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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that,
“…
Claim 1, as amended, specifically recites:
…
wherein the front portion comprises:
a vertical wall spaced apart from the cross portion toward the
front of the vehicle body, and
a horizontal wall connecting the vertical wall and the cross
portion,
wherein the cross portion comprises a vertical wall extending in the
width direction of the vehicle body, and
wherein the front portion comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs
provided between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall
of the cross portion.
Kasuga does not teach or suggest such a vehicle dash crossmember.
In particular, Kasuga fails to disclose that the front portion comprises a vertical wall spaced apart from the cross portion toward the front of the vehicle body and a horizontal wall connecting the vertical wall and the cross portion. Kasuga further does not show that the cross portion comprises a vertical wall extending in the width direction of the vehicle body and that the front portion comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion.”
(original emphases)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Kasuga teaches the asserted features as illustrated in Fig. 2 reproduced (with annotations added for purpose of illustrating how the components are mapped to the recited limitations) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
488
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please see how each of the cross portion, vertical wall of the cross portion, the front portion, and the vertical wall of the front portion as shown in the figure meets the requirement of each of the corresponding limitations as recited in the claim. For example, the cross portion shown in the figure clearly extends in a width direction of a vehicle body, the front portion protruding from the cross portion toward a front of the vehicle body, the front portion as such has a vertical wall indicated in the figure, the cross portion also has a vertical wall as indicated in figure.
Also, Kasuga also teaches reinforcement ribs at positions shown in the figure. However, what are in the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion is not clear because the space is occluded by the front wall of the front portion.
As described in the Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of reinforcing ribs similar to those at the positions shown in Fig. 2 of Kasuga above into the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion as well to make the structure stronger.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 22 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 22 depends on claim 7, which depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 5. Claim 5 then depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “the front portion comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs…”
Claim 22 recites, “each enlarged portion comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs …”. Then, in line 4, claim 22 further recites, “wherein the plurality of reinforcing ribs comprises …”. It is unclear which of the plurality of reinforcing ribs (previously recited in claim 1 or previously recited in line 2 of claim 22 the plurality of reinforcing ribs recited in line 4 refers to.
The claim is therefore 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 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 1, 5-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuga (US 6,170,906 B1 – hereinafter Kasuga).
Regarding claim 1, Kasuga discloses a vehicle dash crossmember comprising: a cross portion extending in a width direction of a vehicle body (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the portion 10 between the pair of elements 2); a front portion protruding from the cross portion toward a front of the vehicle body (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the front portion of the portion 10 between the pair of elements 2); and a pair of outrigger portions provided at both ends of the cross portion, respectively, wherein the cross portion, the front portion, and the pair of outrigger portions are a unitary one-piece structure (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the pair of elements 2, the portion 10 including the front portion and the pair of elements are molded in one piece by die casting), wherein the front portion comprises: a vertical wall spaced apart from the cross portion toward the front of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above); and a horizontal wall connecting the vertical wall and the cross portion (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above), wherein the cross portion comprises a vertical wall extending in the width direction of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above).
However, Kasuga does not explicitly disclose the front portion further comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion.
However, Kasuga also discloses a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between vertical walls at other positions (Fig. 2 – fin-shaped elements, also see Response to Arguments above).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of reinforcing ribs into the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion of Kasuga as well to make the structure stronger.
Regarding claim 5, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 1, further comprising a pair of outer plates fixed to the pair of outrigger portions, respectively (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 35-45 – a pair of elements 11).
Regarding claim 6, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 5, wherein: each outrigger portion comprises an inboard portion facing an interior of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – the portion facing inward) and an outboard portion facing and exterior of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – the portion facing outward); and each outer plate is fixed to the outboard portion of the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – fixed to the outboard portion via elements 11).
Regarding claim 7, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 6, further comprising a pair of enlarged portions provided at both ends of the front portion, respectively, wherein a width of each enlarged portion gradually increases from each end of the front portion toward the inboard portion of the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – a pair of elements 14).
Regarding claim 8, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 7, wherein each enlarged portion comprises: a side extension wall extending obliquely from the respective end of the front portion toward the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – the side wall of elements 14); and a horizontal wall connecting the side extension wall and a vertical wall of the cross portion (Fig. 2 – a bottom wall connecting the side wall of element 14 to any vertical wall of the cross portion 10).
Regarding claim 9, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 8, wherein each enlarged portion further comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between the side extension wall and the vertical wall of the cross portion (Fig. 2 – the fins connecting the side wall of elements 14 to the vertical wall of portion 10).
Regarding claim 10, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of mounting bosses integrally provided on a bottom surface of the cross portion (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 46-59 – elements 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 21 would have been obvious over Kasuga as discussed in claim 1 above, in view of incorporating the reinforcement ribs at the positions shown in Fig. 2 into the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion making the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion divided into a plurality of vertical though holes of either rectangular or square shapes (see Fig. 2 of Kasuga).
Claims 11-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuga and Kawano et al. (US 2023/0286593 A1 – hereinafter Kawano).
Regarding claim 11, Kasuga discloses a vehicle body comprising: a floor panel (column 2, lines 35-45 – a floor member); a dash crossmember mounted on a front edge of the floor panel (Fig. 1), the dash crossmember comprising: a cross portion extending in a width direction of the vehicle body (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the portion 10 between the pair of elements 2); a front portion protruding from the cross portion toward a front of the vehicle body (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the front portion of the portion 10 between the pair of elements 2); and a pair of outrigger portions provided at both ends of the cross portion, respectively, wherein the cross portion, the front portion, and the pair of outrigger portions define a unitary one-piece structure (Figs. 1-2; column 2, lines 35-45 – the pair of elements 2, the portion 10 including the front portion and the pair of elements are molded in one piece by die casting); a central longitudinal member mounted on the floor panel along a central longitudinal axis of the floor panel (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 35-45 – a floor tunnel), wherein the front portion comprises: a vertical wall spaced apart from the cross portion toward the front of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above); and a horizontal wall connecting the vertical wall and the cross portion (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above), wherein the cross portion comprises a vertical wall extending in the width direction of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – see detailed explanation in Response to Arguments above).
However, Kasuga does not explicitly disclose a pair of side longitudinal members mounted on the floor panel and symmetrically disposed with respect to the central longitudinal member, wherein the front portion further comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion.
However, Kasuga also discloses a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between vertical walls at other positions (Fig. 2 – fin-shaped elements, also see Response to Arguments above).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate a plurality of reinforcing ribs into the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion of Kasuga as well to make the structure stronger.
However, Kasuga does not disclose a pair of side longitudinal members mounted on the floor panel and symmetrically disposed with respect to the central longitudinal member.
Kawano discloses a floor panel (Fig. 1); a central longitudinal member mounted on the floor panel along a central longitudinal axis of the floor panel (Fig. 1;[0012] – floor tunnel 1); and a pair of side longitudinal members mounted on the floor panel and symmetrically disposed with respect to the central longitudinal member (Fig. 1; [0018] – floor frames 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kawano into the vehicle body taught by Kasuga in order to prevent the lower dash panel and the lower dash crossmember from deformation (Kawano: [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, see the teachings of Kasuga and Kawano as discussed in claim 11 above, in which Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses a front end portion of the central longitudinal member and a front end portion of each side longitudinal member are connected to the cross portion of the dash crossmember (Kasuga: Fig. 2; column 2, lines 35-45 – a floor tunnel is connected to the cross portion. Kawano: [0019]; [0032]; Fig. 1).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Kawano into the vehicle body of Kasuga has been discussed in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Kasuga and Kawano as discussed in claim 11 above. However, Kasuga and Kawano do not disclose the central longitudinal member and each side longitudinal member comprise a material having a higher strength than that of the dash crossmember.
However, Kawano discloses the central longitudinal member and each side longitudinal member receive collision load from the dash crossmember ([0031]-[0032]).
As such, Official Notice is taken that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use a material having a higher strength than that of the dash crossmember for the central longitudinal member and each side longitudinal member so that they can tolerate the load collision.
Regarding claim 14, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 11, wherein: the cross portion comprises a reinforcement integrally connected to the vertical wall (Fig. 2 – the element 10 comprises at least a vertical wall); and the reinforcement comprises a plurality of ribs intersecting with each other (Fig. 2 – fin-shaped elements between vertical walls).
Regarding claim 15, see the teachings of Kasuga and Kawano as discussed in claim 14 above. Kawano also discloses a reinforcement comprises: a central mounting portion on which a front end portion of the central longitudinal member is mounted (Fig. 1; [0012] – floor tunnel 1); and a pair of side mounting portions on which front end portions of the pair of side longitudinal members are mounted, respectively (Fig. 1; [0018] – floor frames 10).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Kawano into the vehicle body taught by Kasuga has been discussed in claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 15, wherein a plurality of ribs are configured to at least partially surround the central mounting portion and the pair of side mounting portions (Fig. 2 – fin-shaped elements between vertical walls).
Regarding claim 17, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 11, further comprising a pair of outer plates fixed to the pair of outrigger portions, respectively (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 35-45 – a pair of elements 11), wherein: each outrigger portion comprises an inboard portion facing an interior of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – the portion facing inward) and an outboard portion facing and exterior of the vehicle body (Fig. 2 – the portion facing outward); and each outer plate is fixed to the outboard portion of the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – fixed to the outboard portion via elements 11).
Regarding claim 18, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 17, further comprising a pair of enlarged portions provided at both ends of the front portion, respectively, wherein a width of each enlarged portion gradually increases from each end of the front portion toward the inboard portion of the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – a pair of elements 14).
Regarding claim 19, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 18, wherein each enlarged portion comprises: a side extension wall extending obliquely from the respective end of the front portion toward the corresponding outrigger portion (Fig. 2 – the side wall of elements 14); a horizontal wall connecting the side extension wall and a vertical wall of the cross portion (Fig. 2 – a bottom wall connecting the side wall of element 14 to any vertical wall of the cross portion 10); and a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between the side extension wall and the vertical wall of the cross portion (Fig. 2 – the fins connecting the side wall of elements 14 to the vertical wall of portion 10).
Regarding claim 20, Kasuga in view of Kawano also discloses the vehicle body according to claim 11, further comprising a plurality of mounting bosses integrally provided on a bottom surface of the cross portion (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 46-59 – elements 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 would have been obvious over Kasuga as discussed in claim 11 above, in view of incorporating the reinforcement ribs at the positions shown in Fig. 2 of Kasuga into the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion making the space between the vertical wall of the front portion and the vertical wall of the cross portion divided into a plurality of vertical though holes of either rectangular or square shapes (see Fig. 2 of Kasuga).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuga as applied to claims 1, 5-10, and 21 above, and further in view of Wuest et al. (US 2011/0193369 A1 - Wuest).
Regarding claim 22, Kasuga also discloses the vehicle dash crossmember according to claim 7, wherein each enlarged portion comprises a plurality of reinforcing ribs provided between a side extension wall and the vertical wall of the cross portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein the plurality of reinforcing ribs comprises: a first reinforcing rib directly connected to the side extension wall and extending obliquely to intersect with the side extension wall (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a second reinforcing rib directly connected to the vertical wall of the front portion and extending along the width direction of the vehicle body (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and a plurality of third reinforcing ribs arranged in a parallel shape between the second
PNG
media_image2.png
624
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
reinforcing rib and the vertical wall of the cross portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
However, Kasuga does not disclose the third reinforcing ribs arranged in a zigzag shape.
Wuest discloses reinforcing ribs arranged in a zigzag shape ([0009]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the reinforcing ribs arranged in a zigzag shape into the plurality of third reinforcing ribs taught by Kasuga to provide the structure with a capability of absorbing energy from impacts (Wuest: [0009]).
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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484