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 .
Priority
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 10, 13, 16, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 10, Thiele et al. discloses an unfinished component for a body of a derivative vehicle which is derived from a base vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation, vehicle of a higher load/weight expectancy than the base vehicle), the unfinished component comprising: a base unfinished component (10) of a body of the base vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation discloses the base unfinished component is for a base vehicle with the lowest mechanical load case, i.e. base vehicle); and, local reinforcement elements (30) connected by joining to the base unfinished component at points subject to high stress (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points, paragraph [0022] notes the “local” aspect), as determined on the basis of a structural-mechanical simulation of the body of the derivative vehicle (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points based on FEM analysis or other simulation options, which are structural-mechanical simulations), wherein the derivative vehicle has a higher vehicle weight than the base vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation, “applications with increased expected mechanical loads.. covered by the reinforcement structure”), and the points subject to high stress are points at which the base unfinished component would be under excessive stress in use in the body of the derivative vehicle, as determined by the structural-mechanical simulation taking into account the higher vehicle weight of the derivative vehicle; and wherein the local reinforcement elements are arranged only at the points subject to high stress, such that wall regions of the base unfinished component are not reinforced (paragraph [0024] of the machine translation, geometric shapes of (30) are based on the simulated load situation the component would see in use with the higher load, i.e. higher vehicle weight of the derivative vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10 and discloses wherein the base unfinished component comprises a sheet-metal part or metal cast component (paragraphs [0010] and [0015] of the machine translation mention the base unfinished component being a metal cast component).
Regarding claim 16, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10 and discloses wherein at least one local reinforcement element comprises a three-dimensional structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Thiele et al. discloses a method for producing an unfinished component (Fig. 1, paragraph [0009] of the machine translation) for a body of a derivative vehicle which is derived from a base vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation, vehicle of a higher load/weight expectancy than the base vehicle), the method comprising: reinforcing a base unfinished component (10) of a body of a series-production vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation discloses the base unfinished component is for a base vehicle with the lowest mechanical load case, i.e. series-production vehicle) at points that are subject to high stress (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points, paragraph [0022] notes the “local” aspect); determining the points that are subject to high stress by performing a structural-mechanical simulation of the body of the derivative vehicle (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points based on FEM analysis or other simulation options, which are structural-mechanical simulations); wherein the reinforcing comprises joining local reinforcement elements (30) to the base unfinished component (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points, paragraph [0022] notes the “local” aspect); wherein the derivative vehicle has a higher vehicle weight than the base vehicle (paragraph [0009] of the machine translation, “applications with increased expected mechanical loads.. covered by the reinforcement structure”), the structural-mechanical simulation takes into account the higher vehicle weight of the derivative vehicle, and the points that are subject to high stress are points at which the base unfinished component would be under excessive stress in use in the body of the derivative vehicle (paragraph [0024] of the machine translation, geometric shapes of (30) are based on the simulated load situation the component would see in use with the higher load, i.e. higher vehicle weight of the derivative vehicle); wherein the joining comprises arranging the local reinforcement elements only at the determined points that are subject to high stress, such that wall regions of the base unfinished component are not reinforced (Fig. 1, paragraph [0012] of the machine translation discloses the reinforcement elements are to be positioned at high stress points, paragraph [0022] notes the “local” aspect).
Regarding claim 23, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21 and discloses forming the base unfinished component via sheet metal forming or metal casting (paragraphs [0010] and [0015] of the machine translation mention the base unfinished component being formed by metal casting).
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 11-12, 18, 20, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Mersmann (WO 2019/115041).
Regarding claim 11, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the base unfinished component comprises a coating applied prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the base unfinished component comprises a coating applied prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements (paragraph [0017] of the machine translation teaches the base unfinished component (body component) is coated prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements (reinforcement element)).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to provide coating prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the reinforcement required and can be applied at various temperatures based on manufacturing demands, i.e. cooled down or still warm from the curing process (Mersmann: paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0028], [0030] of the machine translation teach the increase of stiffness to the component, potentially in a “roll cage” mode with a reduction in thickness required).
Regarding claim 12, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the base unfinished component comprises a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the base unfinished component comprises a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer (paragraph [0017] of the machine translation teaches the base unfinished component (body component) is coated and paragraph [0029] of the machine translation teaches the coating can be a cathodic dip coating).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to provide coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components (Mersmann: paragraphs [0014]-[0015] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer (paragraphs [0014]-[0016] of the machine translation teaches the local reinforcement elements are coated in one of the embodiments and paragraph [0029] of the machine translation teaches the coating can be a cathodic dip coating).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to provide coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components (Mersmann: paragraphs [0014]-[0015] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle (paragraph [0050] of the machine translation teaches the reinforcement allows for a space-saving “roll cage” typical in motorsports, but also derivatives requiring stiffness adjustments, which special protection vehicles would be placed under).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to provide a special protection vehicle as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide improved stiffness while reducing the need for elaborate space-consuming constructions for the vehicle interior (Mersmann: paragraph [0050] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 22, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose applying a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer to the base unfinished component prior to joining the local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a method that includes a component for a vehicle and further teaches applying a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer to the base unfinished component prior to joining the local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component (paragraph [0017] of the machine translation teaches the base unfinished component (body component) is coated and paragraph [0029] of the machine translation teaches the coating can be a cathodic dip coating).
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 method Thiele et al. to provide coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer prior to joining the local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the reinforcement required and can be applied at various temperatures based on manufacturing demands, i.e. cooled down or still warm from the curing process and in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components (Mersmann: paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0023]-[0024], [0028], [0030] of the machine translation teach the increase of stiffness to the component, potentially in a “roll cage” mode with a reduction in thickness required).
Regarding claim 29, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches a method including a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle (paragraph [0050] of the machine translation teaches the reinforcement allows for a space-saving “roll cage” typical in motorsports, but also derivatives requiring stiffness adjustments, which special protection vehicles would be placed under).
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 method of Thiele et al. to provide a special protection vehicle as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide improved stiffness while reducing the need for elaborate space-consuming constructions for the vehicle interior (Mersmann: paragraph [0050] of the machine translation).
Claims 14, 17, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Gauriat et al. (US 2006/0269701).
Regarding claim 14, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10 and discloses the local reinforcement elements comprising metal (paragraph [0010] of the machine translation mentions the local reinforcement elements being a metal component). However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise sheet-metal parts or metal cast components.
Gauriat et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a reinforcing of an unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches wherein the local reinforcement elements (second metal sheet) comprise sheet-metal parts or metal cast components ((paragraph [0020] teaches a metal sheet).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to have the local reinforcement elements comprise a sheet-metal part or metal cast component as taught by Gauriat et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to meet a specific stiffness required in automotive applications (Gauriat et al.: paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0020]-[0021] teach metal meeting a specific stiffness required in automotive applications and the process of reinforcing allowing for the reduction of weight which helps in fuel consumption).
Regarding claim 17, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise a coating applied prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements.
Gauriat et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a component for a vehicle and further teaches wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise a coating applied prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements (paragraphs [0020], [0025]-[0028] teaches the second metal sheet, and at least a partial coating that occurs prior to the joining of the local reinforcement element).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to provide coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer as taught by Gauriat et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components to improve their properties (Gauriat et al.: paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 24, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21. However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises forming the local reinforcement elements via sheet metal forming or metal casting.
Gauriat et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a method for reinforcing of an unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches the method further comprises forming the local reinforcement elements (second metal sheet) via sheet metal forming or metal casting (paragraph [0020] teaches a metal sheet is used).
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 method of Thiele et al. to have the local reinforcement elements formed via sheet metal forming or metal casting as taught by Gauriat et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to meet a specific stiffness required in automotive applications (Gauriat et al.: paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0020]-[0021] teach metal meeting a specific stiffness required in automotive applications and the process of reinforcing allowing for the reduction of weight which helps in fuel consumption).
Regarding claim 26, Thiele et al. as modified by Gauriat et al. teaches the method of claim 24 and teaches (references to Thiele et al.) wherein at least one local reinforcement element is formed as a three-dimensional structure (Fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0200067).
Regarding claim 15, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10. However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one local reinforcement element comprises a flat element.
Ogawa et al., like Thiele et al., teaches an unfinished component and further teaches wherein at least one local reinforcement element comprises a flat element (paragraph [0036] refers to (30) as a plate member, which would be a flat element).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to include at least one local reinforcement element comprising a flat element as taught by Ogawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, if all that was needed to reinforce locally was a plate member.
Claims 19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Drewes et al. (US 2016/0129946).
Regarding claim 19, Thiele et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10 and discloses wherein the unfinished component is part of a vehicle chassis (paragraph [0014] of the machine translation). However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose the unfinished component is a suspension strut dome component, which would be a part of the chassis.
Drewes et al., like Thiele et al., teaches an unfinished component and providing local reinforcement to the unfinished component, wherein the unfinished component is a suspension strut dome component (Fig. 1).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. to be a suspension strut dome component as taught by Drewes et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since a suspension strut dome component is part of the chassis and therefore it would be a reasonable component to reinforce within the chassis (Thiele et al.: paragraph [0014] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21 and discloses wherein the unfinished component is part of a vehicle chassis (paragraph [0014] of the machine translation). However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose forming the unfinished component as a suspension strut dome component, which would be a part of the chassis.
Drewes et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a method including an unfinished component and providing local reinforcement to the unfinished component, wherein the unfinished component is a suspension strut dome component (Fig. 1).
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 method of Thiele et al. to be for a suspension strut dome component as taught by Drewes et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since a suspension strut dome component is part of the chassis and therefore it would be a reasonable component to reinforce within the chassis (Thiele et al.: paragraph [0014] of the machine translation).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Gauriat et al. (US 2006/0269701) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0200067).
Regarding claim 25, Thiele et al. as modified by Gauriat et al. teaches the method of claim 21. However, Thiele et al. as modified by Gauriat et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least one local reinforcement element comprises a flat element.
Ogawa et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a method for an unfinished component and further teaches wherein at least one local reinforcement element comprises a flat element (paragraph [0036] refers to (30) as a plate member, which would be a flat element).
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 unfinished component of Thiele et al. modified by Gauriat et al. to include at least one local reinforcement element comprising a flat element as taught by Ogawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, if all that was needed to reinforce locally was a plate member.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (DE 10 2013 218 763, machine translation attached) in view of Mersmann (WO 2019/115041) and Gauriat et al. (US 2006/0269701).
Regarding claim 27, Thiele et al. discloses the method of claim 21. However, Thiele et al. does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: applying a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer to the local reinforcement elements prior to joining the local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component.
Mersmann, like Thiele et al., teaches method including a component for a vehicle and further teaches applying a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer to the reinforcement elements (paragraphs [0014]-[0016] of the machine translation teaches the local reinforcement elements are coated in one of the embodiments and paragraph [0029] of the machine translation teaches the coating can be a cathodic dip coating).
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 method of Thiele et al. to provide coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer as taught by Mersmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components (Mersmann: paragraphs [0014]-[0015] of the machine translation).
Gauriat et al., like Thiele et al., teaches a method for reinforcing of a unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches applying the coating to the local reinforcement elements (second metal sheet) prior to joining the local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component (paragraphs [0020], [0025]-[0028] teaches the second metal sheet, and at least a partial coating that occurs prior to the joining of the local reinforcement elements).
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 method of Thiele et al. modified by Mersmann with a coating of the local reinforcement elements prior to joining with the base unfinished component as taught by Gauriat et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a corrosion protection layer needed for metal components to improve their properties (Gauriat et al.: paragraph [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8/21/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights