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
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Equation 5 is unclear as to what applicant is attempting to disclose. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 13; and claim 11 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The language of claims 7-8 and 13 are unclear and indefinite specifically the phrases “between first positions obtained by dividing a width of the floor panel from a side end of the floor panel by five and second positions obtained by quadrisecting the width thereof” (claim 7); “between first positions obtained by dividing a width of the floor panel from a side end of the floor panel by six and second positions obtained by dividing the width thereof by five” (claim 8); and “between first positions obtained by quadrisecting a width of the floor panel from a side end of the floor panel and second positions obtained by trisecting the width thereof” (claim 13).
It is apparent that the second, third, and fourth forming portions are disposed at positions between first and second positions, but it is unclear how the first and second positions are determined and from where they are measured. For example, in claim 7, the recitation “obtained by dividing a width of the floor panel from a side end of the floor panel by five” would provide a specific number/numeral, namely one-fifth of the width of the floor panel, but would not provide a position. Additionally, in claims 8 and 13, the recitation “obtained by quadrisecting the width” would again apparently provide a number, one fourth of the width of the floor panel, but not a location or position. Further explanation is requested. These claims will be examined as best understood.
For claim 11, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination (a floor panel) and line 2 of claim 11 reciting a combination in that the pair of trigger forming portions are positively recited as being coupled to the pair of joggles, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as subcombination claims, and the limitations of claim 11 directed to a feature of the rear side members will not further limit the claim. If applicant amends the claims to be directed to the subcombination, any indication of allowable subject matter will have to be reevaluated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, as best understood; claims 7-8 and 13, as best understood, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohi et al. (2009/0108633).
For claim 1, Ohi et al. disclose a floor panel (25) comprising:
an embossed forming portion (22) extending in a length direction of the floor panel; and an engraved forming portion (25a, FIG.1) extending in the length direction of the floor panel,
wherein the embossed forming portion and the engraved forming portion are alternately disposed in a width direction of the floor panel.
For claim 2, the embossed forming portion protrudes above an imaginary panel neutral line connecting both side ends of the floor panel; and
the engraved forming portion protrudes below the imaginary panel neutral line.
For claim 3, the embossed forming portion and the engraved forming portion each comprise a plurality of portions.
For claim 4, Ohi et al. disclose a floor panel (25) comprising:
a first forming portion (22) extending in a length direction of the floor panel,
the first forming portion being disposed in a central portion of the floor panel in a width direction of the floor panel; and
second forming portions (25a) extending in the length direction of the floor panel,
the second forming portions being connected at side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
wherein the first forming portion is either an embossed forming portion or an engraved forming portion and the second forming portions are the other of the embossed forming portion or the engraved forming portion.
For claim 5, the second forming portions are symmetrically disposed based on the first forming portion.
For claim 6, further comprising a pair of third forming portions (additional portions on either side, FIG.1) connected at outer side ends of the second forming portions, respectively.
For claim 9, the floor panel comprises a rear floor panel configured to be mounted below a rear passenger compartment of a vehicle, and wherein both end portions of the rear floor panel are configured to be coupled (capable of being coupled) to a pair of rear side members (21) of the vehicle, respectively.
For claim 7, as best understood, each of the pair of third forming portions is disposed at a position between the second portion and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
For claim 8, as best understood, the floor panel further comprises a pair of fourth forming portions connected at outer side ends of the third forming portions, respectively,
wherein each of the pair of fourth forming portions is disposed at a position between the third portion and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
For claim 13, each of the second forming portions is disposed at a position between the first forming portions and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 10, further comprising a pair of trigger forming portions (not numbered, but seen in FIG.1 at either end of the floor panel where the floor panel upturns) at both ends of the rear floor panel in the width direction, respectively,
wherein the pair of trigger forming portions are configured to be coupled to the pair of rear side members (21), respectively.
For claim 11, the pair of trigger forming portions are capable of being coupled to a pair of joggles of the rear side members (21).
For claim 17, Ohi et al. disclose a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body comprising a pair of rear side members (21) on each side of the vehicle body and extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body; and
a rear floor panel (25) coupled to the pair of rear side members at each side of the rear floor panel, respectively,
wherein the rear floor panel comprises:
a first forming portion (22) disposed in a central portion of the rear floor panel in a width direction of the rear floor panel;
a pair of second forming portions (25a) connected at both side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
a pair of third forming portions (not numbered, FIG.1) connected at outer side ends of the pair of second forming portions; and
wherein the first forming portion and the pair of third forming portions are either embossed forming portions or engraved forming portions and
the pair of second forming portions are the other of the embossed forming portions or the engraved forming portions.
Claims 4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Aitharaju et al. (2016/0001816).
For claim 4, Aitharaju et al. disclose a floor panel comprising:
a first forming portion (50) extending in a length direction of the floor panel,
the first forming portion being disposed in a central portion of the floor panel in a width direction of the floor panel; and
second forming portions (48,48) extending in the length direction of the floor panel,
the second forming portions being connected at side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
wherein the first forming portion is either an embossed forming portion or an engraved forming portion and
the second forming portions are the other of the embossed forming portion or the engraved forming portion.
For claim 14, the width (20mm) of each of the second forming portions is about 13 times a thickness (1.5mm) of the floor panel.
For claim 15, a height difference (18mm) between the first forming portion (50) and each of the second forming portions (48) is 12 times a thickness (1.5mm) of the floor panel.
For claim 16, a width (20-40mm) of each of the second forming portions is
greater than or equal to a height (10-18mm) difference between the first forming portion and the respective second forming portion and
is less than or equal to two times the height (20-36mm) difference between the first forming portion and the respective second forming portion ([0051] and [0055]).
PNG
media_image2.png
456
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that although Aitharaju et al. doe not discreetly disclose the ranges recited, the particular relationships disclosed do fall within the claimed range and therefore satisfy the claim requirements.
In addition, if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range. It has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 1-6 and 9; and claims 7-8 and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 022.
For claim 1, FR 2987022 (FR 022) discloses a floor panel (2) comprising:
an embossed forming portion (FIG.1) extending in a length direction of the floor panel; and an engraved forming portion (between embossed portions, FIG.1) extending in the length direction of the floor panel,
wherein the embossed forming portion and the engraved forming portion are alternately disposed in a width direction of the floor panel.
PNG
media_image3.png
419
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the embossed forming portion protrudes above an imaginary panel neutral line connecting both side ends of the floor panel; and
the engraved forming portion protrudes below the imaginary panel neutral line.
For claim 3, the embossed forming portion and the engraved forming portion each comprise a plurality of portions.
For claim 4, FR 022 discloses a floor panel (2) comprising:
a first forming portion (not numbered but generally one of the embossed portions centrally located, FIG.1) extending in a length direction of the floor panel,
the first forming portion being disposed in a central portion of the floor panel in a width direction of the floor panel; and
second forming portions (on either side of the first forming portion, FIG.1) extending in the length direction of the floor panel,
the second forming portions being connected at side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
wherein the first forming portion is either an embossed forming portion or an engraved forming portion and the second forming portions are the other of the embossed forming portion or the engraved forming portion.
For claim 5, the second forming portions are symmetrically disposed based on the first forming portion.
For claim 6, further comprising a pair of third forming portions (additional portions on either side, FIG.1) connected at outer side ends of the second forming portions, respectively.
For claim 9, the floor panel comprises a rear floor panel configured to be mounted below a rear passenger compartment of a vehicle, and wherein both end portions of the rear floor panel are configured to be coupled (capable of being coupled) to a pair of rear side members (not shown, implicit) of the vehicle, respectively.
For claim 7, as best understood, each of the pair of third forming portions is disposed at a position between the second portion and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
For claim 8, as best understood, the floor panel further comprises a pair of fourth forming portions connected at outer side ends of the third forming portions, respectively,
wherein each of the pair of fourth forming portions is disposed at a position between the third portion and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
For claim 13, each of the second forming portions is disposed at a position between the first forming portions and a lateral side end of the floor panel.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohi et al. as applied above in view of CarTech (CarTech Auto Books and Manuals, Welding Butt Joints, Apr 2012).
For claim 18, Ohi et al. do not disclose the recited joggles, a feature taught by CarTech.
PNG
media_image4.png
234
324
media_image4.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 rear side members of Ohi et al. with joggles as taught by CarTech in order to connect the trigger forming portions as an obvious expedient.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the abutment surface oriented within the perimeter of the base solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that various connections would perform equally well. The choice to modify is deemed to have been an obvious design choice and would not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohi et al. as applied above in view of Aitharaju et al. (2016/0001816) in view of Ohi et al.
For claim 17, Aitharaju et al. disclose a rear floor panel comprising:
a first forming portion (50) disposed in a central portion of the rear floor panel in a width direction of the rear floor panel;
a pair of second forming portions (48,48) connected at both side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
a pair of third forming portions (42) connected at outer side ends of the pair of second forming portions; and
wherein the first forming portion and the pair of third forming portions are either embossed forming portions or engraved forming portions and the pair of second forming portions are the other of the embossed forming portions or the engraved forming portions.
For claim 20, the width (20mm) of each of the second forming portions is about 13 times a thickness (1.5mm) of the floor panel; and
a height difference (18mm) between the first forming portion (50) and each of the second forming portions (48) is 12 times a thickness (1.5mm) of the floor panel.
Aitharaju et al. disclose the rear floor panel for use with a vehicle implicitly having a vehicle body but fails to disclose the specifics thereof including a pair of rear side members on each side of the vehicle body and extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body; and the rear floor panel coupled to the pair of rear side members at each side of the rear floor panel, respectively.
These features are known from Ohi et al. as set forth above which includes a vehicle having rear side members (21) to which a rear floor panel is coupled.
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 used the floor panel of Aitharaju et al. with a vehicle having rear side members as taught by Ohi et al. in order to allow the vehicle to have improved impact resistance (Aitharaju et al., Abstract).
With regard to the specific ranges, it should be noted that although Aitharaju et al. doe not discreetly disclose the ranges recited, the particular relationships disclosed do fall within the claimed range and therefore satisfy the claim requirements.
In addition, if a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive (MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed range. It has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Ohi et al. or alternatively Aitharaju et al. as applied above in view of JPH 08290784 (JPH 784).
Neither Ohi et al. nor Aitharaju et al. as applied above disclose an interval between front end portions of a pair of the second forming portions is greater than an interval between rear end portions thereof.
JPH 784 teaches the use and desirability of providing variable intervals between portions as seen with widening parts (40) where a width (S) is wider than a width (S1) in order to allow for added “rigidity of the floor panel”.
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 interval between the second forming portions of either Ohi et al. or Aitharaju et al. as taught by JPH 784 to cause increased rigidity to the floor panel at that portion.
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 provide this change at a front end portion of either Ohi et al. or Aitharaju et al. in order to maximize rigidity in that region based on desired design specifications and crash statistics.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the interval greater in a front end portion of the vehicle solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that other configurations would perform equally well.
The choice to modify the exact positioning of the lug and abutment surface is deemed to have been an obvious design choice and would not produce an unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 3614