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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the upper cross-sectional parts on an inner side in the vehicle width direction are respectively bonded to upper surfaces of the front frame and the side frame." It is unclear which upper cross-sectional part is bonded to the front frame and which is bonded to the side frame. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “the upper cross-sectional parts of the cross member and the stiffener on an inner side in the vehicle width direction are respectively bonded to upper surfaces of the front frame and the side frame.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the upper cross-sectional part" in the last line. It is unclear which upper cross-sectional part this is referring to. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite “the upper cross-sectional part of the stiffener.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the upper cross-sectional part" in the lines 1-2. It is unclear which upper cross-sectional part this is referring to.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (US 20150145284 A1) in view of Park (US 9776670 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nishida discloses a vehicle front structure (Nishida, Fig. 1), comprising: a floor panel (Nishida, 24 in Fig. 1), disposed on a lower end side of a vehicle (Nishida, Fig. 1); a dash panel (Nishida, 22 in Fig. 1), disposed on a front end side (Nishida, Fig. 1 and 3) of the floor panel to partition a vehicle compartment (Nishida, 20 in Fig. 3) and a front compartment (Nishida, 18 in Fig. 3), wherein a curved part (Nishida, see annotated Fig. 3) curved toward the floor panel is provided at a lower part (Nishida, see annotated Fig. 3, curved part is at the lower end) of the dash panel; a front frame (Nishida, 60 in Fig. 1), disposed on a vehicle inner side (Nishida, Fig. 1) of the dash panel, and extending along the dash panel to the floor panel in a vehicle front-rear direction (Nishida, Fig. 1, curved rearward from front end 62 towards the floor panel); a cross member (Nishida, 50 in Fig. 1), disposed on the vehicle inner side of the dash panel (Nishida, Fig. 1), and extending downward from the front frame toward an outer side in a vehicle width direction (Nishida, Fig. 1, 50 extends downward towards outboard left direction towards outer side from the front frame front end 62); wherein the cross member is provided with an upper cross-sectional part (Nishida, 54 in Fig. 1) and a lower cross-sectional part (Nishida, 52 in Fig. 1) configured as closed cross-sectional surfaces (Nishida, Fig. 4 and 7, two closed cross-sectional surfaces formed by 52 and 54, since surface 58 is in contact with the floor/dash panel below it) by using lid-like structures (Nishida, Fig. 3 and 5) and corresponding to each other (Nishida, Fig. 2 and 5, extends in substantially the same direction), and the lower cross-sectional parts are formed at the curved part of the dash panel (Nishida, paragraph 41, positions at which the dash panel and the floor are contiguous can be rear of the cross member and the cross member can joined only to dashboard panel, which would mean that the lower cross-sectional part will be at a curved portion of the dash panel), and the upper cross-sectional parts are formed at positions higher than the lower cross-sectional parts (Nishida, Fig. 1, 54 is at higher position than 52) in the dash panel.
Nishida fails to disclose a stiffener, disposed on a vehicle outer side of the dash panel, and sandwiching, together with the cross member, the dash panel, wherein the stiffener is provided with an upper cross-sectional part and a lower cross-sectional part.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 3 from Nishida
Park teaches a stiffener (Park, Fig. 3, formed by 11, 12, and 40 on outer side of dash panel 20), disposed on a vehicle outer side of the dash panel, and sandwiching, together with the cross member, the dash panel (after combination, since stiffener is on the outer side and the cross member of Nishida is on the inner side), wherein the stiffener is provided with an upper cross-sectional part (Park, 11 in Fig. 3, lid-like and closed) and a lower cross-sectional part (Park, formed by 12 and 40, lid-like and closed), the cross-sectional parts corresponding to each other (Park, Fig. 3 shows upper cross-sectional part formed by 11 corresponding to an inner upper cross-sectional part 50, and similar for the lower cross-sectional parts; same can be done when combined with Nishida).
Park is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with floor and dash panel as Nishida.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Nishida to incorporate the teachings of Park with a reasonable expectation of success and add a stiffener to the front outer side of the dash panel. Doing provides additional structural integrity to the vehicle and increased energy absorption and distribution capacity.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nishida in view of Park teaches the vehicle front structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cross member and the stiffener extend downward toward the outer side in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 1 of Nishida shows cross member extending downward towards the width outer side; Fig. 1 of Park also shows this for the stiffener where it goes from a higher and inner position at cross-section A to a lower and outer position in cross section B), and are each provided with a concave part (58 in Fig. 1 of Nishida and Fig. 3 of Park shows the concave part similarly positioned between the closed cross-sectional surfaces of 11 and 12) recessed toward the dash panel between the upper cross-sectional part and the lower cross-sectional part.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nishida in view of Park teaches the vehicle front structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a side frame (Nishida, 12 in Fig. 2), disposed in front of the dash panel (Nishida, Fig. 2), wherein the front frame and the side frame are arranged along the vehicle front-rear direction to sandwich the dash panel (Nishida, Fig. 2); and the front frame and an upper flange (Nishida, 13a in Fig. 2) of the side frame are at least partially overlapped (Nishida, Fig. 2, when view in a top down direction, flange 13a and the front frame 60 is overlapped in the forward-rear direction; also overlapped when view in a direction that connects the flange and the front frame).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nishida in view of Park teaches the vehicle front structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front frame is provided with a bead part (Nishida, 62B in Fig. 4) extending in the vehicle front-rear direction, and the cross member is provided with a protrusion part (Nishida, 56 in Fig. 4) bonded to the bead part of the front frame.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nishida in view of Park teaches the vehicle front structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein an opposing surface of the upper cross-sectional part facing the dash panel has a width in the vehicle upper-lower direction, and the width gradually increases toward the outer side in the vehicle width direction (Nishida, Fig. 2, width of 54 in the vertical direction increases from a front frame location to the outer left side).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to wherein upper surfaces of the upper cross-sectional parts on an inner side in the vehicle width direction are respectively bonded to upper surfaces of the front frame and the side frame, and lower ends of the upper cross-sectional parts are inclined downward and extend along the vehicle width direction to positions higher than an upper surface of the side sill as claimed in claim 4; and a distance from an opposing surface of the upper cross-sectional part facing the dash panel to the dash panel is greater than a distance of an opposing surface of the lower cross-sectional part facing the dash panel to the dash panel as claimed in claim 9. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Applicant’s specification has provided specific rationale for such limitations and is therefore not obvious to simply modify the geometry of the prior art inventions without any teachings from the prior art. Additionally, modifying the structures of Nishida to meet the claimed limitations will change the load distribution of the structure of Nishida, which is also not obvious absent impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle front structures near dash panel and the floor with lid-like structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612