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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 2nd, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome all objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 3rd, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the particular combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Nygaard US 20070194604 teaches the amended limitations.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “mechanical fastening means” in claim 13. The specification defines “mechanical fastening means may include rivets, bolts, screws, brackets, clamps or the like” ([0028]).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. US 8641133 B1, in view of Hedderly US 20080169680 A1, and further in view of Nygaard US 20070194604 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Scaringe et al. disclose:
A vehicle body structure (100; Fig. 1a), comprising:
at least one unitary casting portion (300/400; Figs. 3a and 4), a cabin portion (see annotated Fig. 1a below; col. 6, lines 8-10), and at least one shield element (205/206; Fig. 2a),
the unitary casting portion being assembled with the cabin portion for absorbing overload energy during a crash (see annotated Fig. 1a), and
the at least one shield element being integrated into or mounted to the unitary casting portion between the unitary casting portion and the cabin portion (see annotated Fig. 1a; col. 10, lines 17-20 and lines 56-59).
Scaringe et al. do not disclose the unitary casting portion comprising several components integrally formed during a casting process, nor the shield element formed as a tension net to catch one or more deteriorated components of the unitary casting portion in a direction to the cabin portion caused by the crash.
However, Hedderly discloses a casting process by stating “at least some of the members of the set of [vehicle] body structure components may be provided as castings and may be provided with integral mating features. For example, the integral mating features may be cast as part of an associated body structure component, thereby providing a one-piece construction” (Hedderly 104/106; Hedderly Fig. 3; Hedderly [0039]).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle body structure of Scaringe et al. with the unitary casting portion comprising several components integrally formed as taught by Hedderly with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing connective joint failures to provide additional structural integrity as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Nygaard discloses a shield element formed as a tension net to catch one or more deteriorated components (Nygaard [0128]) of a unitary casting portion (Nygaard [0028]) in a direction to the cabin portion caused by the crash (Nygaard [0084]).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the vehicle body structure of Scaringe et al. with the tension net as taught by Nygaard with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of preventing debris, such as glass, from entering a cabin and striking a driver (Nygaard [0218]).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Scaringe et al. do not disclose the unitary casting portion comprising a metal alloy material.
However, Hedderly does disclose this limitation by stating that “at least some of the members of the set of [cast] body structure components may be made of a magnesium alloy” (Hedderly [0039]).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the unitary casting portion of Scaringe et al. with the metal alloy material as taught by Hedderly with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing desirable strength, weight, and manufacturability characteristics (Hedderly [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the unitary casting portion being positioned in front of the cabin portion relative to a forward driving direction of a vehicle (see annotated Scaringe et al. Fig. 1a; Scaringe et al. col. 5, lines 46-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the shield element being connected to an A-pillar portion of the vehicle body structure (Nygaard [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, where the unitary casting portion is being positioned at a rear floor portion of the vehicle body structure relative to the forward driving direction of the vehicle (see annotated Scaringe et al. Fig. 1a above).
Regarding claim 7, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the material of the shield element being selected from a group comprising steel, aluminum, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and para-aramid synthetic fiber (Nygaard [0091] and [0128]).
Regarding claim 8, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the shield element being formed as a plate, a rib structure, a net, a membrane, a tailored mat or a fabric (Nygaard [0128]).
Regarding claim 9, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the unitary casting portion comprising several shield elements (Nygaard [0127]).
Regarding claim 10, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose a vehicle, the vehicle comprising the vehicle body structure (Fig. 1a; col. 6, lines 2-4), according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Scaringe et al. disclose:
A method for manufacturing a vehicle body structure (col. 1, lines 8-12), comprising:
integrating or mounting at least one shield element into or to the unitary casting portion between the unitary casting portion and a cabin portion of the vehicle body structure cabin portion, and
assembling the unitary casting portion and the at least one shield element with the cabin portion of the vehicle body structure for absorbing overload energy during the crash.
Scaringe et al. do not disclose providing several components integrally formed into a unitary casting portion during a casting process, nor the at least one shield element to be formed as a tension net to catch one or more deteriorated components of the unitary casting portion in a direction to the cabin portion caused by a crash.
However, Hedderly discloses a casting process by stating “at least some of the members of the set of [vehicle] body structure components may be provided as castings and may be provided with integral mating features. For example, the integral mating features may be cast as part of an associated body structure component, thereby providing a one-piece construction” (Hedderly 104/106; Hedderly Fig. 3; Hedderly [0039]).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle body structure of Scaringe et al. with the unitary casting portion comprising several components integrally formed as taught by Hedderly with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing connective joint failures to provide additional structural integrity as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Nygaard discloses a shield element formed as a tension net to catch one or more deteriorated components (Nygaard [0128]) of a unitary casting portion (Nygaard [0028]) in a direction to the cabin portion caused by the crash (Nygaard [0084]).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the vehicle body structure of Scaringe et al. with the tension net as taught by Nygaard with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of preventing debris, such as glass, from entering a cabin and striking a driver (Nygaard [0218]).
Regarding claim 12, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the method according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the shield element is integrated into the unitary casting portion during a casting process (Nygaard [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the method according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by mechanical fastening means (Nygaard [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the method according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by welding (Nygaard [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the method according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by adhesive bonding (Nygaard [0035]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. US 8641133 B1, in view of Hedderly US 20080169680 A1 and Nygaard US 20070194604 A1, and further in view of Mirdehghan.
Regarding claim 6, Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, disclose the vehicle body structure according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein a material of the shield element is carbon fiber (Nygaard [0128]), but do not disclose the carbon fiber material of the shield element being selected to withstand a tensile stress of at least 400 MPa.
However, Mirdehghan discloses that commercial carbon fibers possess a tensile strength ranging from 3 GPa to 7 GPa (Mirdehghan pages 1-3).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the shield element material of Scaringe et al., in view of Hedderly and Nygaard, with the carbon fiber material properties as taught by Mirdehghan with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of integrating a lightweight material with a high tensile stress factor (Mirdehghan pages 1-3), optimizing the design for a tension net structure in a vehicle, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwering et al. US 20240116586 A1 disclose a front vehicle bulkhead comprising of large cast components (Schwering et al. [0017]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights