Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 & 7 recite the pre-assembling comprises assembling the front end structure up to and/or including the bulkhead independently of the rest of the motor vehicle body. This feature is indefinite. Claims 1 and 7 recite, in their preambles, that the vehicle body has a front end structure with a bulkhead. This is unambiguous. The front end structure includes the bulkhead as a part of itself. One cannot assemble an item up to…or including a part of itself because the part will not be assembled until every component is assembled. As such, it is unclear what pre-asembl[y] constitutes. If the bulkhead need not be preassembled, what else need not be preassembled? Is it preassembly if just two of thirty components are preassembled? The contradiction of stating that the bulkhead is part of the front end structure yet need not be preassembled when preassembling the front end structure renders the scope of the preassembly step indefinite. Examiner has repeatedly pointed out that applicant can amend the preamble to recite the bulkhead as a separate element. Applicant continues to not do so.
Claim 6 recites wherein the pre-assembling comprises assembling including the bulkhead. This language does not match what applicant’s remarks indicate was the intended language. The claim is also missing chunks of the previous version of the claim. Since the language is neither struck through nor printed it is unclear if the language is present. As such, claim 6 is indefinite. If intended to match claims 1 and 7 it is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claims 2-5 and 8-12 are rejected based on their dependence.
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. The intent of this limitation is also unclear. The bulkhead of any vehicle is designed to extend the transverse length of the car. The edge of the bulkhead will have some dimension in the longitudinal direction, which is the relevant direction of separation. Thus, an amount of separation between the two areas is naturally created by the width of the bulkhead. Regardless, figure 2 show 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 and predictable 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).
Potentially Allowable Claims
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 are not rejected over the prior art at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
The new language introduces new 112 issues. Applicant also argues the prior art does not teach the amended claim language of claim 1. Yet the amended language does not substantively change the claim as it relates to the prior art and as such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moshe K Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 daily. 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, 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.
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.
/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.”
Prosecution Insights