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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 5, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the drawings, Abstract, and claims have overcome the objections set forth in the previous Office Action. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn those objections.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant has argued that all the rejections have been overcome. Examiner agrees regarding claims 7, 8, and 19, but not with regard to claim 18. Claim 18 was partially amended as suggested by the examiner, but failed to include … “has a different shape than each ridge of the series of first ridges.” Thus, the rejection is repeated below. Additionally, the amendments to the claims have created new issues with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112, and thus new rejections are set forth below as well.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 based on the Fischer reference, applicant argues that “because Fischer shows, at best, only a plate directly connected to a backup structure, Fischer fails to disclose or render obvious the first mounting interface and the second mounting interface, as claimed, including being spatially separated and distinct from each other” (Remarks, Page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A “mounting interface” is simply a surface that is capable of being mounted to another element. Claim 1 only requires first and second stamped panels, and not a backup structure. In other words, claim 1 does not require the stamped panels to actually be mounted to anything, but merely to have “mounting interfaces.” Fischer at least shows the first and second flanges that provide mounting interfaces. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
With regard to claim 25 and the Fischer reference, applicant argues that “amended claim 25 now recites a vehicle body providing a first backup structure and a second backup structure that is different from the first backup structure, wherein the first flange is attached to the first backup structure, and the second flange is attached to the second backup structure…Fischer does not illustrate a second backup structure or any particular attachment of the second stamped panel [therefore] Fischer fails to disclose or render obvious at least these features of the claims” (Remarks, bottom of Page 11 and top of Page 12). Examiner respectfully traverses. While claim 25 recites that the “first flange is attached to the first backup structure” and that the “second flange is attached to the second backup structure,” the drawings illustrate that at least some of these attachments are indirect attachments. As shown below, both the first flange 512 and second flange 514 are only directly attached to the first backup structure. Thus, because the claim refers to the flanges being attached to different backup structures, the claimed attachments must be only indirect attachments. Therefore, as Fischer’s second flange is at least indirectly attached to other portions of the vehicle that are different from the first backup structure (such as the rest of the lower portion of the vehicle frame), then Fischer meets the limitations of amendment claim 25. The rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
603
media_image2.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 5, 6, 18, and 25-29 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 18, the phrase “each ridge of the series of second ridges has a different shape than the series of first ridges” is confusing, because it is unclear how a single ridge can have a different shape than a series of ridges. Examiner suggests amending claim 18 to recite “each ridge of the series of second ridges has a different shape than each ridge of the series of first ridges.”
With regard to claims 5, 25, and 29, these claims each recite variations of the idea that the first flange is attached to a first backup structure and the second flange is attached to a second backup structure. As discussed in the Response to Arguments section above, the first flange and second flange are only directly attached to the first backup structure (see annotated figures provided above). The second flange is indirectly attached to the second backup structure. This creates ambiguity as to whether the “attachments” discussed in the claims are intended to refer to direct or indirect attachments. For examination purposes, the claims will be treated as if the attachments are only required to be indirect attachments.
Claims 6 and 26-28 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 recites elements that are already present within claim 25, due to the latest amendments. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9-19, 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), the first stamped panel comprising a first flange (see Fig. below) providing a first mounting interface (note that the flange is at least capable of being connected to another element, and thus comprises a “first mounting interface”); 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), the second stamped panel comprising a second flange (see Fig. below) providing a second mounting interface (the second flange is at least capable of being connected to another element, and thus comprises a “second mounting interface”);
wherein the first mounting interface and the second mounting interface are spatially separated and distinct from each other (Fischer’s video shows that the first panel and first flange are vertically above the second panel and second flange).
PNG
media_image3.png
406
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Illustration of the first and second panels before assembly – 0:33 timestamp
PNG
media_image4.png
474
1054
media_image4.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 (Fischer teaches aluminum, given the title “aluminum hotforming.” Regarding the phrase “hot-stamped,” this is being treated as a product-by-process limitation—since Fischer discloses the final product, i.e. two shaped aluminum panels, 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 first mounting interface and the second mounting interface are configured for attachment to a backup structure (note that the claim only requires “attachment to a backup structure,” and Fischer shows that at least the first flange is directly connected to the first backup structure. In other words, the claim does not specifically require both the first and second flanges to be directly connected to particular parts of the backup structure) that comprises a first backup structure for the first stamped panel (see Fig. 2 above), and a second backup structure for the second stamped panel (the second backup structure is the rest of the floor that is partially illustrated in Fig. 4 below), and wherein the first backup structure is different from the second backup structure (the first backup structure shown in Fig. 2 above is different from the rest of the floor structure of the vehicle).
PNG
media_image5.png
182
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 - Detail of connection between first stamped plate and backup structure - timestamp 0:35
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_image6.png
500
1054
media_image6.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 flange extends on an outboard side substantially along an entire length of the first stamped panel (see Fig. 5 below), and wherein each of the first ridges terminates before the flange (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
171
844
media_image7.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_image8.png
176
348
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 - Illustration of the front end of the first stamped panel
With regard to claim 25, as best understood, Fischer discloses a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body providing a first backup structure (see Fig. 2 above) and a second backup structure that is different from the first backup structure (the rest of the vehicle floor structure that is partially shown in Fig. 4 is considered the “second backup structure”); 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 and comprising a second flange (see Fig. 2 above);
wherein the first flange is attached to the first backup structure (a direct attachment between the first flange and the first backup structure is clearly visible in Fig. 2 above), and the second flange is attached to the second backup structure (as discussed in the rejection under 112(b) set forth above, the term “attached to” in this claim is being treated as only requiring indirect attachment. The second flange is at least indirectly attached to the second backup structure, which is the rest of the vehicle floor structure that is partially shown in Fig. 4 above. The second flange is indirectly connected to each member of the vehicle floor structure).
With regard to claim 27, this claim is redundant with respect to claim 25 (see 112(d) rejection above), and thus claim 27 stands rejected for the same reasons as claim 25.
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 of 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. Furthermore, in the combination of Fischer and AAPA, the second flange of Fischer will be at least indirectly attached to the battery pack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 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.
Claims 6 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights