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 .
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 3 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 3 is not clearly understood because “the side pillar” lacks a clear antecedent basis and is likely either the –side sill-- or –pillar--. The examiner believes the term should be –side sill--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunohara et al. (US 2017/0203792).
Sunohara et al., in reference to claim 1, discloses a vehicle front structure comprising a floor panel (6) disposed on a lower end side of a vehicle (1), a side sill (3) disposed on each of two sides of the floor panel (6) in a vehicle width direction and extending along a vehicle front-rear direction, a pillar (2) disposed above the side sill (3) and extending in a vehicle upper-lower direction, and a dash panel (4) disposed at a front of the side sill (3) and the pillar (2) so that the dash panel (4) is erected upward toward a front from the floor panel (6) and partitioning a vehicle compartment and a front compartment, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0044]. A triangular gusset (34) is bonded to an upper surface of the side sill (3) and a vehicle inner surface of the pillar (2), as shown in Figure 1. The triangular gusset (34) has an inclined surface obliquely extending upward from an inner end of the side sill (3) and is indirectly bonded to the dash panel (4) via the front portion (3a) of the side sill (3), as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 7, the triangular gusset has a longitudinal surface bonded to the vehicle inner surface of the pillar (2) and a side surface bonded to the upper surface of the side sill (3), as shown in Figure 1. A length of the longitudinal surface of the triangular gusset (34) is greater than a length of the side surface, as shown in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 8, a rear surface of the triangular gusset (34)is inclined downward toward a rear, as shown in Figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunohara et al. (US 2017/0203792) in view of Wanke et al. (US 2011/0133518).
Sunohara et al. does not disclose the front frame and the side frame.
Wanke et al. teaches providing a side frame (16,18) disposed in front of a dash panel and a front frame (20) to sandwich the dash panel (22) in the front-rear direction, as shown in Figures 1 and 4. The front frame and the upper flange of the side frame are at least partially overlapped, as shown in Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a side frame disposed in front of the dash panel and front frame behind the dash panel of Sunohara et al. that sandwich the dash panel in the front-rear direction such that the front frame and an upper flange of the side frame at least partially overlap, as taught by Wanke et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a load path from the side frame to the front frame to improve passenger safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 February 4, 2026