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.
Drawings
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, “an end of the body portion” should be changed to --the rear end of the body portion-- to be consistent with how it is referred to in claim 1.
In claim 7, line 2, “the end of the body portion” should be changed to --the rear end of the body portion--.
In claim 19, lines 5-8, “at an end of the body portion” and “at the end of the body portion” should both be changed to --the rear end of the body portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100).
Regarding claim 1, Mildner et al. discloses a vehicle footrest (Figs. 1 and 5) comprising: a body portion (combined (34),(36) of floor panel (31),(30)) extending in a length direction of a vehicle body of a vehicle (from left to right in Fig. 1) and configured to come into contact with and support a foot of an occupant in the vehicle (front foot well section (36) to place and support a foot of an occupant); a first fastening portion (zoomed in portion of Fig. 11 and connecting portion right below the zoomed in area of Fig. 11) integrated with the body portion at a front end of the body portion (left portion of Fig. 11) and fastened to a dash portion of the vehicle body (Fig. 11, paragraph [0076] discusses the fastening of the front end of the body portion to the dash portion); and a second fastening portion (at weld spots (52) in Fig. 10) fastened to a seat cross member (24) of the vehicle body at a rear end of the body portion (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)).
Regarding claim 2, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 1, and discloses wherein the first fastening portion is fastened to a dash cross member of the dash portion (Fig. 11 shows the first fastening portion is fastened to the dash cross member (20) by weld spots (52)).
Regarding claim 4, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 1, and discloses wherein the second fastening portion is fastened to the seat cross member by a weld (Figs. 10 and 11 show the fastening to the seat cross member (24) is by weld spots (52)).
Regarding claim 10, Mildner et al. discloses a vehicle footrest (Figs. 1 and 5) comprising: a body portion (combined (34),(36) of floor panel (31),(30)) extending in a length direction of a vehicle body of a vehicle (from left to right in Fig. 1) and configured to come into contact with and support a foot of an occupant in the vehicle (front foot well section (36) to place and support a foot of an occupant); a first fastening portion (zoomed in portion of Fig. 11 and connecting portion right below the zoomed in area of Fig. 11) integrated with the body portion at a front end of the body portion (left portion of Fig. 11) and fastened to a dash cross member of a dash portion of the vehicle body (Fig. 11 shows the first fastening portion is fastened to the dash cross member (20) by weld spots (52)); and a second fastening portion fastened by a weld (at weld spots (52) in Fig. 10) to a seat cross member (24) of the vehicle body at a rear end of the body portion (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)).
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 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100) in view of Akasaka et al. (US 2003/0222478).
Regarding claim 3, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 2. However, Mildner et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole; and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole.
Akasaka et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole ((h1)(h2)); and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole (Figs. 3 and 4 shown the bolt and bolt hole fastening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fastening portion of the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. to be a bolt hole/bolt combination as taught by Akasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akasaka et al. shows an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fasteners were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute welding for bolt and bolt hole configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 1. However, Mildner et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second fastening portion is fastened to the seat cross member by a bolt.
Akasaka et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest wherein the second fastening portion (3a) is fastened to the seat cross member by a bolt ((8), Figs. 3 and 4 shown the bolt and bolt hole (h3) fastening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second fastening portion of the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. to be a bolt hole/bolt combination as taught by Akasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akasaka et al. shows an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fasteners were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute welding for bolt and bolt hole configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 10. However, Mildner et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole; and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole.
Akasaka et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole ((h1)(h2)); and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole (Figs. 3 and 4 shown the bolt and bolt hole fastening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fastening portion of the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. to be a bolt hole/bolt combination as taught by Akasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akasaka et al. shows an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fasteners were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute welding for bolt and bolt hole configuration.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100) in view of Akasaka et al. (US 2003/0222478) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 106004607, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 4 and teaches (references to Mildner et al.) wherein the second fastening portion is fixed to the seat cross member (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)).
Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the body portion is pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed.
Wu et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest (Fig. 2) and further teaches wherein the body portion (3) is pivotably fastened to a second fastening portion (6) in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed (Fig. 2, (6) is fixed and (3) is pivotably fastened through (4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. to have the body portion pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong connection to the vehicle while providing the capacity of being able to reposition the footrest if necessary due to the occupant.
Regarding claim 6, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. and Wu et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 5 and teaches (references to Wu et al.) wherein the second fastening portion (6) is pivotably coupled to a hinge pin disposed at an end of the body portion (Fig. 2 shows the hinge pin that runs through the hinge (4)).
Regarding claim 7, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. and Wu et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 6 and teaches (references to Wu et al.) wherein the second fastening portion (6) is fitted into a hinge hole (opening of hinge (4) disposed at the end of the body portion (Figs. 2 and 3 show (6) within hinge hole at the end of the body portion (3)).
Regarding claim 12, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 11 and teaches (references to Mildner et al.) wherein the second fastening portion is fixed to the seat cross member (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)).
Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the body portion is pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed.
Wu et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest (Fig. 2) and further teaches wherein the body portion (3) is pivotably fastened to a second fastening portion (6) in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed (Fig. 2, (6) is fixed and (3) is pivotably fastened through (4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. to have the body portion pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong connection to the vehicle while providing the capacity of being able to reposition the footrest if necessary due to the occupant.
Regarding claim 13, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. and Wu et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 11 and teaches (references to Wu et al.) wherein the second fastening portion (6) is pivotably coupled to a hinge pin disposed at an end of the body portion (Fig. 2 shows the hinge pin that runs through the hinge (4)).
Regarding claim 14, Mildner et al. as modified by Akasaka et al. and Wu et al. teaches the vehicle footrest of claim 13 and teaches (references to Wu et al.) wherein the second fastening portion (6) is fitted into a hinge hole (opening of hinge (4) disposed at the end of the body portion (Figs. 2 and 3 show (6) within hinge hole at the end of the body portion (3)).
Claims 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100) in view of Hjerpe (US 2004/0070182).
Regarding claim 8, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 1. However, Mildner et al. does not explicitly disclose the vehicle footrest further comprising a reinforcement portion at a central portion of the body portion, wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come in contact with the foot of the occupant.
Hjerpe, like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest, and further teaches a reinforcement portion (Fig. 13, (73) of (60) is an example) at a central portion of the body portion (Fig. 13 face of embodiment), wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come in contact with the foot of the occupant (claims 7, 9, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. to include a reinforcement portion as taught by Hjerpe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the capacity of the footrest to hold the load of the foot of the occupant, especially in case of an accident.
Regarding claim 15, Mildner et al. discloses the vehicle footrest of claim 10. However, Mildner et al. does not explicitly disclose the vehicle footrest further comprising a reinforcement portion at a central portion of the body portion, wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come in contact with the foot of the occupant.
Hjerpe, like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest, and further teaches a reinforcement portion (Fig. 13, (73) of (60) is an example) at a central portion of the body portion (Fig. 13 face of embodiment), wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come in contact with the foot of the occupant (claims 7, 9, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. to include a reinforcement portion as taught by Hjerpe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the capacity of the footrest to hold the load of the foot of the occupant, especially in case of an accident.
Regarding claim 16, Mildner et al. discloses a vehicle (abstract) comprising: a vehicle body (paragraph [0008]) comprising a center floor, a dash portion (paragraph [0076] discusses the dash portion) coupled to the center floor (31), and a seat cross member (24) on the center floor; and a footrest (Figs. 1 and 5) installed on an inner side of the vehicle body (Fig. 1), the footrest comprising: a body portion (combined (34),(36) of floor panel (31),(30)) extending in a length direction of the vehicle body (from left to right in Fig. 1) and configured to come into contact with a foot of an occupant in the vehicle (front foot well section (36) to place and support a foot of an occupant); a first fastening portion (zoomed in portion of Fig. 11 and connecting portion right below the zoomed in area of Fig. 11) integrated with the body portion at a front end of the body portion (left portion of Fig. 11) and fastened to the dash portion (Fig. 11, paragraph [0076] discusses the fastening of the front end of the body portion to the dash portion); and a second fastening portion (at weld spots (52) in Fig. 10) fastened to the seat cross member (24) at a rear end of the body portion (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)).
Mildner et al. does not explicitly disclose a reinforcement portion at a central portion of the body portion, wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come into contact with a foot of an occupant in the vehicle.
Hjerpe, like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle component, and further teaches a reinforcement portion (Fig. 13, (73) of (60) is an example) at a central portion of the body portion (Fig. 13 face of embodiment), wherein the reinforcement portion is configured to come into contact with the foot of the occupant in the vehicle (claims 7, 9, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Mildner et al. to include a reinforcement portion as taught by Hjerpe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the capacity of the footrest to hold the load of the foot of the occupant, especially in case of an accident.
Regarding claim 17, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and teaches (references to Mildner et al.) wherein the first fastening portion is fastened to a dash cross member of the dash portion (Fig. 11 shows the first fastening portion is fastened to the dash cross member (20) by weld spots (52)).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100) in view of Hjerpe (US 2004/0070182) as applied to claim 17 and claim 16 above respectively, and further in view of Akasaka et al. (US 2003/0222478).
Regarding claim 18, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe teaches the vehicle of claim 17. However, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe does not explicitly teach wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole; and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole.
Akasaka et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest wherein the first fastening portion comprises a bolt hole ((h1)(h2)); and the first fastening portion is fastened to an upper surface of the dash cross member by a bolt inserted into the bolt hole (Figs. 3 and 4 shown the bolt and bolt hole fastening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fastening portion of the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. modified by Hjerpe to be a bolt hole/bolt combination as taught by Akasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akasaka et al. shows an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fasteners were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute welding for bolt and bolt hole configuration.
Regarding claim 20, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe teaches the vehicle of claim 16. However, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe does not explicitly teach wherein the second fastening portion is fastened to the seat cross member by a bolt.
Akasaka et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest wherein the second fastening portion (3a) is fastened to the seat cross member by a bolt ((8), Figs. 3 and 4 shown the bolt and bolt hole (h3) fastening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second fastening portion of the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe to be a bolt hole/bolt combination as taught by Akasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since Akasaka et al. shows an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two fasteners were art-recognized equivalents in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute welding for bolt and bolt hole configuration.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. (US 2012/0274100) in view of Hjerpe (US 2004/0070182) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 106004607, machine translation attached)
Regarding claim 19, Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and teaches (references to Mildner et al.) wherein the second fastening portion is fastened to the seat cross member by a weld (Figs. 10 and 11 show the fastening to the seat cross member (24) is by weld spots (52)); and wherein the second fastening portion is fixed to the seat cross member (Fig. 11, paragraph [0074] discusses the fastening of the rear end of the body portion to the seat cross member (24)) .
Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe does not explicitly teach wherein the body portion is pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed; the second fastening portion is pivotably coupled to a hinge pin disposed at an end of the body portion; and the second fastening portion is fitted into a hinge hole disposed at the end of the body portion.
Wu et al., like Mildner et al., teaches a vehicle footrest (Fig. 2) and further teaches wherein the body portion (3) is pivotably fastened to a second fastening portion (6) in a state in which the second fastening portion is fixed (Fig. 2, (6) is fixed and (3) is pivotably fastened through (4)); the second fastening portion (6) is pivotably coupled to a hinge pin disposed at an end of the body portion (Fig. 2 shows the hinge pin that runs through the hinge (4)); and the second fastening portion (6) is fitted into a hinge hole (opening of hinge (4) disposed at the end of the body portion (Figs. 2 and 3 show (6) within hinge hole at the end of the body portion (3)). .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle footrest of Mildner et al. as modified by Hjerpe to have the body portion pivotably fastened to the second fastening portion as taught by Wu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong connection to the vehicle while providing the capacity of being able to reposition the footrest if necessary due to the occupant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Thurkow (US 3014754), Akasaka (US 20030222478), Katz (US 20040100113), Dendo (US 20050029790), Ujimoto (US 20080047771), Scheele (US 20080202874), Takeda (US 20080231090), Arasan (US 20180361900), Baena (US 20190098830), Ohno (US 20200223343), Kamada (US 20210001762), Saeki (US 10894564), Kim (US 10994611), Kleindl (US 20230356640), Kim (KR 20050009105), Jin (KR 20060089006), Baur (DE 102010055127), and Shen (CN 110316037) teach vehicle footrests with various fastenings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643