DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 12A (Fig. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --Vehicle Body Structure with side collision suppression-- or similar.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0017, lines 5-6: It is unclear what is meant by “a substantially crank shape in cross-section.” Cranks can have various shapes and thus it is unclear what is meant by this statement.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 states that each diagonal brace is provided “between a center cross member…and a respective one of the pair of side members.” This limitation is confusing, as it appears to contradict the disclosure. The center cross member is indicated by numeral 33. Thus, for the diagonal braces to be between the center cross member 33 and another element, the claim is likely referring to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. Fig. 1 shows that, in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, the braces 40 are between the center cross member 33 and the cross members 32 (see annotated Fig. below). Therefore, examiner suggests changing “a respective one of the pair of side members” to --a respective one of the pair of cross members--.
PNG
media_image1.png
327
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Interpretation
The term “coupling” in line 12 of claim 1 is being interpreted such that a direct coupling is required between the cross member, the diagonal brace, and the underfloor brace. If the term “coupling” were interpreted to require only indirect coupling, then essentially any arrangement of a cross member, a diagonal brace, and an underfloor brace in a particular vehicle would meet the final clause of claim 1, given that all elements of a vehicle’s underbody are at least indirectly coupled together, since they are part of a vehicle body that travels as a unit. Thus, a narrower interpretation of the term “coupling” is required for the word to have any meaningful impact on the scope of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-5 are allowed.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is that of Natsume et al. (US 2016/0207572, hereinafter Natsume).
With regard to claim 1, Natsume teaches a vehicle body structure, comprising:
a floor tunnel (8, see annotated Fig. provided below) that protrudes from a floor panel toward a vehicle upper side and that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction (visible in Figs. below);
a pair of side members (3, see Fig. below), the respective side members provided at each vehicle width direction side of the floor panel and extending in the vehicle front-rear direction (visible in Figs. below);
a pair of cross members (30, see Figs. below) that respectively extend in a vehicle width direction, each cross member coupling a respective one of the pair of side members and the floor tunnel (“the cross members 30…connect to the side sills 3 and the floor tunnel 8”, see Paragraph 0103);
an underfloor brace (21, see Figs. below) that is provided at a vehicle lower side of the floor tunnel (see cross-sectional Fig. below), at a vehicle front side of the pair of cross members or a vehicle rear side of the pair of cross members (in the case of Fig. 3, the brace 21 is located at a front side of the cross members 30); and
a pair of diagonal braces (32, see Figs. below),
Natsume fails to teach or suggest that the diagonal braces (32) couple the cross members (30) and the underfloor brace (21). Instead, Fig. 4 shows that the diagonal praces
PNG
media_image2.png
502
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
331
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
615
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of vehicle floor systems having diagonal braces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676