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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-6, and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 2-3, “the vehicle” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of expediting examination, this language will be interpreted as “a vehicle”.
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “a rear floor portion of the vehicle body structure relative to the relative to the forward driving direction” seems to be directed to state “a rear floor portion of the vehicle body structure relative to the forward driving direction”.
In claim 6, line 2, “withstand a tensile stress at least 400 MPa” seems to be directed to state “a tensile stress of at least 400 MPa”.
In claim 11, line 2, “providing an integrally formed several components” seems to be directed to state “providing several components integrally formed”, to impart additional clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-15 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.
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 arranged at the unitary casting portion (col. 10, lines 17-20 and lines 56-59) to avoid an invasion of one or more deteriorated components of the unitary casting portion in a direction to the cabin portion caused by the crash (col. 10, lines 1-10).
Scaringe et al. do not disclose the unitary casting portion comprising several components integrally formed during a casting process.
However, Hedderly does disclose this limitation 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.
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. disclose the unitary casting portion being positioned in front of the cabin portion relative to a forward driving direction of [a vehicle] (see annotated Fig. 1a; col. 5, lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 4, Scaringe et al. disclose the shield element being connected to an A-pillar portion (216) of the vehicle body structure (col. 10, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 5, Scaringe et al. disclose the unitary casting portion being positioned at a rear floor portion of the vehicle body structure [relative to the] forward driving direction of the vehicle (see annotated Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 8, Scaringe et al. disclose the shield element being formed as a plate, a rib structure, a net, a membrane, a tailored mat or a fabric. In the present invention, the shield element is formed as a rib structure (Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 9, Scaringe et al. disclose the unitary casting portion comprising several shield elements (205/206; Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 10, Scaringe et al. disclose a vehicle, the vehicle comprising the vehicle body structure (Fig. 1a; col. 6, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 11, Scaringe et al. disclose:
A method for manufacturing a vehicle body structure (col. 1, lines 8-12), comprising:
arranging at least one shield element at the unitary casting portion to avoid an invasion of one or more deteriorated components of the unitary casting portion in a direction to a cabin portion caused by a crash (col. 9, lines 62-67 and col. 10, lines 1-4), and
assembling the unitary casting portion with the cabin portion of the vehicle body structure for absorbing overload energy during the crash (col. 10, lines 17-28).
Scaringe et al. do not disclose [providing several components integrally formed] into a unitary casting portion during a casting process.
Regarding claim 12, Scaringe et al. do not disclose the shield element being integrated into the unitary casting portion during a casting process.
However, Hedderly does disclose this limitation 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]). In this present invention, the shield-like elements (Hedderly 252/254; Hedderly Fig. 13) are understood to be vehicle body structure components that can thus be integrated into the unitary casting portion during a casting process.
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 method of manufacturing a 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 manufacturing time by creating the unitary casting portion and the shield element to be constructed as one piece (Hedderly [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Scaringe et al. disclose the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by mechanical fastening means col. 7, lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 14, Scaringe et al. disclose the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by welding (col. 7, lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 15, Scaringe et al. disclose the shield element being mounted to the unitary casting portion by adhesive bonding (col. 7, lines 46-53).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaringe et al. US 8641133 B1, in view of Hu et al. CN 109292001 A.
Regarding claim 6, Scaringe et al. do not disclose a material of the shield element being selected to withstand a tensile stress [of] at least 400 MPa.
Regarding claim 7, Scaringe et al. do not disclose the material of the shield element being selected from a group comprising steel, aluminum, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and para-aramid synthetic fiber.
However, Hu et al. disclose shield-like components (Hu et al. 2; Hu et al. Figs. 3 and 4) that are made of steel (Hu et al. [0035]). Hu et al. also disclose the steel material to have a tensile strength of about 700 MPa (Hu et al. [0036]).
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 shield element as taught by Scaringe et al. with the material properties of steel as taught by Hu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to maximize the optimization of the vehicle body structure (Hu et al. [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Scaringe et al. US 8641133 B1 disclose a high strength lightweight vehicle and an improved method for producing same. See annotated Fig. 1a.
Hedderly US 20080169680 A1 discloses a vehicle body assembly.
Hu et al. CN 109292001 A disclose a multi-material mixing body side wall assembly and connection method thereof.
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 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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