Detailed Action1
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.
Claim 1-3, 5, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 5,619,784 to Nishimoto.
Claim 1 recites a method for assembling a motor vehicle body. Nishimoto relates to such a method. See Nishimoto col. 1, ll. 10-14. Figure 2 of Nishimoto shows that the motor vehicle body (B) comprising a front end structure (BF) with a bulkhead (5) and a body area (BU) arranged in a longitudinal direction. See Nishimoto Fig. 2 & col. 6, ll. 10-15. Nishimoto teaches pre-assembling the front end structure separately from the body area. See Nishimoto col. 5, ll. 53-62. Claim 1 then recites connecting the front end structure to the body area by configuring the body area behind the bulkhead. The intent of the word configuring is slightly unclear, but the broadest reasonable interpretation includes ‘placing.’ Nishimoto teaches placing the two structures adjacent to each other and connecting them together. See Nishimoto col. 5, ll. 62-67.
Claim 1 also recites providing a separation between the pre-assembled front end structure and the body area…the separation being formed immediately…behind the bulkhead. This separation is provided by orienting an edge area of the bulkhead in the transverse direction. Figure 2 shows a large amount of empty space in the cabin area behind the bulkhead (5) and shows the bulkhead extends to the edge of the vehicle. This is deemed to meet the claim limitation. Claim 1 then recites the preassembly step includes assembling the front end structure…independently of the rest of the vehicle. Nishimoto teaches preassembling the front end. This is what that means.
Claim 2 recites that during the pre-assembly of the front end structure, longitudinal beams of the front end structure are connected with the bulkhead. Figure 2 shows longitudinal beams (7) that connect with the bulkhead (5).
Claim 3 recites the connection of the longitudinal beams with the bulkhead is made via connecting elements which are connected to both the bulkhead and the longitudinal beams. The circled portion of the reproduced segment of Figure 2 of Nishimoto shows a rear angled portion that connects the bulkhead (5) to the longitudinal beam portion (7). Claim 3 does not recite or require that the connecting elements be non-unitary to the beam.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 recites that during pre-assembly of the front end structure, structural elements are connected to the longitudinal beams to connected [them] to the bulkhead. This feature is similar to that recited in claim 3 and is rejected as above based on the circled component in the reproduced figure above. Claim 5 then recites the front end structure is connected to the body area [which is] configured behind the bulkhead with the longitudinal beams. The term configured is still deemed to encompass the removed word ‘located.’ Figures 15-17 of Nishimoto show connection elements that are part of the body region, designed to connect with a beam element. Thus, the front end structure does connect to the body area.
Claim 8 recites that a section of an upper longitudinal beam, a strut dome and / or a wheel arch are first connected to the longitudinal beams before the longitudinal beams are connected to…structural elements. Figure 2 of Nishimoto shows a wheel arch (9) connected to the beams (7). See Nishimoto col. 6, ll. 10-15. Claim 8 does not define what the structural elements that must be attached afterwards are. Examiner defines them to be any element that is attached to the beams later.
Claim 9 recites a cowl crossmember is connected to…the structural components before connecting the front end structure to the body area located behind the bulkhead. Nishimoto teaches a cowl member (10a) is connected to the body area as part of the body area pre-assembly. See Nishimoto col. 14, ll. 52-57. Claim 9 does not define the structural components. Examiner defines them to be a structural component of the body area, such as the A pillar (16). Nishimoto teaches these two elements are connected prior to connecting the front end structure to the body area. See Nishimoto Fig. 2.
Rejections under 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 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 obvious2 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 4 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 5,619,784 to Nishimoto.
Claim 4 recites that the connecting elements and the areas of the bulkhead connected to the connecting elements are made of steel. Nishimoto does not explicitly teach the material used to make either the bulkhead or the connecting elements. But Nishimoto does refer to several other elements being made of steel, such as the floor. See Nishimoto col. 6, ll. 45-47. Likewise, the background section refers to conventional processes using steel plate to form the same components. See Nishimoto col. 1, ll. 15-20. Since one of ordinary skill would know that the bulkhead and connecting elements must be made of some material, they would look to the prior art to determine what materials are known to predictably work for these components. Steel would be such a known, predictable material. It therefore would have been obvious to fabricate the bulkhead and connecting elements from steel because is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 4 then recites that the longitudinal beams are first connected to the connecting elements before connecting them to the bulkhead. Figure 2 of Nishimoto (reproduced above) appears to show the connecting element being integrally formed with the longitudinal beam. Thus, this would result in the beam and connecting element being connected prior to attachment to the bulkhead. As such, one of ordinary skill would infer this order of construction.
Claim 10 recites that a component forming at least the section of the bulkhead…is manufactured via a forming process from a two-dimensional semi-finished product. Nishimoto does not explicitly discuss how the section of the bulkhead that connect[s] to the longitudinal beams is formed. But the background section refers to pressing steel plates to form automotive components. It would have been obvious to use this known process to form any given segment of the bulkhead (5) including the sections that attach to the beams. See MPEP 2143(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Claim 1 recites providing separation between the pre-assembled front end and the body area immediately behind the bulkhead. Applicant argues that the “incidental amount of empty cabin space” behind the bulkhead does not disclose this feature. Rather, the claim requires “expressly a separation between the pre-assembled front end and the body area.” See remarks pg. 11. First, claim 1 make no such express limitation. The claim requires a separation. Empty space is a form of separation. Applicant has not acted as their own lexicographer and given the term separation the narrow definition they used in their arguments. As such, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
