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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they have poor line quality and thus fail to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem. See example below, as well. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
186
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form. Instead, it is constructed as a run-on sentence, like a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0003, line 6, an article is missing before “backup structure.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, an article is missing before “backup structure.” It is likely that the word “a” should be inserted before “backup structure.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 8, 18, and 19 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 claim 7, the limitation “the first stamped panel has a flange abutting the backup structure” is confusing, because the backup structure is not positively recited in claim 1. Instead, claim 1 recites “the energy absorption structure is configured for attachment to [a] backup structure of the vehicle. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 7 actually requires the backup structure or not. Claim 7 will be examined as if it states “a flange configured to abut the backup structure.”
With regard to claim 8, the phrase “the second backup structure has a flange abutting the backup structure” does not make sense, given that the second backup structure is already part of the backup structure. Thus, it is unclear how the backup structure can connect to itself. Furthermore, the term “the second backup structure” lacks antecedent basis. Also, the term “abutting” is confusing for the same reason discussed above with regard to claim 7. Thus, claim 8 will be treated as if it states “the second stamped panel has a flange configured to abut the backup structure.”
With regard to claim 18, the phrase “each of the series of second ridges has a different shape than the series of first ridges” is confusing, because it is unclear whether the claim is referring to each ridge, or each series of ridges. In other words, the claim would be more clear if it stated that “each ridge of the series of second ridges has a different shape than each ridge of the series of first ridges.”
With regard to claim 19, the phrase “a flange that is substantially parallel with the backup structure” is confusing, because claim 1 does not positively recite the backup structure. Thus, it is unclear if claim 19 actually requires the backup structure or not.
Claim Rejections - 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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-19, 24, 25, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Aluminum Hotforming Part 1” YouTube video, by Fischer Group (hereinafter Fischer).
With regard to claim 1, Fischer discloses an energy absorption side structure for a vehicle, the energy absorption side structure comprising:
a first stamped panel (see annotated Fig. 1 provided below) having a series of first ridges each extending substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first stamped panel (see Fig. below); and
a second stamped panel (see Fig. below) assembled to the first stamped panel to form an enclosed space extending substantially an entire length of the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 provided below showing the assembled product);
wherein the energy absorption side structure is configured for attachment to backup structure of the vehicle (see Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
402
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Illustration of the first and second panels before assembly – 0:33 timestamp
PNG
media_image3.png
485
1054
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Illustration of panels after assembly to each other and attachment to the backup structure – 0:37 timestamp
With regard to claim 2, Fischer teaches that each of the first and second stamped panels includes a hot-stamped aluminum alloy (note that this claim is being treated as a product-by-process limitation—since Fischer discloses the final product, i.e. two panels connected together with an enclosed space between, then Fischer meets the claim. See MPEP 2113. It does not appear that the process of hot-stamping necessarily implies any structural feature in the final product that would differentiate it from another part produced in a different way).
With regard to claim 4, Fischer discloses that each of the series of first ridges is configured for axial crushing along a longitudinal axis of the respective first ridge (as Fischer discloses the claimed structure, then Fischer is capable of operating in the claimed manner).
With regard to claim 5, Fischer teaches that the backup structure comprises a first backup structure for the first stamped panel (see Fig. 3 below, which shows the first stamped panel directly attached to the backup structure), and a second backup structure for the second stamped panel (though the “second backup structure” is not illustrated, the second backup structure is considered to be the rest of the side sill of the vehicle, which “backs up” the second stamped panel—note that the claim does not even require any particular attachment of the second stamped panel to the second backup structure), and wherein the first backup structure is different from the second backup structure (the rest of the side sill, not shown, is different from the “backup structure” identified in Fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image4.png
182
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 - Detail of connection between first stamped plate and backup structure - timestamp 0:35
With regard to claim 7, Fischer teaches that the first stamped panel has a flange abutting the backup structure (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 8, as best understood, Fischer teaches that the second [stamped panel] has a flange [capable of abutting] a backup structure (flange of second stamped panel is identified above in annotated Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 9, Fischer teaches that the energy absorption side structure has a front end and a rear end with regard to the vehicle (front end to the left in Fig. 2 above, and rear end to the right), and wherein the enclosed space has a greater height at the rear end than at the front end (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 10, Fischer teaches at least a first group of the series of first ridges (note that the “first group” is considered to be the ridges that are aligned with the front door opening in Fig. 2 above) have heights different from each other (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 11, Fischer teaches that the first group of the series of first ridges is positioned ahead of a center of gravity of the vehicle, and wherein the heights of the first group of the series of first ridges increase toward the center of gravity (note that Fischer teaches essentially the same illustration as in applicant’s own drawings, therefore this claim limitation is deemed to be met).
With regard to claim 12, Fischer teaches that the first group of the series of first ridges is aligned with a front door opening of the vehicle (Fischer teaches a series of ridges aligned with the front door opening in Fig. 2 above, and these ridges are considered to be the “first group”).
With regard to claim 13, Fischer teaches that a second group of the series of first ridges is aligned with a rear door opening of the vehicle (see Fig. 4 below, which shows the second group of ridges behind the B-pillar and aligned with a rear door opening).
PNG
media_image5.png
500
1054
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 - Rear door opening illustrated – 0:49 Timestamp
With regard to claim 14, Fischer teaches that each of the series of first ridges is wedge shaped, and wherein the second group of the series of first ridges has steeper inclines than the first group of the series of first ridges (see Figs. 1 and 2 above).
With regard to claim 15, the first group of the series of first ridges are separated from each other by intermediate-height areas, each of the intermediate-height areas having a greater height than a lowest-height section of the first stamped panel (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 16, Fischer teaches that the lowest-height section is aligned with a B-pillar of the vehicle (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 17, the second stamped panel has a series of second ridges each extending substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second stamped panel (see Fig. 1 above).
With regard to claim 18, as best understood, Fischer teaches that each of the series of second ridges has a different shape than the series of first ridges (see Fig. 1 above, which shows that the second ridges are narrower than the first ridges).
With regard to claim 19, as best understood, Fischer teaches that the first stamped panel includes a flange (see Fig. 5 below) that is substantially parallel with the backup structure and extends on an outboard side substantially along an entire length of the first stamped panel (see Fig. 5), and wherein each of the first ridges terminates before the flange (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
171
844
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 – Illustration of outboard flange of first stamped panel
With regard to claim 24, Fischer teaches that the first stamped panel further comprises a wedge-shaped ridge at a front end of the first stamped panel with regard to the vehicle (see Fig. 5 below), the wedge-shaped ridge extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the first stamped panel, and wherein the wedge-shaped ridge has a narrower end proximate the front end and a wider end distal to the front end (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
176
348
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 - Illustration of the front end of the first stamped panel
With regard to claim 25, Fischer discloses a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body providing a backup structure (see Fig. 2 above); and
an energy absorption side structure comprising:
a first stamped panel having a series of first ridges each extending substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first stamped panel (see Fig. 1 above); and
a second stamped panel assembled to the first stamped panel to form an enclosed space extending substantially an entire length of the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 above);
wherein the backup structure supports the energy absorption side structure (see Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 27, Fischer teaches that the backup structure comprises a first backup structure for the first stamped panel (see Fig. 3 above, which shows the first stamped panel directly attached to the backup structure), and a second backup structure for the second stamped panel (though the “second backup structure” is not illustrated, the second backup structure is considered to be the rest of the side sill of the vehicle, which “backs up” the second stamped panel—note that the claim does not even require any particular attachment of the second stamped panel to the second backup structure), and wherein the first backup structure is different from the second backup structure (the rest of the side sill, not shown, is different from the “backup structure” identified in Fig. 2 above).
With regard to claim 28, the first backup structure comprises a floor structure of the vehicle (see Fig. 4 above, which shows the floor of the vehicle being positioned in a location for backing up the first stamped panel).
Claim Rejections - 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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Luckey, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0168676, hereinafter Luckey).
With regard to claim 3, Fischer fails to teach the specifically-claimed properties fo the aluminum alloy.
Luckey discloses manufacturing aluminum automotive panels from materials having the claimed properties (see paragraph 0026).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Fischer to use the specific aluminum alloy taught by Luckey, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Luckey teaches that such materials are known to be used in automotive applications and that they achieve the desired strength and energy absorption properties.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
With regard to claim 29, Fischer fails to teach that the second backup structure comprises a battery pack of the vehicle. However, it is at least clear from Fig. 4 above that the second backup structure (i.e. whatever vehicle structures are positioned inboard of the second stamped plate) would be positioned under the vehicle floor.
AAPA teaches that battery packs are “positioned underneath the vehicle body” (see paragraph 0002 of the instant specification).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Fischer such that the battery pack was part of the second backup structure, since AAPA teaches that battery packs are typically located underneath the vehicle body, which is the same position where Fischer’s second backup structure is located.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 20-23, and 26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references relate to further examples of side sill impact protection systems having ridge-like structures.
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