patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel of the main piece.
In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 11, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses a method for manufacturing a structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) at least partially configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B of Imada et al.) according to claim 1, the method comprising: providing a main blank (panel steel plate 11′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) comprising a region configurable for supporting bending loads, providing at least a first patch blank (patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) having a first patch blank edge (edge of patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) and an opposite second patch blank edge (edge of patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.); attaching the at least first patch blank ((patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) to the main blank (panel steel plate 11′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) by continuous laser welding (modification made in claim 1) inside the first patch blank (patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) substantially along the first patch blank edge (edge of patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) and the second patch blank edge (edge of patch steel plate 13′ in paragraph [0025] as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.); at least in the region configurable for supporting bending loads to form a patchwork blank (as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.); and forming the patchwork blank as shown in Figure 5 of Imada et al.) to obtain the structural member of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1, wherein the structural member is a B-pillar (center pillar 6 in paragraph [0031] as shown in Figure 1 of Imada et al.)
Regarding claim 19, Imada et al. discloses a structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2) for a vehicle framework (as shown in Figure 1), the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2) being at least partially configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B), comprising: a main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) with a substantially U-shaped cross-section (outer panel 11 may be formed to have a substantially hat-like cross-sectional shape in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) comprising a bottom (11b as shown in Figure 6), a first side wall (side walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6) and a second side wall (side walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6); wherein the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) comprises a region (lower region A and a
middle-to-upper B in paragraph [0026] as shown in Figure 7A) configured for supporting bending loads (as shown in Figures 7A and 7B), and a first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) having a first patch edge (edge of reinforcement 13 as shown in Figure 6) and an opposite second patch edge (edge of reinforcement 13 as shown in Figure 6), wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) is attached to the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6) by laser welding (outer panel 11 and the reinforcement 13 are welded along the lateral weld lines Wp and the vertical weld lines Wt, with use of any welding method such as, but not limited to, spot welding, laser welding, or friction stir welding (FSW) in paragraph [0027] as shown in Figure 6), wherein the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6; outer panel 11 and the inner panel 12 each may be formed through bending (i.e., press forming) of a steel plate in paragraph [0024]) and wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) formed of a steel plate (in paragraph [0024]) and wherein the first patch (reinforcement 13 may have a so-called patch work structure in paragraph [0024] as shown in Figure 6) extends over the bottom (11b as shown in Figure 6), the first side wall (side walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6) and the second side wall (side walls of 11 as shown in Figure 6) of the main piece (outer panel 11 in paragraph [0023] as shown in Figure 6).
However, Imada et al. does not show wherein the first patch is attached to the main piece by continuous laser welding inside the first patch substantially along the first patch edge and along the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads; wherein the main piece is made of hardened steel and wherein the first patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel.
Bohner et al. teaches the strain-hardened blank that is initially provided is provided as a naturally hard blank or a strain-hardened blank. Within said blank there is a dislocation density in the crystal lattice which possesses an initial strength or initial yield strength of between 400 MPa and 500 MPa. The thermal treatment, in particular the mutually different thermal treatment, reduces the dislocation density in the crystal lattice, whereby in turn, the yield strength of the originally provided blank is reduced, and owing to the, in part, mutually different action of temperature, it is also the case that, in part, mutually different yield strengths are generated. In particular, a relatively soft or relatively ductile material characteristic and a relatively low yield strength is provided in a connection region of the motor vehicle component, such that here, the motor vehicle component is prevented from being broken off or torn away in the event of a crash (in paragraph [0015]). Inner reinforcement may for example be applied in the form of a patch to the motor vehicle component that has been produced. In the context of the invention, it is however also possible for a corresponding hollow component to be produced by way of the coupling to the inner reinforcement and/or to the outer reinforcement. The reinforcements are in particular also aluminum components. The reinforcement may however also be in the form of a steel component, or applied in the form of a fiber composite material (in paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the laser welding of Imada et al. with continuous laser welding inside the first patch substantially along the first patch edge and along the second patch edge at least in the region configured for supporting bending loads, the claimed continuous laser welding would have been obvious in light of the welding of the prior art.
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the structural member of Imada et al., as modified, wherein the main piece is made of hardened steel and wherein the first patch is made of a more ductile material than the hardened steel, as taught by Bohner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent from being broken off or torn away in the event of a crash.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada et al. US 20160083016 A1 in view of Bohner et al.
US 20150353146 A1 as applied to claims 1, 11 and 19 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 20130192726 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the method of claim 11, but does not show wherein forming includes hot forming.
Chen et al. teaches a typical steel used for the hot press forming is based on a composition system of 22MnB5. Hot press forming of 22MnB5 steel can produce complex parts such as bumpers and pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness (in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the method of Imada et al., as twice modified, wherein forming includes hot forming, as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce complex parts such as bumpers and pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness.
Regarding claim 16, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the method of claim 12, but does not show wherein prior to hot forming the patchwork blank is heated by a furnace.
Chen et al. teaches a steel blank is heated at heating 15⁰C to the austenitizing temperature T1 in the range of Ac3+20⁰C to Ac3+60⁰C and soaked at that temperature during a soaking time t1. The thus heated and soaked blank is transferred from the furnace to the hot forming facility, during which cooling by air occurs to some extent in paragraph [0078].
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the method of Imada et al., as twice modified, wherein prior to hot forming the patchwork blank is heated by a furnace, as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce complex parts such as bumpers and pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness.
Regarding claim 18, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 1 but does not show wherein the main piece is made of hardened 22MnB5 steel.
Chen et al. teaches a typical steel used for the hot press forming is based on a composition system of 22MnB5. Hot press forming of 22MnB5 steel can produce complex parts such as bumpers and pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness (in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main piece of Imada et al., as twice modified, made of hardened 22MnB5 steel, as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce complex parts such as pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness.
Regarding claim 20, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the structural member (center pillar 6 in paragraphs [0022]-[0024] as shown in Figure 2 of Imada et al.) of claim 19, but does not show wherein the main piece is made of hardened 22MnB5 steel.
Chen et al. teaches a typical steel used for the hot press forming is based on a composition system of 22MnB5. Hot press forming of 22MnB5 steel can produce complex parts such as bumpers and pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness (in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the main piece of Imada et al., as twice modified, made of hardened 22MnB5 steel, as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce complex parts such as pillars with ultrahigh strength, minimum spring back, and reduced sheet thickness.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada et al. US 20160083016 A1 in view of Bohner et al. US 20150353146 A1 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Thomas at al.
US 20090242086 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the method of claim 11, but does not show wherein forming includes cold forming.
Thomas at al. teaches it is also known to cold form a vehicle component, such as an impact beam, followed by heating the component in select regions and then quenching, to strengthened portions of the component (in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the method of Imada et al., as twice modified, wherein forming includes cold forming as taught by Thomas at al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthened portions of the component.
Regarding claim 14, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the method of claim 13, but does not show wherein the structural member is heated and hardened after cold forming.
Thomas at al. teaches it is also known to cold form a vehicle component, such as an impact beam, followed by heating the component in select regions and then quenching, to strengthened portions of the component (in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the method of Imada et al., as twice modified, wherein the structural member is heated and hardened after cold forming, as taught by Thomas at al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to strengthened portions of the component.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada et al. US 20160083016 A1 in view of Bohner et al. US 20150353146 A1 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Bove et al.
US 4001543 A.
Regarding claim 15, Imada et al., as twice modified, discloses the method of claim 11, but does not show further comprising the use of seam tracking during continuous laser welding.
Bove et al. teaches accurate alignment of the laser beam with the join (54) can be ensured during the welding process by using a seam-tracking device. This can be of the mechanical sort, using a point or like device for following the seam, and controlling the point at which the laser beam is focused on the join, or alternatively an optical system can be used to view the join in the region of the weld puddle so that the weld puddle is caused to move accurately along the path of the join. The seam-tracking devices are known in themselves, and as the application of them to laser welding does not appear to require the exercise of inventive ingenuity, they are not described any further herein in this specification.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the method of Imada et al., as twice modified, the use of seam tracking during continuous laser welding, as taught by Bove et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order for following the seam, and controlling the point at which the laser beam is focused on the join.
Prior Art
No Prior Art
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is (571)272-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-4:30 PM (EST) Monday-Friday.
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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612