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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim states the limitation, “the side frame includes […]”. This is unclear as the side frames were initially claimed as “a pair of side frames”, while the limitation of claim 4 does not express if both side frames are required to have the claimed structure. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuji et al. (US 5372216 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsuji teaches a vehicle body structure comprising: a pair of side frames (Fig. 3 elements 12) extending along a front-rear direction and each having a tube shape (Shown in Fig. 3); a cross member (Fig. 3 element 9) extending along a vehicle width direction and connecting the side frames to each other (Shown in Fig. 3); and a subframe (Fig. 3 elements 13 and 3) located below the side frames and fixed to the side frames via fixing points set in the respective side frames, wherein portions of the cross member fixed to the side frames are arranged to at least partially overlap with portions of the subframe fixed to the side frames in a vertical direction (Shown in Figs 3-4).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsuji teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the subframe includes a sub-cross member that connects portions of the subframe fixed to the side frames to each other (Fig. 3 element 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsuji teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the cross member is fixed to upper surfaces of tube walls constituting the side frames, and the subframe is fixed to lower surfaces of the tube walls (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsuji teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses portions of the subframe fixed to the side frames are arranged at positions where front edge portions of subframe fixtures which fix the subframe to the side frames overlap with a front end of the cross member in the vertical direction (Shown in Fig. 4).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (US 5372216 A) in view of Egawa et al. (JP 2008279889 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsuji teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Tsuji fails to explicitly teach each of the side frames includes a bulkhead inside a tube of the side frame at a position where the cross member is fixed to the side frame, the bulkhead facing in the front-rear direction of a vehicle.
However, Egawa teaches each of the side frames includes a bulkhead inside a tube of the side frame at a position where the cross member is fixed to the side frame, the bulkhead facing in the front-rear direction of a vehicle (Fig. 1 elements 62).
Tsuji and Egawa are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle body structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side frames of Tsuji to have the bulkheads as disclosed by Egawa. Doing so would provide a secure connection structure while transmitting loads between the frame structures.
Regarding Claim 3, Tsuji and Egawa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Egawa further discloses the bulkhead is arranged at a position where the bulkhead overlaps with a front edge portion and a rear edge portion of the cross member in the vertical direction (Shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al. (US 5372216 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsuji teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Tsuji fails to explicitly teach the side frame includes a bead which extends in a circumferential direction while forming a corrugation in a surface of a tube wall.
However, Tsuji discloses “The kick-down center frame 35 is provided with what is called, in this specification, "crush pattern control means" for determining the pattern of deformation of the kick-down center frame 35 when the kick-down center frame 35 is crushed during a front-end collision of the vehicle. The crush pattern control means comprises a plurality of, for instance, four in this embodiment, generally V-shaped grooves 36-39 formed in upper and lower walls 35U and 35L of the kick-down center frame 35. The number of V-shaped grooves is determined according to a theoretically designed pattern of deformation. Every other V-shaped groove 36 and 38 or 37 and 39 is formed in one and the same wall 35U or 35L of the kick-down center frame 35.” Col. 4 line 65 – Col. 5 line 10.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crush pattern control means disclosed by Tsuji to be implemented on the side frames. Doing so would provide an intended deformation pattern in the event of a collision, reducing the risk of deforming unintended structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644