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)(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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Souma (US 20110156431).
Regarding claim 1, Souma teaches a vehicle body rear structure 1, comprising:
a chassis rear 2 ([0033], Figs. 2-3);
a hook reinforcement part 6 fixed to a lower surface of the chassis rear ([0033], Fig. 4); and
a hook 10 fixed on a back side of the chassis rear 2 through the hook reinforcement part 6 ([0034], Figs. 2-4),
wherein the hook reinforcement part 6 comprises a plurality of part members 6b, 6c independent from each other ([0036], Fig. 4), the plurality of part members 6b, 6c are connected in series and joined in a front-back direction of the vehicle to form a joint boundary part 6a ([0036]; Figs. 4-5), and the joint boundary part 6a is disposed with a weakened part 13 on a side close to the chassis rear ([0036], Figs. 2-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Souma teaches wherein:
the joint boundary part 6a is disposed with a bent part on a side away from the chassis rear (Figs. 4-5; the joint boundary part 6a is disposed next to reinforcement rear portion 6c which is bent in multiple portions and is on a side away from the rearmost portion of the chassis).
Regarding claims 7-8 (same limitations, different dependencies), Souma teaches a vehicle comprising the claimed vehicle body rear structure ([0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souma.
Regarding claim 3, Souma teaches wherein the plurality of part members 6b, 6c of the hook reinforcement part 6 comprises:
a first hook reinforcement part 6b, wherein a size of the first hook reinforcement part in the front-back direction of the vehicle is larger than a size in an up-down direction of the vehicle (Figs. 4-5); and
a second hook reinforcement part 6c, and
the first hook reinforcement part 6b and the second hook reinforcement part 6c are formed as a side connection part of the joint boundary part 6a in such a manner that a side part of the first hook reinforcement part 6b and a side part of the second hook reinforcement 6c part are connected to each other in a width direction of the vehicle ([0036], Fig. 5).
Souma teaches that the second hook reinforcement part 6c is larger in an up-down direction of the vehicle than the first hook reinforcement part, but does not teach wherein a size of the second hook reinforcement part in the front-back direction of the vehicle is smaller than a size in the up-down direction of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the second hook reinforcement part to be larger in an up-down direction of the vehicle than in a front-back direction since it has been held that a change in configuration is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 4, Souma as modified teaches wherein:
the side connection part is formed in such a manner that one of the first hook reinforcement part 6b and the second hook reinforcement part 6c is covered by the other one of the first hook reinforcement part 6b and the second hook reinforcement part 6c from outside of the width direction of the vehicle ([0036], Figs. 3-5; the joint boundary part extends in a width direction between the two reinforcement parts and covers each corresponding reinforcement part from outside of the width direction), and a welding bead outline extending in such a manner comprising a position corresponding to a spot welding part is formed on the side part of the one of the first hook reinforcement part 6b and the second hook reinforcement part 6c ([0015]).
Regarding claims 9-10 (same limitations, different dependencies), Souma as modified teaches a vehicle comprising the claimed vehicle body rear structure ([0032]).
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souma in view of Tamura (JP H0717430).
Regarding claim 5, Souma as modified does not teach a lower flange part.
However, Tamura teaches a vehicle body rear structure ([0001] of Tamura) with a first hook reinforcement part 1 and a second hook reinforcement part 2 (Abstract of Tamura) wherein a first hook reinforcement part 1 has a lower flange part (See annotated Fig. 8 of Tamura below), and the lower flange part extends in a direction away from the chassis rear and is connected with a front surface of the second hook reinforcement part 1 to form a lower connection part of the joint boundary part ([0014]; See annotated Fig. 8 of Tamura below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first hook reinforcement member of Souma to have the lower flange part of Tamura in order to advantageously provide a lower support between the first and second connection members.
Regarding claim 6, Souma as modified teaches wherein the bent part (the bent part of the second hook reinforcement part 6c) is positioned on a side of the lower flange part close to the first hook reinforcement part 6b (See annotated Fig. 5 below).
Regarding claims 11-12 (same limitations, different dependencies), Souma as modified teaches a vehicle comprising the claimed vehicle body rear structure ([0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2022014526 teaches a vehicle rear hitch structure with a reinforcement part designed to absorb crash impact.
US 20180050734 teaches a deformable spare wheel cavity for absorbing rear impacts.
US 20190375459 teaches a fragile vehicle rear member designed to deform in a crash.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617