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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a die-cast skeleton body formed integrally and including a floor part configuring a vehicle cabin floor portion and a side member extending from the floor part towards a vehicle front or a vehicle rear.” Die-casting is defined as below (taken from www.ryobi-group.co.jp/en/glance/02.html). Because claim 1 is an apparatus claim, the term “a die-cast skeleton body formed integrally” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation according to the guidelines in MPEP 2113. In this case, the process does imply some structure within the final product. Specifically, the product should be made of metal, since die-casting relates to metal. Secondly, the floor part and the side member must be made of one single piece of material, without any seams, fasteners, or welds connecting the two.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 1-5 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 4, it is unclear what is meant by “a base end side of the side member.” The specification is vague as to what the “base end” of the vehicle is. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as if the “base end” refers to the rear end of the side member, corresponding to the rear end of the vehicle.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected based on their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is that of Rai et al. (US 2023/0373563, hereinafter Rai).
Rai discloses a die-cast skeleton body formed integrally and having a floor part and a side member (see annotated Fig. below). However, as indicated below, Rai fails to teach the claimed bead elements. While it is known to incorporate concave beads within a vehicle rail structure (e.g. Tanaka et al., US 5,246,263 or Drewek, US 4,684,151), the prior art does not teach or suggest the specific arrangement of a transverse bead at a leading end and a longitudinal bead at a base end of the rail in combination with the rail element being a die-cast element (as opposed to stamped steel, for example).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
862
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of die-case vehicle skeleton elements or vehicle structures with concave beads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676