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 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 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.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 200198923) in view of Bodin et al. (US 2022/0363318).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a side sill (Fig. 3) of a vehicle (abstract) comprising: a side sill frame (Fig. 3) formed to have a cavity portion (internal portion of side sill in Fig. 3); a partition member (50)/(30c) that passes through the cavity portion and partitions the cavity portion into a first cavity (left side of Fig. 3) and a second cavity (right side of Fig. 3); a first reinforcing frame (30b) which is positioned in the first cavity and contacts the side sill frame (at (20)) and the partition member (50)/(30c) to form a closed section in the first cavity on a thickness-direction cross-section of the side sill frame (Fig. 3); and a second reinforcing frame (30a) which is positioned in the second cavity and contacts the side sill frame (at (10)) and the partition member (50)/(30c) to form a closed section in the second cavity on a thickness-direction cross-section of the side sill frame (Fig. 3).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame includes a convex portion and a concave portion extending in a width direction of the side sill frame, and wherein the convex portion and the concave portion are alternately arranged along a longitudinal direction of the side sill frame along a predetermined section.
Bodin et al., like Kim, teaches a side sill for a vehicle (Figs. 6 and 12), and further teaches wherein at least one of the first reinforcing frame ((118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) and the second reinforcing frame (the other of (118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) includes a convex portion and a concave portion extending in a width direction of the side sill frame (paragraphs [0066], extend in a direction traverse to the longitudinal direction), and wherein the convex portion and the concave portion are alternately arranged along a longitudinal direction of the side sill frame along a predetermined section (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, show a convex portion ((142), (144), (146), (148), (242), (244), (246), (248)) and a concave portion ((150), (152), (154), (156), (250), (252), (254), (256)) extending in a width direction alternately arranged along a longitudinal direction of the side sill frame, note the ridges have a convex shape and the grooves have a concave shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the side sill of Kim as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, because, as noted in Bodin et al., U-shaped, V-shaped, wave and other shapes are possible for the reinforcing frames and that these corrugations, using ridges and grooves, provide advantageous deformation for absorbing impacts while maintaining or improving the rigidity and reinforcement of the vehicle side structure (Bodin et al.: paragraphs [0068]-[0069]). Further, it has been held that a configuration of a component is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 1. However, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. as discussed so far, is silent about wherein at least one of the side still frame, the partition member, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame includes a curved region.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches the first reinforcing frame ((118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) and the second reinforcing frame (the other of (118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) include a curved region (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the side sill of Kim as modified by Bodin et al. as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, because, as noted in Bodin et al., U-shaped, V-shaped, wave and other shapes are possible for the reinforcing frames (Bodin et al.: paragraph [0068]). Further, it has been held that a configuration of a component is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 1. However, Kim as modified by Bodin et al., as discussed so far, is silent about wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame are bonded to the side sill frame or the partition member by at least one of welding and adhesive bonding.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches the first reinforcing frame ((118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) and the second reinforcing frame (the other of (118)/(218) or (120)/(220)) along with the other components in the side sill can be attached by welding, and adhesive or other fastening means, see paragraphs [0071] as an example of reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side sill of Kim modified by Bodin et al. to bond by welding or adhesive bonding as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a long lasting suitable fastening means among common means already used.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 200198923) in view of Bodin et al. (US 2022/0363318) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honda et al. (JP 2012111246).
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, and teaches (Bodin et al.) wherein at least one of the side sill frame, the partition member, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame is formed of a metal (paragraphs [0065], [0072], [0078], and [0086]). However, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. does not explicitly teach the material used for the side sill is formed of steel.
Honda et al., like Kim, teaches a side sill (Fig. 7), and teaches components of the side sill can be made from steel (paragraphs [0037] and [0055] teach the components are formed of steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side sill of Kim modified by Bodin et al. to include a steel material as taught by Honda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a common metal used for vehicle components and a material that is strong for reinforcing purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 2, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein the side sill frame comprises: a first side sill frame (20) having the first cavity therein (Fig. 3); and a second side sill frame (10) bonded to the first side sill frame and having the second cavity therein (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 3, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein a shape of a thickness-direction cross-section of the first reinforcing frame (30b) comprises: a plurality of first lower flange portions formed by bending both ends and bonded to an internal surface of the first side sill frame (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bending of both ends, and bonded (fused/fixed) to the internal surface of the first side sill frame (20)); a plurality of first extension portions connected to the plurality of first lower flange portions, respectively, and extending in a direction of the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the extension portions between the first side sill frame and the partition member); and a first upper flange portion connected to the plurality of first extension portions and bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30b) to the partition member).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 4, and teaches (references to Kim unless otherwise noted) wherein a shape of a thickness-direction cross-section of the second reinforcing frame (30a) comprises: a plurality of second lower flange portions formed by bending both ends and bonded to an internal surface of the second side sill frame (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bending of both ends, and bonded (fused/fixed)); a plurality of second extension portions connected to the plurality of second lower flange portions and extending in a direction of the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the extension portions between the second side sill frame and the partition member); and a second upper flange portion connected to the plurality of second extension portions and bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30a) to the partition member).
Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. as discussed so far, is silent about the plurality of second lower flange portions bonded to the partition member; the plurality of second extension portions extending in the direction of the second side sill frame; and the second upper flange portion bonded to the second side sill frame.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches the direction of the first and second reinforcing frames can be in opposite directions or the same direction (Figs. 6 and 12 embodiments, paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side sill of Kim modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. to reorient the second reinforcing frame to match the direction of the first reinforcing frame as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, considering there is a finite number of orientations that can be tried for the combined reinforcing frames, and it would be obvious to try with predictable potential solutions (Bodin et al.: paragraph [0099]). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 5, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein the first upper flange portion continuously contacts the partition member along a predetermined section and is bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30b) to the partition member at a specific location along the partition member).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 5, and teaches wherein the second upper flange portion continuously contacts the second side sill frame along a predetermined section and is bonded to the second side sill frame (Kim teaches the second upper flange portion bonded to the partition member, and as modified by Bodin et al., the partition member is the second side sill frame in combination).
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 3, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein a shape of a thickness-direction cross-section of the first reinforcing frame (30b) comprises: a plurality of first lower flange portions formed by bending both ends and bonded to an internal surface of the first side sill frame (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bending of both ends, and bonded (fused/fixed)); a plurality of first extension portions connected to the plurality of first lower flange portions, respectively, and extending in a direction of the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the extension portions between the first side sill frame and the partition member); and a first upper flange portion connected to the plurality of first extension portions and bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30b) to the partition member).
Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. as discussed so far, is silent about the plurality of first lower flange portions bonded to the partition member; the plurality of first extension portions extending in the direction of the first side sill frame; and the first upper flange portion bonded to the first side sill frame.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches the direction of the first and second reinforcing frames can be in opposite directions or the same direction (Figs. 6 and 12 embodiments, paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side sill of Kim modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. to reorient the first reinforcing frame as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, considering there is a finite number of orientations that can be tried for the combined reinforcing frames, and it would be obvious to try with predictable potential solutions (Bodin et al.: paragraph [0099]). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 8, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein a shape of a thickness-direction cross-section of the second reinforcing frame (30a) comprises: a plurality of second lower flange portions formed by bending both ends and bonded to an internal surface of the second side sill frame (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bending of both ends, and bonded (fused/fixed) to the internal surface of the second side sill frame (10)); a plurality of second extension portions connected to the plurality of second lower flange portions and extending in a direction of the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the extension portions between the second side sill frame and the partition member); and a second upper flange portion connected to the plurality of second extension portions and bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30a) to the partition member).
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 5. As so far discussed, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. has been silent as to wherein a length of the plurality of first extension portions and a length of the plurality of second extension portions are different from each other.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches wherein a length of the first extension portion and a length of the second extension portion are different from each other (Fig. 6 shows the first extension portions and second extension portion are of different lengths (122)/(126) and (124)/(128)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lengths of the first and second extension portions of Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, for when the orientation of the first and second extension portions are in the same direction, and for the upper extension portions handling smaller forces, while in combination, the upper and lower extension portions help to handle increased forces.
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 10. As so far discussed, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. has been silent as to wherein in the thickness-direction cross-section of the side sill frame, the first cavity and the second cavity are asymmetrical with each other.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches wherein in the thickness-direction cross-section of the side sill frame, the first cavity (space including ((118)/(218) or (120)/(220))) and the second cavity (space including the other of ((118)/(218) or (120)/(220))) are asymmetrical with each other (Fig. 6 shows the first cavity and second cavity are asymmetrical).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity sizes of the first cavity and second cavity of Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help with the size modification of the reinforcing frames (Bodin et al.: paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 8, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein a shape of a thickness-direction cross-section of the second reinforcing frame (30a) comprises: a plurality of second lower flange portions formed by bending both ends and bonded to an internal surface of the second side sill frame (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bending of both ends, and bonded (fused/fixed)); a plurality of second extension portions connected to the plurality of second lower flange portions and extending in a direction of the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the extension portions between the second side sill frame and the partition member); and a second upper flange portion connected to the plurality of second extension portions and bonded to the partition member (Fig. 3, p. 3, lines 11-17 of the machine translation teaches the bonding (fused/fixed) of the top portion of (30a) to the partition member).
Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. as discussed so far, is silent about the plurality of second lower flange portions bonded to the partition member; the plurality of second extension portions extending in the direction of the second side sill frame; and the second upper flange portion bonded to the second side sill frame.
In addition to the above, Bodin et al. teaches the direction of the first and second reinforcing frames can be in opposite directions or the same direction (Figs. 6 and 12 embodiments, paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side sill of Kim modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. to reorient the second reinforcing frame to match the direction of the first reinforcing frame as taught by Bodin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, considering there is a finite number of orientations that can be tried for the combined reinforcing frames, and it would be obvious to try with predictable potential solutions (Bodin et al.: paragraph [0099]). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified by Bodin et al. and Honda et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 12, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein a length of the plurality of first extension portions and a length of the plurality of second extension portions are identical to each other (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Kim as modified by Honda et al. and Bodin et al. teaches the side sill for a vehicle of claim 13, and teaches (references to Kim) wherein in the thickness-direction cross-section of the side sill frame, the first cavity and the second cavity are symmetrical with each other (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argued that Boldin et al. does not teach a structure for controlling compressive deformation through an organic combination with a partition member. Therefore, applicant argued that the convex and concave portions are not taught, and argued that the claims should be allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., structure for controlling compressive deformation through an organic combination with a partition member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, applicant argued that Boldin et al. does not teach the partition member, however, that is taught by the primary reference, Kim. Boldin et al. was brought into the rejection to show that it was known to have varying shapes and positions for reinforcing frames and why. Both references were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and statements of obviousness are part of the rejection and further details have been added to the rejection with respect to the clarified portion that was added to claim 1 in order to clarify the rejection. Therefore, since it has been shown above that the prior art teaches the claim limitation, the prior art reads on the instant 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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights