Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a bulkhead manufacturing method with two separate forming steps. However, Applicant’s originally filed specification describes only a single hot forming step that deforms the two-dimensional plate into the component having part of the front wheel arches. Thus, it is unclear if the claim requires two separate forming steps to manufacture the bulkhead, or, it can be infringed with a single forming step that deforms a plate into a bulkhead comprising part of the front wheel arches. Further, since the preamble is directed to manufacture of a bulkhead (and not the use or installation of a bulkhead in a motor vehicle), it is unclear if the first forming step is installing the bulkhead in the vehicle to form the front wheel arches. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as comprising a single forming step that forms the component having portions of the front wheel arches. If the intention is to install the bulkhead in a motor vehicle to form the arches in the motor vehicle, the examiner recommends amending the preamble to match the scope of the body of the claim (i.e. “A method of manufacturing a motor vehicle having a bulkhead”).
Claim 1 further recites front wheel arches twice. It is unclear if the second recitation is referring to the first recitation or introducing second front wheel arches.
Claims 2-4 and 7-9 each recite “the forming” or “the forming …”. It is unclear which of the two forming steps these claims are referring to (or are they referring to both forming steps?).
Claim 5 recites the sheets and the reinforcing plates. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations as claim 3 only introduces a plurality of plates.
Claim 6 recites the metal sheets and / or reinforcing plates. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations as claim 3 only introduces a plurality of plates.
Claim 7 recites the metal sheet and / or at least one of the connected sheets. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 9 also recites hot forming. It is unclear if this is an additional step or is attempting to state that one of the forming steps of claim 1 is a hot forming step.
Claim 10 recites: A method to manufacture a bulkhead for motor vehicle bodies of a plurality of different types of motor vehicles by the method according to claim 1, the method comprising: [same forming step recited in claim 1]. Since claim 1 was already incorporated into the claim, it is unclear if the same forming step has to be repeated. Since Applicant’s specification does not teach repeating this forming step, the claim will be interpreted as requiring this forming step to happen once.
Claim 10 later recites hot forming. It is unclear if this is an additional step or is attempting to state that one of the previous forming steps is a hot forming step.
Claim 10 also recites using, when the forming is carried out, the identical tool for the manufacturing of the bulkheads is used for the different types of motor vehicles. It is unclear what “forming” step this is referring to. It is also unclear how the identical tool can be used when it is already being used for the forming step. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the identical tool”. In addition, it is unclear what structural limitation this places on the bulkhead or the tooling used in manufacturing the bulkhead since identically formed bulkheads are capable of being subsequently used in different types of vehicles (for example different types of vehicles can use identical bulkheads, or the bulkheads can be modified after manufacturing to fit different types of vehicles). Stated another way, claim 10 is directed to manufacturing a bulkhead—not the manufacture of a vehicle. If a bulkhead manufacturer produces bulkheads and sends them to a different company, how would the bulkhead manufacturer know if they’re infringing this limitation?
For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “using a tool used in the forming of the two-dimensional metallic semi-finished product into the component to manufacture additional bulkheads that are capable of being used in the different types of motor vehicles.”
Rejections under 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2019/0077464 (“Izutsu”).
Regarding claim 1, Izutsu discloses a method to manufacture a bulkhead (10) of a motor vehicle body (fig. 1, ¶ [0017] & [0018], wherein while the term “bulkhead” is not used one of skill in the art would understand that dash lower panel 10 is a bulkhead since it separates power source device chamber 3 from the vehicle interior 2), the method comprising: forming front wheel arches (13) of the motor vehicle body, at least in part, by the bulkhead of the motor vehicle (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0018] & [0020]); and forming a two-dimensional metallic semi-finished product into a component with a spatial structure, the component forming at least part of the bulkhead, wherein the component manufactured by the forming process forms at least part of the bulkhead and extends at least over sections of both front wheel arches of the motor vehicle body (¶ [0018], wherein bulkhead 10 is formed by press molding a steel plate, i.e. two-dimensional semi-finished product, into the bulkhead comprising the wheel arches 13).
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2003/0071488 (“Obara”).
Regarding claim 1, Obara discloses a method to manufacture a bulkhead (16) of a motor vehicle body (fig. 6, ¶ [0001] & [0016]), the method comprising: forming front wheel arches of the motor vehicle body, at least in part, by the bulkhead of the motor vehicle (fig. 6, wherein each side of the bulkhead 16 has a lower curved portion that is structurally capable of partly forming wheel arches in a motor vehicle body); and forming a two-dimensional metallic semi-finished product (11/12) into a component with a spatial structure, the component forming at least part of the bulkhead, wherein the component manufactured by the forming process forms at least part of the bulkhead and extends at least over sections of both front wheel arches of the motor vehicle body (figs. 3-8, ¶ [0061]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Obara further teaches the semi-finished product is manufactured from a plurality of plates (11/12) connected to each other in an area of their edges before the forming process is carried out (figs. 3-5, ¶ [0061]-[0062]).
Claim 4 recites the semi-finished product is manufactured, before and / or during the forming, by materially connecting at least one reinforcing plate, which is applied to a metal sheet and / or to a number of sheets materially connected to each other in the area of their edges, to the metal sheet and / or to the connected sheets. Obara teaches welding a thick plate 11 to a thin plate 12 (fig. 3-5, ¶ [0061]-[0062]). The thick plate can be interpreted as the reinforcing portion since is strengthens and supports at least a portion of the thin plate.
Regarding claim 5, Obara further teaches the material connection of the sheets to each other and / or with the reinforcing plate is carried out by laser beam welding or laser remote welding (figs. 14-15, ¶ [0012]-[0014], [0022]-[0023] & [0081]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Obara further teaches the metal sheets and / or reinforcing plates are sheets with different properties or different strengths and / or thicknesses (fig. 4, ¶ [0061]).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutsu in view of DE-102010021138-A1 (“Dalmier”).
Regarding claim 3, Izutsu fails to explicitly teach the semi-finished product is manufactured from a plurality of plates connected to each other in an area of their edges before the forming process is carried out. However, this would have been obvious in view of Dalmier.
Dalmier is also directed to forming a bulkhead 12 of a vehicle (fig. 1, ¶ [0019], wherein all references to the Dalmier specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on April 10, 2024). Dalmier teaches that it is known to use a composite/hybrid sheets that are made of different metal alloys for weight saving and property optimization (¶ [0002]-[0007]). The bulkhead plate 12 is a composite plate made of steel and aluminum, wherein the central region of the plate is steel and the edges are aluminum (¶ [0020] & [0025]). Welding the different metal alloys when they are in plate form allows for higher quality weld seams (¶ [0025]). The hybrid/composite bulkhead plate is subsequently formed via deep drawing (¶ [0025]).
In this case, each of Izutsu and Dalmier teach forming a bulkhead by a press forming/molding technique. Dalmier teaches that it is known and predictable to form bulkheads out of both steel and aluminum plates in order to reduce weight of the vehicle and optimize properties of different sections of the bulkhead. Thus, for these stated benefits, it would be obvious to form the two-dimensional bulkhead plate of Izutsu with steel and aluminum pieces/plates welded together.
Claim 4 recites the semi-finished product is manufactured, before and / or during the forming, by materially connecting at least one reinforcing plate, which is applied to a metal sheet and / or to a number of sheets materially connected to each other in the area of their edges, to the metal sheet and / or to the connected sheets. When modifying Izutsu in view of Dalmier as detailed in the rejection to claim 3, above, the semi-finished product is manufactured by welding a steel sheet/plate to an aluminum sheet/plate. The steel sheet can be interpreted as the reinforcing portion since is strengthens and supports at least a portion of the aluminum sheet(s).
Regarding claim 5, Izutsu et al. teach welding the steel and aluminum sheets to each other, however, Izutsu et al. fail to explicitly teach the sheets being connected by laser beam welding or laser remote welding. The examiner is taking Official Notice that laser welding is a well-known welding technique in vehicle manufacturing that is cheaper than other types of welding, has high precision, is relatively fast, and can join dissimilar metals. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to join the bulkhead sheets to each other via laser welding.
Claim 6 recites the metal sheets and / or reinforcing plates are sheets with different properties or different strengths and / or thicknesses. As detailed in the rejection to claim 3, above, the bulkhead is made out of steel and aluminum sheets. One of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the steel and aluminum sheets have different properties and strengths since steel is generally stronger and harder, while aluminum is generally lighter more malleable, and has higher thermal conductivity, to name a few properties.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0084273 (“Pieronek”).
Regarding claim 2, Isutsu fails to explicitly teach the forming is a direct or indirect hot forming. However, this would have been obvious in view of Pieronek.
Pieronek is directed to forming structural, bodyshell or chassis components of a vehicle formed out of steel (¶ [0001], [0034]-[0038]). The semifinished product, formed out of a tailored sheet metal blank, is hot formed (e.g. in a deep drawing process) which allows more complex geometries to be made and produces high hardness (¶ [0028], [0033] & [0045]).
In this case, each of Isutsu and Pieronek are directed to steel structural components of a vehicle that are formed via press molding (wherein deep drawing is a specific press molding technique). Pieronek teaches that it is known to hot form steel structural members and that this can create parts with high hardness and more complex geometries. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Izutsu so that the press molding hot forms the bulkhead.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taiwan SCN, Car Body Panel Press 2000Ton for Automotive Industry, YouTube, Published December 27, 2016, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcGtlJ6R1w&t=70s (“Taiwan SCN”).
Regarding claim 7, Izutsu fails to explicitly teach before and / or during the forming process, at least a section of the metal sheet and / or at least one of the connected sheets is cutout by mechanical cutting. However, this would have been obvious in view of Taiwan SCN.
Taiwan SCN is directed to press forming metal vehicle parts/panels (page 1, wherein all references to Taiwan SCN refer to the document submitted herewith). When removed the panel from the press, the panel has openings therein (pages 2-5).
In this case, each of Izutsu and Taiwan SCN are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Izutsu is silent as to when the through opening is formed, Taiwan SCN teaches that the through opening can be formed before or during the press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming the opening before or during press forming is simple and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings in the bulkhead of Izutsu either before or during the press forming.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,012,765 (“Novoa”).
Regarding claim 7, Izutsu fails to explicitly teach before and / or during the forming process, at least a section of the metal sheet and / or at least one of the connected sheets is cutout by mechanical cutting. However, this would have been obvious in view of Novoa.
Novoa is directed to manufacturing a steel panel/frame from a steel sheet/plate (col. 1 lines 28-39). The sheet metal blank is pre-cut to form an outline and holes therein (fig. 6B, col. 5 lines 28-39). The pre-cut sheet metal blank is then pressed (fig. 6C, col. 5 lines 28-39).
In this case, each of Izutsu and Novoa are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Izutsu is silent as to when the through opening is formed, Novoa teaches that the through opening can be formed in the sheet metal blank before press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming the opening in a two-dimensional sheet is simpler and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings of the bulkhead of Izutsu in the two-dimensional sheet prior to press forming.
Regarding claim 8, Izutsu fails to explicitly teach the semi-finished product is provided with openings, which, after the forming has been carried out in the bulkhead, form openings for a passage of structural elements of the motor vehicle body running in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. However, this would have been obvious in view of Novoa.
Novoa is directed to manufacturing a steel panel/frame from a steel sheet/plate (col. 1 lines 28-39). The sheet metal blank is pre-cut to form an outline and holes therein (fig. 6B, col. 5 lines 28-39). The pre-cut sheet metal blank is then pressed (fig. 6C, col. 5 lines 28-39).
In this case, each of Izutsu and Novoa are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Izutsu is silent as to when the through opening is formed, Novoa teaches that the through opening can be formed in the sheet metal blank before press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming the opening in a two-dimensional sheet is simpler and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings of the bulkhead of Izutsu in the two-dimensional sheet prior to press forming.
Further, the openings of Izutsu are capable of having structural elements of the motor vehicle pass through the openings and extend in the longitudinal direction (see figs. 1-2 of Izutsu, e.g. a steering shaft).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutsu in view of Pieronek and USPGPub No. 2022/0281542 (“Breu”).
Regarding claim 9, Izutsu teaches claim 1 as detailed above. Izutsu fails to teach the forming being a hot forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Pieronek for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 2, above. Izutsu also fails to explicitly teach an edge area of the component is cut to a desired contour after hot forming and / or an edge area of the semi-finished product is cut to size in such a way that the desired contour is obtained after forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Breu.
Breu is directed to creating identical parts in the same tool that can subsequently be used in different types of motor vehicles, i.e. electric vehicles, combustion engine vehicles, and/or hybrid vehicles (¶ [0015]-[0017] & [0034]-[0037]). After being press formed, the parts may be trimmed/cut or lengthened to create the desired contour for a particular type of vehicle (¶ [0036]). Making uniform components capable of being used in a variety of vehicles makes for a more efficient manufacturing process (¶ [0015]).
In this case, each of Izutsu and Breu are directed to creating vehicle panels by press forming. Breu teaches that it is known to create identical vehicle parts with the same tooling, and for the parts to be subsequently altered to be used in different types of vehicles. Thus, in order to have a more economical manufacturing process, it would be obvious to modify Izutsu so that a manufactured bulkhead can be used in a variety of types of vehicles so that at least some of the bulkheads are cut/trimmed to fit a certain type of vehicle.
Claim 10 recites a method to manufacture a bulkhead for motor vehicle bodies of a plurality of different types of motor vehicles by the method according to claim 1, the method comprising: forming a two-dimensional metallic semi-finished product into a component with a spatial structure, the component forming at least part of the bulkhead; and using, when the forming is carried out, the identical tool for the manufacturing of the bulkheads is used for the different types of motor vehicles. As detailed in the 102 rejection of claim 1, above, Izutsu teaches forming bulkheads of claim 1, and comprising the forming step. Further, identical bulkheads can be used in different types of vehicles (for example different types of vehicles can use identical bulkheads, or the bulkheads can be modified after manufacturing to fit different types of vehicles). Thus, manufacturing a plurality of bulkheads by the tool of Izutsu reads on the using step.
Izutsu fails to teach the forming being a hot forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Pieronek for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 2, above.
Izutsu fails to explicitly teach cutting an edge area of the component to a specific contour for the desired type of motor vehicle after hot forming has been carried out and / or an edge area of the semi- finished product is cut to size such that, after forming, the contour specific to the desired type of motor vehicle is obtained. However, this is obvious in view of Breu for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 9, above. Specifically, the same tooling is used to produce bulkheads that are later extended or trimmed so that they can be used in different types of vehicles, i.e. electric vehicles, combustion engine vehicles, and/or hybrid vehicles. Thus, at least some of the bulkheads are cut/trimmed to fit a certain type of vehicle out of a plurality of types of vehicles.
In the alternative, claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Izutsu.
Regarding claim 1, Obara teaches all the limitations as detailed in the previous 102 rejection above. Assuming arguendo that Obara fails to teach the bulkhead forming part of the front wheel arches, this would be obvious in view of Izutsu.
Izutsu is also directed to forming a bulkhead by press molding a two-dimensional plate (fig. 1, ¶ [0018]). Izutsu teaches the bulkhead 10 having a pair of arch forming portions 13 at both ends of the bulkhead that are spherical in shape and constitute a part of the wheel arches of the vehicle (fig. 1 ¶ [0018] & [0020]).
In this case, each of Obara and Izutsu are directed to forming a bulkhead by press molding a two-dimensional plate. While Obara has curved portions at each end that appear to be capable of forming part of the wheel arches, the Obara specification is silent as to the purpose of these curved portions. Izutsu teaches that it is known and predictable for a bulkhead formed via press molding to comprise rounded portions on each end that form part of the front wheel arches. Thus, in order to simplify manufacturing, it would be obvious for the bulkhead of Obara to comprise a rounded portion at each end that form parts of the front wheel arches when installed in a vehicle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara or Obara et al. as applied to either rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Pieronek.
Regarding claim 2, Obara fails to explicitly teach the forming is a direct or indirect hot forming. However, this would have been obvious in view of Pieronek.
Pieronek is directed to forming structural, bodyshell or chassis components of a vehicle formed out of steel (¶ [0001], [0034]-[0038]). The semifinished product, formed out of a tailored sheet metal blank, is hot formed (e.g. in a deep drawing process) which allows more complex geometries to be made and produces high hardness (¶ [0028], [0033] & [0045]).
In this case, each of Obara and Pieronek are directed to steel structural components of a vehicle that are formed via press molding (wherein deep drawing is a specific press molding technique). Pieronek teaches that it is known to hot form steel structural members and that this can create parts with high hardness and more complex geometries. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Obara so that the press molding hot forms the bulkhead.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara or Obara et al. as applied to either rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Taiwan SCN.
Regarding claim 7, Obara fails to explicitly teach before and / or during the forming process, at least a section of the metal sheet and / or at least one of the connected sheets is cutout by mechanical cutting. However, this would have been obvious in view of Taiwan SCN.
Taiwan SCN is directed to press forming metal vehicle parts/panels (page 1, wherein all references to Taiwan SCN refer to the document submitted herewith). When removed the panel from the press, the panel has openings therein (pages 2-5).
In this case, each of Obara and Taiwan SCN are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Obara is silent as to when the through openings are formed, Taiwan SCN teaches that the through openings can be formed before or during the press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming the openings before or during press forming is simpler and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings in the bulkhead of Obara either before or during the press forming.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara or Obara et al. as applied to either rejection of claim 1 above, in further view of Novoa.
Regarding claim 7, Obara fails to explicitly teach before and / or during the forming process, at least a section of the metal sheet and / or at least one of the connected sheets is cutout by mechanical cutting. However, this would have been obvious in view of Novoa.
Novoa is directed to manufacturing a steel panel/frame from a steel sheet/plate (col. 1 lines 28-39). The sheet metal blank is pre-cut to form an outline and holes therein (fig. 6B, col. 5 lines 28-39). The pre-cut sheet metal blank is then pressed (fig. 6C, col. 5 lines 28-39).
In this case, each of Obara and Novoa are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Obara is silent as to when the through openings are formed, Novoa teaches that the through openings can be formed in the sheet metal blank before press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming opening in a two-dimensional sheet is simpler and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings of the bulkhead of Obara in the two-dimensional sheet prior to press forming.
Regarding claim 8, Obara fails to explicitly teach the semi-finished product is provided with openings, which, after the forming has been carried out in the bulkhead, form openings for a passage of structural elements of the motor vehicle body running in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. However, this would have been obvious in view of Novoa.
Novoa is directed to manufacturing a steel panel/frame from a steel sheet/plate (col. 1 lines 28-39). The sheet metal blank is pre-cut to form an outline and holes therein (fig. 6B, col. 5 lines 28-39). The pre-cut sheet metal blank is then pressed (fig. 6C, col. 5 lines 28-39).
In this case, each of Obara and Novoa are directed to press forming metal vehicle panels with through openings therein. While Obara is silent as to when the through openings are formed, Novoa teaches that the through openings can be formed in the sheet metal blank before press forming. One of skill in the art will appreciate that forming opening in a two-dimensional sheet is simpler and easier than forming an opening in the relatively complicated three-dimensional part formed after it is press formed. Thus, it would be obvious to form the openings of the bulkhead of Obara in the two-dimensional sheet prior to press forming.
Further, the openings of Obara are capable of having structural elements of the motor vehicle pass through the openings and extend in the longitudinal direction (see fig. 6 of Obara, e.g. a steering shaft).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Pieronek and Breu.
Regarding claim 9, Obara teaches claim 1 as detailed above. Obara fails to teach the forming being a hot forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Pieronek for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 2, above. Obara also fails to explicitly teach an edge area of the component is cut to a desired contour after hot forming and / or an edge area of the semi-finished product is cut to size in such a way that the desired contour is obtained after forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Breu.
Breu is directed to creating identical parts in the same tool that can subsequently be used in different types of motor vehicles, i.e. electric vehicles, combustion engine vehicles, and/or hybrid vehicles (¶ [0015]-[0017] & [0034]-[0037]). After being press formed, the parts may be trimmed/cut or lengthened to create the desired contour for a particular type of vehicle (¶ [0036]). Making uniform components capable of being used in a variety of vehicles makes for a more efficient manufacturing process (¶ [0015]).
In this case, each of Obara and Breu are directed to creating vehicle panels by press forming. Breu teaches that it is known to create identical vehicle parts with the same tooling, and for the parts to be subsequently altered to be used in different types of vehicles. Thus, in order to have a more economical manufacturing process, it would be obvious to modify Obara so that a manufactured bulkhead can be used in a variety of types of vehicles so that at least some of the bulkheads are cut/trimmed to fit a certain type of vehicle.
Claim 10 recites a method to manufacture a bulkhead for motor vehicle bodies of a plurality of different types of motor vehicles by the method according to claim 1, the method comprising: forming a two-dimensional metallic semi-finished product into a component with a spatial structure, the component forming at least part of the bulkhead; and using, when the forming is carried out, the identical tool for the manufacturing of the bulkheads is used for the different types of motor vehicles. As detailed in the 102 rejection of claim 1, above, Obara teaches forming bulkheads of claim 1, and comprising the forming step. Further, identical bulkheads can be used in different types of vehicles (for example different types of vehicles can use identical bulkheads, or the bulkheads can be modified after manufacturing to fit different types of vehicles). Thus, manufacturing a plurality of bulkheads by the tool of Obara reads on the using step.
Obara fails to teach the forming being a hot forming. However, this would be obvious in view of Pieronek for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 2, above.
Obara fails to explicitly teach cutting an edge area of the component to a specific contour for the desired type of motor vehicle after hot forming has been carried out and / or an edge area of the semi- finished product is cut to size such that, after forming, the contour specific to the desired type of motor vehicle is obtained. However, this is obvious in view of Breu for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 9, above. Specifically, the same tooling is used to produce bulkheads that are later extended or trimmed so that they can be used in different types of vehicles, i.e. electric vehicles, combustion engine vehicles, and/or hybrid vehicles. Thus, at least some of the bulkheads are cut/trimmed to fit a certain type of vehicle out of a plurality of types of vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights