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 § 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, 7-8, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacconi (WO 2021059156 A1) in view of Chapman et al. (US 20130323454 A1) and Johnston (WO 2015089185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pacconi discloses a structural part (Pacconi, 4 in Fig. 1A-1B) for a truck (Pacconi, 1 in Fig. 1A), comprising: a beam (Pacconi, 8 in Fig. 2, or beams on the step portion 5).
Pacconi fails to disclose fiber-reinforced plastic, the beam having a I-shaped cross-section, the beam comprising a web extending from a first flange to a second flange; wherein a cross-section of the web comprises: a first portion with a first thickness; a second portion with a second thickness, the second thickness being larger than the first thickness; and a third portion with a third thickness, the third thickness being smaller than the second thickness; wherein the second portion is located between the first portion and the third portion.
Chapman teaches fiber-reinforced plastic (Chapman, abstract, thermoplastic and glass fiber), the beam having a I-shaped cross-section (Chapman, paragraph 14, rib in foot board has an I-beam), the beam comprising a web (Chapman, paragraph 14) extending from a first flange to a second flange (Chapman, paragraph 14, pair of flanges joined by a web); wherein a cross-section (Chapman, cross section of the I-beam has an I-shape) of the web comprises: a first portion with a first thickness (Chapman, paragraph 14, can be one of the flanges); a second portion with a second thickness (Chapman, paragraph 14, can be the web), and a third portion with a third thickness (Chapman, paragraph 14, can be another one of the flanges), wherein the second portion is located between (Chapman, paragraph 14, web is in between the two flanges) the first portion and the third portion.
Chapman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle footboard as Pacconi.
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 part as taught by Pacconi to incorporate the teachings of Chapman with a reasonable expectation of success and have a step with fiber-reinforced plastic I-beam. Doing so provides a lightweight and robust structural part for the vehicle, which can save operating cost.
Johnston teaches the second thickness being larger than the first thickness; and the third thickness being smaller than the second thickness (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, cross-section is along the web or along the longitudinal direction of the beam; first portion and third portion are portions without the rib 18 therefore have less thickness than second portion where the rib 18 is located).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1A from Johnston
Johnston is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle structural part with an I-beam as Pacconi in view of Chapman.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman to incorporate the teachings of Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success and have ribs on the web such that the thicknesses limitation can be met. Doing so provides additional support and impact resistance to the front of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, wherein, starting from the first portion of the web and moving in direction of the third portion of the web, the second portion of the web comprises successively a first concave section (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, from first portion which is a thinner web portion to the protruding rib second portion), a convex section (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, rib portion), and a second concave section (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, from the protruding rib second portion to the third portion which is a thinner web portion).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the web is closer to the first flange (Johnston, first flange is the top flange and since the cross section is taken at a location near the top first flange, the second portion on the cross section will be closer to the top first flange) than to the second flange.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, wherein the material of the beam comprises a mix of reinforcing glass fibers with polyamide plastic material (Johnston, paragraph 11 teaches polyamide and glass fiber).
Johnston is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle structural part with an I-beam as Pacconi in view of Chapman.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman to incorporate the teachings of Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success and use a mix of reinforcing glass fibers with polyamide plastic material. Doing so provides both weight savings and reinforced structural performance.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches a truck grille (Pacconi, Fig. 1A-1B) comprising: the structural part of claim 1; a cover (Pacconi, outer skin portion of 5 in Fig. 1A) attached to the structural part (structural part can be the I-beam as taught by Chapman, such that it attaches to the grille/footstep of Pacconi after combination); and two support arms (Pacconi, 6 in Fig. 1A) extending transversely to the beam (after combination, arms are in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and the beam would be in the vehicle transversal direction); wherein the support arms are configured to be pivotably fixed (Pacconi, Fig. 1A-1B) to a cabin (Pacconi, 2 in Fig. 1B) of a truck.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches a truck (Pacconi, 1 in Fig. 1A) comprising the truck grille of claim 14, wherein the truck grille can be pivoted between: a first position (Pacconi, Fig. 1A), wherein the truck grille is flush with a front surface of a truck cabin (Pacconi, Fig. 1A); and a second position (Pacconi, Fig. 1B), wherein the truck grille protrudes out of the front surface of the truck cabin, so that the grille forms a step member for climbing along the cabin of the truck (Pacconi, Fig. 1B and abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borntraeger (US 0268385 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the web extends along a main extension axis transverse to the first flange and to the second flange (Chapman, I-shaped beam has an I-shaped cross-section where the two flanges extends substantially perpendicular to the web), wherein a cross-section of the first flange comprises a first portion and a second portion (Chapman, left and right portions of a flange; Fig. 1B of Johnston depicts a cross-section showing I-beam with a flange having two lateral portions with the web attached at the center of the flange) extending symmetrically relatively to the main extension axis of the web.
Borntraeger teaches each portion of the first flange has a thickness decreasing continuously from the main extension axis of the web to a free end (Borntraeger, Fig. 7, both upper and lower flanges have tapered profile with their thickness decreasing from the middle toward the two lateral free ends) of each portion of the first flange.
Borntraeger is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of I-beam structural part as Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Borntraeger with a reasonable expectation of success and have the thickness decreasing continuously. Doing so provides additional material for increased structural integrity; and creates a wider and smoother angle transitioning from the web to the flange, this increases the strength at the relatively fragile angular location.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roesgen (WO 0001544 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, but fails to teach the thickness of the first portion of the web is identical to the thickness of the third portion of the web.
Roesgen teaches the thickness of the first portion of the web is identical to the thickness of the third portion of the web (Roesgen, page 22 line 26, I-beam has a constant thickness web; same can be done on the I-beam structure of Johnston such that the web portion outside of rib 18 can have constant thickness).
Roesgen is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of I-beam structural part as Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Roesgen with a reasonable expectation of success and have constant thickness on the web such that the first portion and the third portion have same thicknesses. Doing so simplifies the design and therefore also the manufacturing process.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klein (US 20220111796 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, but fails to teach the second portion of the web has a constant thickness.
Klein teaches the second portion of the web has a constant thickness (Klein, claim 17, rib has constant height; Johnston’s rib 18 defines the second portion, where the height of the rib is the thickness of the second portion in the cross-section of annotated Fig. 1A; this thickness is measure in the same direction as the thickness of the web).
Klein is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle step structure as Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Klein with a reasonable expectation of success and have constant thickness. Doing so simplifies the rib design and therefore also the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, wherein, starting from the first portion of the web and moving in direction of the third portion of the web, the second portion of the web comprises a first zone of increasing thickness (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, from the first portion which is a flat thinner web portion to the second portion or rib 18 portion that has an increased thickness) followed by a second zone of decreasing thickness (Johnston, see annotated Fig. 1A, from the second portion which is the rib 18 portion down to the third portion, which is a thinner web portion).
The combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston fails to teach continuously.
Klein teaches continuously (Klein, see annotated Fig. 5, chamfer makes the thickness changes continuous).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 5 from Klein
Klein is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle step structure as Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston.
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 part as taught by Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston to incorporate the teachings of Klein with a reasonable expectation of success and have chamfers such that the thickness changes continuously. Doing so eliminates stress concentration points and increases structural integrity.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patberg et al. (US 20200262371 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, but fails to teach a ratio of the cross-section area of the second portion of the web over the total cross-section area of the web is comprised between 0.25 and 0.5.
Patberg teaches a vehicle structural part with a beam, and establishes that rib thickness is a result effective variable (Patberg, paragraph 8, where the rib corresponds to the second portion as taught by Johnston above, and thickness directly correlates to the cross-section area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio set to the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05 II. Doing so allows the mechanical property to be adjusted according to user preference.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, but fails to teach a ratio of the extension length of the second portion of the web over the total extension length of the web is comprised between 0.2 and 0.35.
Patberg teaches a vehicle structural part with a beam, and establishes that rib thickness is a result effective variable (Patberg, paragraph 8, where the rib corresponds to the second portion as taught by Johnston above, and the thickness of the rib second portion is also an extension length of the rib second portion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio set to the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05 II. Doing so allows the mechanical property to be adjusted according to user preference.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pacconi in view of Chapman and Johnston teaches the structural part of claim 1, but fails to teach a ratio of the thickness of the second portion of the web over the thickness of the first portion of the web is comprised between 1.2 and 2.5.
Patberg teaches a vehicle structural part with a beam, and establishes that rib thickness is a result effective variable (Patberg, paragraph 8, where the rib corresponds to the second portion as taught by Johnston above; thickness of the rib second portion is in the vehicle transverse direction and in the longitudinal direction of the beam and thickness of the first portion is in the vehicle front-rear direction and transverse to the beam’s longitudinal direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio set to the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05 II. Doing so allows the mechanical property to be adjusted according to user preference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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.
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 the first side of the first portion of the first flange meets with the first side of the second portion of the first flange at an angle comprised between 166° and 176° as claimed in claim 3; and supplying a two-part mold comprising a set of injection points offset along a main extension axis of the beam, the injection points facing a first flange of the beam; and injecting a mix of molten plastic and reinforcing fibers so as to form the beam as claimed in claim 13. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Borntraeger teaches an angle between the second sides of the first flange, but not the claimed angle range for the first sides. Applicant also included the rationale for the claimed range in paragraph 11 of the specification. It is not obvious to modify the prior art to have such a claimed angle range 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 steps, except for Cody (US 4034957 A) Doenges et al. (DE 102009031341 A1), which teach vehicle I-beam parts.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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