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 8, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the amendments to the drawings, specification, and claims have overcome the objections set forth in the previous Office Action. Examiner agrees, and has withdrawn all the previous objections.
With regard to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant has argued that claim 5 is not indefinite, as it describes “generally planar portions that include a protruding and/or concave region.” This argument is deemed persuasive, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art, applicant has argued that Ito does not anticipate amended claim 1, because “Ito’s reinforcing frame includes additional flanges 122 and 123 in combination with the web 121. By contrast, the claimed reinforcing frame does not include such additional flanges” (Remarks, second paragraph of page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the language of claim 1 does not preclude the presence of additional parts not mentioned in the claim. The preamble of claim 1 uses the open terminology “comprising” (line 1), “including” (line 2), “has” (lines 5, 6, 8), and “includes” (lines 9). None of these terms are the narrower “consisting” terminology which precludes additional elements.
Applicant further argues that “Ito joins the flanges, rather than the web, to the side sill frames” (Remarks, third paragraph of Page 12). Examiner disagrees, for two reasons. Firstly, the claim does not require direct bonding, but merely bonding. This does not preclude the presence of an intervening flange element, such as flanges 122 and 123 of Ito. Secondly, the flanges 122 and 123 can be considered part of the reinforcing frame, since the claim language does not preclude that interpretation. In that case, the reinforcing frame is directly bonded to the first and second side sill frames. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 8, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 2023/0023627, hereinafter Ito).
With regard to claim 1, Ito discloses a side sill for a vehicle (see Fig. provided below), the side sill comprising;
a side sill frame (110) including a hollow portion (Fig. 2 illustrates the hollow internal portion of the side sill); and
a reinforcing frame (120, 122, 123) disposed in the hollow portion in a longitudinal direction of the side sill frame, wherein the reinforcing frame has a unit section (note that the claim does not define what is considered a “unit section,” thus this term is treated as mere nomenclature that generally refers to the generally periodic structure of the reinforcing frame) continued in the longitudinal direction of the side sill frame (see Fig. 4, which shows the corrugations continuing in the longitudinal direction of the sill), and has upper (Fig. 5, 121a) and lower surfaces (Fig. 5, 121c) spaced apart from the side sill frame (cross-sectional view in Fig. 2 shows that the upper and lower surfaces are both spaced from the sill frame),
wherein the unit section has changing heights (Fig. 5),
wherein the side sill frame includes:
a first side sill frame (110A) bonded to one side of the reinforcing frame (element 110A is directly bonded to flange 122 of the reinforcing frame. See paragraph 0101; “the end portion of the tubular body and the impact absorbing member end portion which is at least one end portion of the impact absorbing member are joined (joining process)”); and
a second side sill frame (110B) bonded to the other side of the reinforcing frame (element 110B is directly bonded to the flange 123 of the reinforcing frame. See paragraph 0101; “the end portion of the tubular body and the impact absorbing member end portion which is at least one end portion of the impact absorbing member are joined (joining process)”), and bonded to the first side sill frame (Paragraph 0040, “the vehicle outer tubular body 110A and the vehicle inner tubular body 110B are joined by appropriate joining methods such as welding and bolts in a state where the flange portions are butted against each other”).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
466
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Ito discloses that the unit section includes:
a first plane (121a) portion disposed to be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the side sill frame;
an inclined portion (121d) connected to the first plane portion and inclinedly disposed; and
a second plane portion (121c) connected to the inclined portion and provided in a position lower than the first plane portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
228
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, Ito teaches that the inclined portion includes:
a first inclined portion (121b) continued from the first plane portion to the second plane portion and disposed to be inclined downwardly; and
a second inclined portion (121d) continued from the second plane portion to the first plane portion and disposed to be inclined upwardly.
With regard to claim 4, Ito teaches that the first plane portion and the second plane portion are disposed to face a junction of the first side sill frame and the second side sill frame (see Fig. 4).
With regard to claims 8-11, Ito teaches additional plane portions and inclined portions extending along the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, as seen in Fig. 4.
With regard to claim 12, Ito teaches that the seventh inclined portion and the eighth inclined portion have a curved plate shape (Ito teaches that the wave patter of the reinforcing element 120 can be “a shape like a sine curve”—see paragraph 0071).
With regard to claim 13, Ito teaches that the unit section includes:
a first unit section (defined as shown below in the annotated Fig.) disposed in an upper portion of the side sill frame in a height direction; and
a second unit section (defined as shown below in the annotated Fig.) disposed below the first unit section, wherein the first unit section includes:
a fifth plane portion (see Fig. below) disposed to be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the side sill frame;
a ninth inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the fifth plane portion and disposed to be inclined upwardly; and
a tenth inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the ninth inclined portion (note that all of the “portions” are connected by virtue of being part of the same piece of sheet metal) and disposed to be inclined downwardly, and the second unit section includes:
a sixth plane portion (see Fig. below) disposed to be parallel to the longitudinal direction of the side sill frame;
an eleventh inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the sixth plane portion (note that all of the “portions” are connected by virtue of being part of the same piece of sheet metal) and disposed to be inclined downwardly; and
a twelfth inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the eleventh inclined portion and disposed to be inclined upwardly.
PNG
media_image4.png
283
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 17, Ito discloses that the unit section includes:
a first unit section (as defined in the Fig. provided below) disposed in an upper portion of the side sill frame in a height direction; and
a second unit section (as defined in the Fig. provided below) disposed below the first unit section,
wherein the first unit section includes:
a seventeenth inclined portion (see Fig. below) disposed to be inclined upwardly; and
an eighteenth inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the seventeenth inclined portion (note that all the “portions” of the reinforcing frame are connected given that they are part of the same piece of sheet metal) and disposed to be inclined downwardly, and
the second unit section includes:
a nineteenth inclined portion (see Fig. below) disposed to be inclined downwardly; and
a twentieth inclined portion (see Fig. below) connected to the nineteenth inclined portion (note that all the “portions” of the reinforcing frame are connected given that they are part of the same piece of sheet metal) and disposed to be inclined upwardly.
PNG
media_image5.png
283
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 19, Ito teaches that the reinforcing frame is formed of single sheet steel (paragraph 0042, “the impact absorbing member 120 is made of a high strength steel sheet”).
With regard to claim 20, Ito teaches that a thickness of the reinforcing frame is any one of 1.8 mm or more and 2.2 mm or less (Paragraph 0072, “the sheet thickness of tw of the web 121 is preferably 1.2 mm or more and 2.6 mm or less”).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Wani et al. (US 2009/0250969, hereinafter Wani).
With regard to claim 5, Ito fails to teach that at least one of the first plane portion and the second plane portion includes an uneven portion.
Wani teaches a side sill stiffening structure similar to that of Ito. Wani teaches a plane portion (20) having an uneven portion (32).
PNG
media_image6.png
246
484
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Ito by providing the uneven portion of Wani, as the uneven portions allow the reinforcement element “to absorb more energy while holding its general shape and configuration, and then allow the unit to further dissipate energy by becoming a crush zone” (Wani, paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Ito contains some disclosure of the specific lengths of the parts of the device. Ito teaches certain lengths and angles as pointed out in the annotated Fig. below, and in Paragraphs 0070-0072. Ito further states that, within the dimensional ranges disclosed in Ito’s specification, “a sufficient absorption amount of impact absorbed energy…can be secured” (paragraph 0069). Thus, Ito teaches that the dimensions and angles of the reinforcing portion are result-effective variables.
PNG
media_image7.png
230
702
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Ito does not disclose the exact ranges claimed in the instant application. For example, Ito fails to teach that a length of the first plane portion and the second plane portion in the longitudinal direction of the side sill frame is any one value of 40 mm or more and 70 mm or less. Ito also fails to teach that an angle formed by an extension line of the first plane portion and the inclined portion and an angle formed by the extension line of the second plane portion and the inclined portion are any one value of 45° or more and 75° or less.
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 Ito to have dimensions within the specific ranges claimed in claims 6 and 7, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Ito teaches that the dimensions are a result effective variable, and the optimization of such variables is a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With regard to claim 21, Ito fails to teach that the reinforcing frame has a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more and a yield strength of 850 MPa or more and 1060 MPa or less. Ito does teach, however, that “the material of each of the web 121, the vehicle outer flange 122, and the vehicle inner flange 123 are all made of steel having a tensile strength of 980 MPa” (Paragraph 0135). It is noted that Ito also teaches highly similar structure, dimensions, and materials to the device disclosed by applicant.
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 Ito such that the reinforcing frame 120 has a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more (rather than the disclosed 980 MPa) and a yield strength between 850 and 1060 MPa, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Ito provides guidance as to how the dimensions and materials of the reinforcing frame affect its strength (see paragraphs 0070-0072 and 0074, for example), and thus it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to adjust these values to achieve higher and higher levels of strength and impact absorption (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Rodgers et al. (US 2019/0263342, hereinafter Rodgers).
With regard to claim 14, it is believed that this claim refers to the Fig. 10 embodiment of applicant’s disclosure (see below), where the fifth plane portion 121e and the sixth plane portion 121f are in contact with each other. Ito fails to teach this configuration.
PNG
media_image8.png
342
530
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant's Fig. 10 – The embodiment claimed in claim 14
However, Rodgers teaches a side sill reinforcement member (Paragraph 0055, “the energy-absorbing assembly 10 may be a rocker panel or assembly or a portion of a rocker assembly”) having the claimed configuration (Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image9.png
286
506
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Rodgers’ Fig. 11
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 Ito such that the reinforcing frame had the shape of Rodgers’ Fig. 11, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Rodgers teaches various cross-sectional shapes for reinforcing elements that can be used in vehicle side sills to absorb energy in impact events, and that “alternate or additional geometries” can be devised to adjust impact resistance characteristics (Rodgers, paragraph 0097). Thus, selecting particular geometries for the reinforcing element from the identified solutions present in the prior art would have been a matter of routine optimization.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, it is believed that these claims refer to the Fig. 11 embodiment of applicant’s disclosure (see Fig. below). Ito fails to disclose this particular geometry for the reinforcing frame.
PNG
media_image10.png
344
530
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Applicant's Fig. 11 – The embodiment claimed in claims 15 and 16
However, Rodgers teaches a side sill reinforcement member (Paragraph 0055, “the energy-absorbing assembly 10 may be a rocker panel or assembly or a portion of a rocker assembly”) having the claimed configuration (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image11.png
308
464
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Rodgers' Fig. 10
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 Ito such that the reinforcing frame had the shape of Rodgers’ Fig. 10, with a reasonable expectation of success, given that Rodgers teaches various cross-sectional shapes for reinforcing elements that can be used in vehicle side sills to absorb energy in impact events, and that “alternate or additional geometries” can be devised to adjust impact resistance characteristics (Rodgers, paragraph 0097). Thus, selecting particular geometries for the reinforcing element from the identified solutions present in the prior art would have been a matter of routine optimization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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