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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 15-16, 19, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0300067).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa et al. discloses an unfinished component (Fig. 1, portion of wheel house unit structure (100), unfinished, because it has not completed production at this point in the manufacturing process) for a body of a derivative vehicle which is derived from a base vehicle (paragraph [0004] discloses the vehicle may be a convertible which is one of the options as to what a derivative vehicle of a base vehicle is within the instant specification (see paragraph [0002] of the instant specification), the base vehicle understood to be a standard sedan), the unfinished component comprising: a base unfinished component ((20), unfinished, because it has not completed production at this point in the manufacturing process) of a body of the base vehicle (the base component is of the body of the vehicle which includes (100)); and, local reinforcement elements (portions of (30)) connected by joining to the base unfinished component at points subject to high stress (Figs. 1, 5, 9 and paragraphs [0007], [0049]-[0050] and [0054] state the use and location of the local reinforcement elements, please note that points of high stress are determined based on the showing of increased deformation, i.e. the higher the stress the higher the strain (deformation) that occurs), as determined on the basis of a structural-mechanical simulation of the body of the derivative vehicle (Figs. 9A-10B show a structural-mechanical simulation analysis, the figures show where there is an increase of stress and the local reinforcement elements are located based on these simulations of the convertible car).
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, and discloses 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).
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa 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 shows the plate member (30) has been positioned so as to become a three-dimensional structure).
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, and discloses wherein the unfinished component is a suspension strut dome component ((20) is a suspension tower which is another term for a suspension strut dome).
Regarding claim 21, Ogawa et al. discloses a method for producing an unfinished component (Fig. 1, wheel house unit structure (100), unfinished, because it has not completed production at this point in the manufacturing process) for a body of a derivative vehicle which is derived from a base vehicle (paragraph [0004] discloses the vehicle may be a convertible which is one of the options as to what a derivative vehicle of a base vehicle is within the instant specification (see paragraph [0002] of the instant specification), the base vehicle understood to be a standard sedan), the method comprising: reinforcing a base unfinished component ((20), unfinished, because it has not completed production at this point in the manufacturing process) of a body of a series-production vehicle (the base component is of the body of the vehicle which includes (100)) at points that are subject to high stress (local reinforcement elements (portions of (30)) joined to the base unfinished component at points subject to high stress, Figs. 1, 5, 9 and paragraphs [0007], [0049]-[0050] and [0054] state the use and location of the local reinforcement elements), please note that points of high stress are determined based on the showing of increased deformation, i.e. the higher the stress the higher the strain (deformation) that occurs); determining the points that are subject to high stress by performing a structural-mechanical simulation of the body of the derivative vehicle (Figs. 9A-10B show a structural-mechanical simulation analysis, the figures show where there is an increase of stress and the local reinforcement elements are located based on these simulations of the convertible car); wherein the reinforcing comprises joining local reinforcement elements to the base unfinished component (Figs. 1, 5, 9 and paragraphs [0007], [0049]-[0050] and [0054] state the use and location of the local reinforcement elements).
Regarding claim 28, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21, and discloses the method further comprising forming the unfinished component as a suspension strut dome component ((20) is a suspension tower which is another term for a suspension strut dome).
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 Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0300067) in view of Mersmann (WO 2019/115041).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the base unfinished component comprises a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer.
Mersmann, like Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise a coating of a cathodic dipping lacquer.
Mersmann, like Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10, however, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle.
Mersmann, like Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21, however, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: 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 Ogawa 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 prior to the joining of the reinforcement elements (reinforcement element) 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21, however, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivative vehicle which is derived from the base vehicle is a special protection vehicle.
Mersmann, like Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 13-14, 17, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0300067) in view of Gauriat et al. (US 2006/0269701).
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10. However, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the base unfinished component comprises a sheet-metal part or metal cast component.
Gauriat et al., like Ogawa et al., teaches a reinforcing of an unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches wherein the base unfinished component (first metal sheet) comprises a sheet-metal part or metal cast component (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 Ogawa et al. to have the base unfinished component 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 14, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10. However, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the local reinforcement elements comprise sheet-metal parts or metal cast components.
Gauriat et al., like Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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, Ogawa et al. discloses the unfinished component of claim 10. However, Ogawa 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 Ogawa et al., teaches a reinforcing of a unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches wherein the local reinforcement elements (second metal sheet) 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 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 unfinished component of Ogawa et al. 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]).
Regarding claim 23, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21. However, Ogawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises forming the base unfinished component via sheet metal forming or metal casting.
Gauriat et al., like Ogawa et al., teaches a method for reinforcing of an unfinished component for a vehicle, and teaches the method further comprises forming the base unfinished component (first 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 Ogawa et al. to have the base unfinished component 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 24, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21. However, Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 25, Ogawa et al. as modified by Gauriat et al. teaches the method of claim 24, and teaches (references to Ogawa et al.) wherein at least one local reinforcement element is formed as a flat element (paragraph [0036] refers to (30) as a plate member, which would be a flat element).
Regarding claim 26, Ogawa et al. as modified by Gauriat et al. teaches the method of claim 24, and teaches (references to Ogawa et al.) wherein at least one local reinforcement element is formed as a three-dimensional structure (Fig. 1 shows the plate member (30) has been positioned so as to become a three-dimensional structure).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2019/0300067) in view of Mersmann (WO 2019/115041, machine translation attached) and Gauriat et al. (US 2006/0269701).
Regarding claim 27, Ogawa et al. discloses the method of claim 21. However, Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 Ogawa 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 filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 10 and 21, applicant argued that Ogawa et al. does not disclose the determination of high-stress points from simulating the body of the derivative vehicle through a structural-mechanical simulation. Therefore, applicant argued that the claims were not anticipated.
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. armor-plating, higher weight) 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). Here, claims 10 and 21 only list a derivative vehicle, which per the instant specification, includes convertibles as mentioned above in the rejection, therefore, the simulation of the convertible would be on a derivative vehicle. Further, as mentioned above, there is no specification as to the type of structural-mechanical simulation. The structural-mechanical simulation in Ogawa et al. includes information that provides areas of high-stress for the derivative vehicle, the convertible. Therefore, the prior are reads on the claim limitation.
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