DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 09/29/2025 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 depends on cancelled claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisinger et al. (DE 10347847B3) and Sakamoto et al. (US 20020073623).
Regarding claim 1, Bisinger discloses an automobile (1) comprising: - a pair of front wheels and a pair of rear wheels (fig 1) ; - an outer body (8) having a floor (floor of 8, figs 1-2) , a front hood (fig 1), a roof (14), and a windscreen (fig 1) extending between the front hood and the roof (fig 1); and - a passenger compartment (interior of 8, fig 2) obtained inside said outer body between said front and rear wheels (figs 1-2), frontally bounded by said windscreen and defining at least one driving position and one front passenger position side by side (figs 1-2); characterized by further comprising a central pillar (13) extending entirely inside said passenger compartment between said floor and said roof (figs 1-6) and arranged at an intermediate longitudinal axis (A) of the passenger compartment itself between said driving position and said front passenger position (figs 1-6).
Bisinger is silent regarding the fact that said outer body further comprises two front sides extending on opposite sides of said front hood and two rear sides, aligned with, and spaced from, respective front sides, wherein each front side and the corresponding rear side bound between themselves and with said floor and said roof a single totally free side door opening.
Sakamoto teaches the fact that the outer body further comprises two front sides (fig 1, annotated fig 3) extending on opposite sides of said front hood (fig 1, annotated fig 3) and two rear sides (fig 1, annotated fig 3), aligned with, and spaced from, respective front sides (annotated fig 3), wherein each front side and the corresponding rear side bound between themselves and with said floor (annotated fig 3) and said roof (annotated fig 3) a single totally free side door opening (14) (fig 3).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bisinger and Sakamoto before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Bisinger to include as single totally free side door opening as taught by Sakamoto in order to provide reliable passenger's safety ([0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bisinger further discloses two windshield pillars which laterally contain said windshield and project superiorly from respective said front sides until they touch said roof, and wherein each said single side door opening is also laterally bounded by the respective windshield pillar (figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Bisinger further discloses that said center pillar has a main portion substantially plate-shaped (lower portion of 13, figs 1-6), parallel to said longitudinal axis, and an upper end portion (upper end portion of 13, figs 1-6) bifurcating toward said roof from said main portion (figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Bisinger further discloses that said passenger compartment has, between said driving position and said front passenger position , a central tunnel (middle portion of 8, figs 1-6); and wherein said central pillar extends from said central tunnel to said roof (figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Bisinger further discloses that a central portion (central portion of 14, fig 5) tapered laterally with respect to a front portion and a rear portion; and wherein said central pillar is located at said tapered central portion of said roof (figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Bisinger further discloses that said passenger compartment further comprises, at least, two rear passenger positions (6,7) arranged at opposite sides of said longitudinal axis (A) (figs 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisinger et al. (DE 10347847B3) and Sakamoto et al. (US 20020073623). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20120119477)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bisinger and Sakamoto is silent regarding the fact that center pillar defines at its opposite sides respective supports for anchoring seat belt restraint systems for the driving position and for the front passenger position .
Kim teaches that center pillar (100) defines at its opposite sides respective supports (200) for anchoring seat belt restraint systems for the driving position and for the front passenger position (figs 5a-b)
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bisinger, Sakamoto and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Bisinger and Sakamoto to include seat belt support as taught by Kim in order to improve coupling strength ([0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 , filed 09/29/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20020073623).
Applicant argument regarding claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that “Kim's seat belt bracket arrangement is specific to side pillars and is not compatible with the central pillar structure of Bisinger”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, Kim’s reference teaches that anchoring a seat belt restraint system on a pillar is well known. Even though the relative positions of the pillars in Kim and Bisinger references are not the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bisinger, Sakamoto and Kim before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Bisinger and Sakamoto to include seat belt support on a pillar as taught by Kim in order to improve coupling strength ([0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/12/2026