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”.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/4/26. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5, 7, 14-16, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. (2016/0001816) in view of the well known prior art of FIG.2 of the current application.
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 an embossed forming portion and
the second forming portions is an engraved forming portion.
Aitharaju et al. further disclose a pair of third forming portions (50) connected at outer side ends of the second forming portions, respectively (as seen in FIG.1), the first and third forming portions being embossed with the second forming portion being engraved; with the first and third forming portions at the same height above an imaginary panel neutral line.
Aitharaju et al. further disclose each of the second forming portions disposed at a position between a first position representing ¼ a width of the floor panel from a side end and a second position representing 1/3 a width of the floor panel from the side end. This is evident from drawing FIG.1 which shows the corrugations spanning the entire width of the floor pan including at the position recited. Therefore, the corrugations as well as the engraved portion (second forming portion) of the corrugations necessarily fall within 1/3 and ¼ of the width of the floor pan measured from one side end (FIG.1).
Aitharaju et al. do not specifically disclose the pair of third forming portions coupled to a pair of rear side members of the vehicle, respectively.
The well known prior art of FIG.2 teaches coupling portions of a floor panel for a vehicle to oppositely positioned rear side members.
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 coupled the third forming portions of the floor panel of Aitharaju et al. to rear side members as taught by the well known prior art of FIG.2 in order to provide rigidity to the vehicle.
For claim 4, the claimed range and that disclosed by Aitharaju et al. overlap, the prior art range falls 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.
For claim 5, the second forming portions are symmetrically disposed. The corrugations of Aitharaju et al. are uniform and consistent.
For claims 7 and 29, as set forth above, Aitharaju et al. disclose the corrugations along the entirety of the floor panel and necessarily one embossment of the corrugations (constituting a third forming portion) is provided between 1/5 and ¼ the width of the floor panel measured from one side end thereof and necessarily one engraving of the corrugations (constituting a fourth forming portion) is provided between a 1/5 and 1/6 of the width of the floor panel from the side end thereof. Here again too it should be noted that the exact location (position) is not deemed critical as there is no support or evidence to support a finding thereof.
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_image1.png
456
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 16, although Aitharaju et al. does not discreetly disclose the width 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 4-5, 7, 9, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 021 in view of the well known prior art of FIG.2 of the current application.
For claim 4, FR 2987021 (FR 021) 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,
a pair of third forming portions (additional embossed portions on either side, FIG.1) connected at outer side ends of the second forming portions, respectively;
the second forming portions being connected at side ends of the first forming portion, respectively; and
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,
wherein the first and third forming portion are embossed forming portions and the second forming portions is an engraved forming portion.
FR 021 further discloses the first and third forming portions at the same height above an imaginary panel neutral line.
FR 021 further discloses each of the second forming portions disposed at a position between a first position representing ¼ a width of the floor panel from a side end and a second position representing 1/3 a width of the floor panel from the side end. This is evident from drawing FIG.3 which shows the corrugations spanning the entire width of the floor pan including at the position recited. Therefore, the corrugations as well as the engraved portion (second forming portion) of the corrugations necessarily fall within 1/3 and ¼ of the width of the floor pan measured from one side end (FIG.3).
FR 021 does not specifically disclose the pair of third forming portions coupled to a pair of rear side members of the vehicle, respectively.
The well known prior art of FIG.2 teaches coupling portions of a floor panel for a vehicle to oppositely positioned rear side members.
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 coupled the third forming portions of the floor panel of FR 021 to rear side members as taught by the well known prior art of FIG.2 in order to provide rigidity to the vehicle.
For claim 4, the claimed range and that disclosed by FR 021 overlap, the prior art range falls 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
497
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 5, the second forming portions are symmetrically disposed based on the first forming portion.
For claims 7 and 29, as set forth above, FR 021 discloses the corrugations along the entirety of the floor panel and necessarily one embossment of the corrugations (constituting a third forming portion) is provided between 1/5 and ¼ the width of the floor panel measured from one side end thereof and necessarily one engraving of the corrugations (constituting a fourth forming portion) is provided between a 1/5 and 1/6 of the width of the floor panel from the side end thereof. Here again too it should be noted that the exact location (position) is not deemed critical as there is no support or evidence to support a finding thereof.
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.
Claims 9-10, 21, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. as applied above to claims 4 and 25, in view of Ohi et al. (2009/0108633).
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. which, for claim 9, teaches the floor panel comprises a rear floor panel (25) 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 (FIG.1).
For claim 21, Ohi et al. provide the vehicle (FIG.1) having 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.
Ohi et al. includes first (22) and second (25a) forming portions, 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.
For claim 7, Ohi et al. further provides each of the pair of third forming portions is disposed at a position between the second portion (25a) and a lateral side end 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 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.
With regard to claim 28, please see the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claims 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. as applied above with respect to claims 10 and 26, in view of CarTech (CarTech Auto Books and Manuals, Welding Butt Joints, Apr 2012).
Aitharaju et al. fail to disclose the recited joggles, a feature taught by CarTech.
PNG
media_image3.png
234
324
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 provided the rear side members of Aitharaju et al., as modified, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitharaju et al. as applied above in view of JPH 08290784 (JPH 784).
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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
With regard to newly added limitation of the third forming portions coupled to rear side members, this feature is not novel as it is present in the prior art of FIG.2 which shows attaching a floor panel to rear side members. This teaching can be applied to the prior art such that the third portions of Aitharaju and FR 021 can be coupled directly or indirectly to rear side members of a vehicle to enhance rigidity thereof.
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, 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