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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2025/0326442).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose a structural support apparatus configured to extend laterally through a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a beam 102 defining an open channel (as shown in Figs. 3 and 6A of Zhang et al.), the beam including:
a first extremity wall; and
[AltContent: textbox (first extremity wall)]a second extremity wall spaced from the first extremity wall by the open channel as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 6A of Zhang et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (open channel)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second extremity wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
206
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
at least one bracket 103 bridging between the first extremity wall and the second extremity wall, wherein the at least one bracket is configured to provide at least one mounting location that is configured to couple with an instrument panel (the beam 100 being “provided inside the instrument panel,” Zhang et al., paragraph [0029]).
With respect to claim 5, Zhang et al. disclose that the at least one bracket 103 (which includes bracket members 150) mounts an airbag assembly with the beam 102 (Zhang et al., paragraph [0032]; Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 6, Zhang et al. disclose that the at least one bracket 103 stiffens the beam 102 (such a rigid bracket 103 running along the length of beam 102 would inherently provide additional stiffening to the beam 102).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang et al. disclose that the at least one bracket 103 stiffens the beam 102 proximal a steering column area ( at(the portion of 103 opposite bracket 110, Zhang et al., paragraph [0032]; Fig. 4).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheng et al. (CN 114560015).
With respect to claim 1, Sheng et al. disclose a structural support apparatus configured to extend laterally through a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a beam 2 defining an open channel (as shown in Figs. 4 of Sheng et al.), the beam including:
a first extremity wall 21; and
a second extremity wall 22 spaced from the first extremity wall by the open channel as shown below in Fig. 4 of Sheng et al.; and
at least one bracket 1 bridging between the first extremity wall and the second extremity wall, wherein the at least one bracket 1 is configured to provide at least one mounting location 81 that is configured to couple with an instrument panel (at holes 81, see bottom of pg. 7 of the machine translation of Sheng et al.; Fig. 8).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2025/0326442), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 4109390.
With respect to claim 2, Zhang et al. disclose the claimed structural support apparatus except that they are silent on where the beam has a first cross- section configured to be distal from a steering column area, and wherein the beam has a second cross-section larger than the first cross section, the second cross-section configured to be proximal the steering column area. Fig. 2 of Zhang et al. suggests that the second cross section proximal the steering column area might be different or larger than the first cross-section however, this is not explicitly stated.
However, JP 4109390 teaches a similar structural support apparatus including a beam 11 having a first cross-section configured to be distal from a steering column area 18 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of JP 4109390:
[AltContent: textbox (second extremity wall )][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second cross-section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first extremity wall )][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first cross-section)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
376
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein the beam 11 has a second cross-section larger than the first cross section, the second cross-section configured to be proximal the steering column area 18 (as indicated above).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of JP 4109390 with the structural support apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. for the advantage of providing a stronger connection point (due to the larger cross-section) for the steering column of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 3, Zhang et al. disclose the claimed structural support apparatus except for the at least one of the first extremity wall and the second extremity wall defining at least one recess.
However, JP 4109390 teaches a similar structural support apparatus including a beam 11 including a first extremity wall and a second extremity wall (as shown in the above Figure) wherein the first extremity wall defines at least one recess 30 (as shown in Fig. 3 of JP 4109390).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of JP 4109390 with the structural support apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. for the advantage of using the empty space inside the channel for disposing the wire harness 40, and providing the recess 30 for allowing a wire to branch off of the harness to connect to an accessory requiring power (JP 4109390; paragraph [0023]; Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4 JP 4109390 discloses that the at least one of the first extremity wall and the second extremity wall include a flange 35 around a periphery of the at least one recess 30 (as shown in Fig. 3 of JP 4109390).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng et al. (CN 114560015), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kariya (JP 2003-182472).
With respect to claim 8, Sheng et al. disclose the claimed structural support apparatus, but they are silent on how the at least one bracket is secured with the first extremity wall and the second extremity wall.
However, Kariya teaches a similar structural support apparatus including a beam 1 defining an open channel and at least one bracket 28 wherein the at least one bracket 28 is secured with a first extremity wall and a second extremity wall with a plurality of fasteners (“bolts,” see the middle of pg. 3 of the machine translation of Kariya and Figs. 1 and 3).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kariya with the structural support apparatus disclosed by Sheng et al. because bolts are a well-known fastener for connecting structural parts that are easy and inexpensive to use (as compared with welding).
With respect to claim 21, Sheng et al. disclose the claimed structural support apparatus except for the at least one bracket comprising a plurality of brackets. Sheng et al. teaches that the at least one bracket 1 includes a plurality of mounting location with at least one of the plurality of mounting locations configured to couple with the instrument panel (at holes 81, see bottom of pg. 7 of the machine translation of Sheng et al.; Fig. 8).
While Sheng et al. discloses a single bracket 1, Kariya teaches a similar structure support apparatus including a beam 1 defining an open channel and two brackets 20 and 28 (as sown in Fig. 1 of Kariya).
It would have been obvious to replace the single bracket disclose by Sheng et al. with the teaching of Kariya for the advantage of reducing the weight of the apparatus by only using the brackets along the transverse direction where they are required for mounting structures.
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2025/0326442), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kariya (JP 2003-182472).
With respect to claim 9, Zhang et al. disclose the claimed structure support apparatus except that they are silent on whether the beam at least partially supports and electrical system inside the open channel of the beam. However, Kariya teaches a similar structural support apparatus including a beam 1 wherein the beam at least partially supports an electrical system 10 inside the open channel of the beam (as shown in Fig. 1 of Kariya).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kariya with the structural support apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. for the advantage of using the empty space of the channel to store other components of the vehicle thereby saving space.
With respect to claim 10, Kariya discloses that the electrical system 10 is secured within the open channel by the first extremity wall, the second extremity wall, and the at least one bracket 20 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Kariya).
With respect to claim 11, Kariya is silent on the method of making the beam 1. However, since claim 11 is directed to an apparatus, the method of making the apparatus only differentiates from the prior art if the ending apparatus has a structural difference than that of the prior art. In this case, there is no structural difference between the claimed beam and that disclosed by Zhang et al. in view of Kariya.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 newly found references to Zhang et al. and Sheng et al. have been applied. It is noted that claim 1 does not include the channel configured to receive a loom of wiring or a loom of wiring enclosed within the open channel (as respectively recited in claims 12 and 18.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights