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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in 10/4/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Note the file wrapper indicates “interim copy of foreign priority” not “certified copy.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2022/0119042).
The Zhang reference discloses a cross car beam SCS (see Figure 4) comprising a first main body with upper and lower fixing points on distal ends (see multiple connectors shown in the explosion view of Figure 4 proximate reference numerals 104 and 106), wherein one of ordinary skill could draw a center line between the upper fixing points on the distal ends that would run through the first main body, the first main body in u-shaped (see cross sections proximate reference numeral 131 in Figures 4 and 4A) and the cross car beam is formed by at least one reinforced polymer (see paragraph [0010]), wherein the fibers associated with the reinforced polymer would be at least partly aligned (i.e. longitudinally or otherwise ) with any forces flowing through the cross car beam.
In regard to claim 18, see paragraph [0036].
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2022/0119042).
In regard to claims 1 and 17, the Zhang reference discloses a cross car beam SCS (see Figure 4) comprising a first main body with upper and lower fixing points on distal ends (see multiple connectors shown in the explosion view of Figure 4 proximate reference numerals 104 and 106), wherein one of ordinary skill could draw a center line between the upper fixing points on the distal ends that would run through the first main body, the first main body in u-shaped (see cross sections proximate reference numeral 131 in Figures 4 and 4A) and the cross car beam is formed by at least one reinforced polymer (see paragraph [0010]). The Zhang reference fails to disclose the cross beam being made without metal parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cross car beam solely of a known material such as a fiber reinforced polymer (i.e. without metal parts), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Furthermore, Applicant’s attention is directed to paragraph [0072] where it appears that one of ordinary skill had already at least contemplated making the cross car beam solely of plastic, regardless whether the weight, size and strength be desirable or not.
In regard to claim 2, see paragraph [0010].
In regard to claims 4 and 5, see body proximate reference letter E on left side in Figure 4.
In regard to claim 6, 11 and 14, see ribs discloses in paragraph [0049].
In regard to claim 9 and 10, see body proximate reference letter BR in Figure 4.
In regard to claim 3, the Zhang reference discloses a cross car beam (supra), but fails to disclose the distance between upper fixing points and the center line as being less than 30 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance between upper fixing points and the center line as being less than 30 mm since it has been held 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 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.
/STEVEN O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights