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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 21st, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 17-19 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome all objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 21st, 2026.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed July 21st, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argues against the illustration made by the examiner that indicates a “ridge” in annotated Park Fig. 3. The applicant recites “The annotated structure appears to correspond to the inboard sidewall flanges 34a and 39a of the first and second reinforcing portions 21 and 22, which are flanges of the crossmember itself that overlap the base 25 and are joined to the base 25 by spot welding. These flanges are components of the crossmember 20, not features of the floor panel 11. Accordingly, the Examiner's annotation identifies a feature of the crossmember, not a ridge formed in the floor panel.” (remarks, page 12). In annotated Park Fig. 3, the arrows clearly indicate the ridge structure of the floor panel, not flanges 34a and 39a. In fact, the applicant later that features 34a and 39a are mapped to the wall portions of the crossmember (see claim 4 and claim 11 rejections of the Non-Final Office Action). This ridge protrudes upward from the floor panel (see “planar datum” and “upward direction” in annotated Park Fig. 3) that clearly contacts the lower wall portion of the crossmember. Annotated Park Fig. 3 is shown below for reference. These arguments are not found to be persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed configuration comprises a different function than that of Park, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The applicant discusses how the tubular shapes of the instant invention are enclosed along a linear length and increases the structural strength of the invention (remarks, page 13). Park meets these limitations, as outlined in the Non-Final Office Action (see claim 1 and claim 3 rejections). This argument is not found to be persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Lee et al. fail to render the invention as obvious in combination with Park et al. and Marquez et al. (remarks, page 14), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The motivation to combine the apparatus of Park et al, in view of Marquez et al., with the support beam design of Lee et al. is outlined in the Non-Final Office Action (see claim 4 and claim 14 rejections).
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5, 11-14, and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 3, “the support beam comprising” seems to be directed to state
--the support beam comprises--.
In claim 18, line 3, “the first crossmember” does not provide proper antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination, this language will be interpreted as --a first crossmember--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 20210170915 A1, in view of Marquez Duran et al. US 20240343311 A1. Marquez Duran et al. will be referred to as Marquez et al. hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Park et al. disclose a vehicle floor assembly (Park et al. 10) comprising:
a floor panel (Park et al. 11) that forms a lateral section of the floor panel (Park et al. paragraph 0035), that includes a ridge protruding upward from a planar extent of the floor panel (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3); and
a support beam (Park et al. 20) disposed at and extending over an upper surface of the floor panel (Park et al. Fig. 1; Park et al. paragraph 0035),
wherein the support beam comprises a metal sheet roll formed (Park et al. paragraph 0037) to have a pair of adjacent tubular members (Park et al. 21/22) that are divided by a lower wall portion (Park et al. 25) of the support beam (Park et al. Fig. 2; Park et al. paragraph 0040),
wherein the support beam comprises a cross-sectional shape (Park et al. Fig. 2) that extends continuously along a linear length of the support beam (Park et al. Figs. 1-2; Park et al. paragraph 0040), and
wherein the lower wall portion is welded to the ridge at the lateral section of the floor panel to arrange the pair of adjacent tubular members on opposing sides of the ridge (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3; Park et al. paragraphs 0039-0040).
Park et al. do not disclose a floor panel comprising a metal sheet.
However, Marquez et al. disclose a metal sheet that form the main structure of a floor panel for a vehicle (Marquez et al. paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the floor panel as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing the thickness of manufacturing parts, therefore reducing the overall weight of a structure (Marquez et al. paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a pair of rocker sections (Park et al. 12) extending longitudinally along outboard edges of the floor panel (Park et al. paragraph 0036), wherein the support beam extends laterally across the floor panel between the pair of rocker sections (Park et al. Fig. 1; Park et al. paragraph 0036), and wherein the support beam defines a lateral load path (Park et al. L1/L2) between the pair of rocker sections (Park et al. paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the metal sheet of the support beam [comprises] an advanced high strength steel with a tensile strength of at least 980 MPa (Park et al. paragraph 0037).
Park et al. do not disclose the support beam comprising martensitic steel.
However, Marquez et al. disclose an ultra-high strength steel support beam of a martensite microstructure with a tensile strength of 1,400-2,000 MPa (Marquez et al. paragraph 0118).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the support beam material properties as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of imparting an optimized maximum strength per weight unit and favorable formability properties during manufacturing (Marquez et al. paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the lower portion is welded to the ridge of the metal sheet forming a tubular shape (Park et al. 21/22) that at least partially encloses a hollow area (Park et al. 23/24) that extends the linear length of the support beam (Park et al. Figs. 1-2; Park et al. paragraphs 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 8, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the pair of adjacent tubular members are disposed horizontally adjacent to each other when spanning across the floor panel (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 2; Park et al. paragraph 0040).
PNG
media_image3.png
379
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the support beam comprises a steel sheet (Park et al. paragraph 0037).
Park et al. do not disclose the support beam comprising martensitic steel with a tensile strength of at least 1,500 MPa.
However, Marquez et al. disclose an ultra-high strength steel support beam of a martensite microstructure with a tensile strength of 1,400-2,000 MPa (Marquez et al. paragraph 0118).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the support beam material properties as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of imparting an optimized maximum strength per weight unit and favorable formability properties during manufacturing (Marquez et al. paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 19, Park et al. disclose a vehicle floor assembly (Park et al. 10) comprising:
a floor panel (Park et al. 11) comprising a ridge protruding upward from a planar extent of the floor panel (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3);
a support beam (Park et al. 20) disposed at and extending over an upper surface of the floor panel (Park et al. Fig. 1; Park et al. paragraph 0035), the support beam comprising a metal sheet roll formed (Park et al. paragraph 0037) to provide a tubular beam (Park et al. 21/22) having a cross-sectional shape (Park et al. Fig. 2) extending continuously along a length of the tubular beam (Park et al. Figs. 1-2; Park et al. paragraph 0040),
wherein the cross-sectional shape of the support beam includes a pair of adjacent tubular members (Park et al. 21/22) that are divided by an upper wall portion (Park et al. 34a/39a) attached to a lower wall portion (Park et al. 31/36) along the tubular beam (Park et al. Figs. 2-3),
wherein a weld (Park et al. 61/62) is disposed at the upper wall portion and extends through the lower wall portion to the ridge of the floor panel and arrange the pair of adjacent tubular members on opposite sides of the ridge (Park et al. Fig. 2; Park et al. paragraphs 0044-0045).
Park et al. do not disclose a floor panel comprising a metal sheet.
However, Marquez et al. disclose a metal sheet that form the main structure of a floor panel for a vehicle (Marquez et al. paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the floor panel as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing the thickness of manufacturing parts, therefore reducing the overall weight of a structure (Marquez et al. paragraph 0059).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 20210170915 A1, in view of Marquez Duran et al. US 20240343311 A1, and further in view of Lee et al. US 20240001992 A1. Marquez Duran et al. will be referred to as Marquez et al. hereinafter.
Regarding claim 4, Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the metal sheet is formed to have a closed cross-sectional shape (Park et al. 23/24; Park et al. Fig. 2; Park et al. paragraph 0037).
Park et al., in view of Marquez, do not disclose an open cross-sectional shape with at least one hat-shaped section that defines an upper wall portion and upright wall portions, on opposing sides of the upper wall portion that interface with the floor panel.
However, Lee et al. disclose a support beam (Lee et al. 431) that has an open cross-section (Lee et al. paragraph 0143) with at least one hat-shaped section that defines an upper wall portion and upright wall portions, on opposing sides of the upper wall portion that interface with the floor panel (Lee et al. paragraphs 0113 and 0125).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., with the support beam cross-section characteristics as taught by Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing a greater impact absorption for high deformation resistance against a potential vehicular collision (Lee et al. paragraph 0129).
Claims 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 20210170915 A1, in view of Marquez Duran et al. US 20240343311 A1, and further in view of Uchida US 20020167200 A1. Marquez Duran et al. will be referred to as Marquez et al. hereinafter.
Regarding claim 11, Park et al. disclose a vehicle floor assembly (Park et al. 10) comprising:
a floor panel (Park et al. 11) comprising a ridge protruding upward from a planar portion of the floor panel (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3);
a pair of rocker members (Park et al. 12) disposed longitudinally along sides of the floor panel (Park et al. paragraph 0036); and
a crossmember (Park et al. 20) coupled to and spanning between the pair of rocker members (Park et al. Fig. 1; Park et al. paragraph 0036), the crossmember comprising a cross-sectional shape (Park et al. Fig. 2) extending continuously along a length of the crossmember (Park et al. Figs. 1-2; Park et al. paragraph 0040),
wherein the cross-sectional shape of the crossmember includes an enclosed tubular shape (Park et al. 21/22) extending along the length and an overlapping region (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3; Park et al. paragraphs 0041-0042) defined by an upper wall portion (Park et al. 33/34a/38/39a) and a lower wall portion (Park et al. 31/25/36) each extending along the length of the crossmember (Park et al. Figs. 1-2; Park et al. paragraph 0040), and
wherein a weld (Park et al. 61/62) is disposed at the upper wall portion and extends through the lower wall portion to the ridge of the floor panel for attaching the crossmember to the floor panel (Park et al. paragraph 0044).
Park et al. do not disclose a floor panel comprising a metal sheet, nor wherein a bottom wall portion of the crossmember contacts the planar portion of the floor panel.
However, Marquez et al. disclose a metal sheet that form the main structure of a floor panel for a vehicle (Marquez et al. paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the floor panel as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing the thickness of manufacturing parts, therefore reducing the overall weight of a structure (Marquez et al. paragraph 0059).
Additionally, Uchida discloses a bottom wall portion (Uchida 24L/25L) of a crossmember (Uchida 20) that contacts a planar portion of a floor panel (Uchida 11) (Uchida Fig. 3; Uchida paragraphs 0036-0037).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of increasing the stiffness of a vehicle body against a potential side impact during a collision (Uchida paragraphs 0003 and 0052).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Park et al., in view of Marquez, and further in view of Uchida, disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the metal sheet comprises an advanced high strength steel with a tensile strength of at least 980 MPa (Park et al. paragraph 0037).
Park et al. do not disclose the crossmember comprising martensitic steel. However, Marquez et al. disclose an ultra-high strength steel support beam of a martensite microstructure with a tensile strength of 1,400-2,000 MPa (Marquez et al. paragraph 0118).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al. with the crossmember material properties as taught by Marquez et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of imparting an optimized maximum strength per weight unit and favorable formability properties during manufacturing (Marquez et al. paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 13, Park et al., in view of Marquez, and further in view of Uchida, disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the metal sheet of the crossmember is formed to have a pair of tubular section members (Park et al. 21/22) extending along the length of the crossmember (Park et al. paragraph 0040) to carry a load path (Park et al. L1/L2) between the pair of rocker members (Park et al. paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 14, Park et al., in view of Marquez, and further in view of Uchida, disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the metal sheet of the crossmember is formed to have a closed cross-sectional shape (Park et al. 23/24; Park et al. Fig. 2; Park et al. paragraph 0037).
Park et al., in view of Marquez, do not disclose an open cross-sectional shape with at least one hat-shaped section that defines the upper wall portion and upright wall portions, on opposing sides of the upper wall portion.
However, Uchida discloses a crossmember (Uchida 15/16) with an open cross-sectional shape with at least one hat-shaped section that defines an upper wall portion and upright wall portions, on opposing sides of the upper wall portion (see annotated Uchida Fig. 9; Uchida paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it 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 to combine the vehicle floor assembly of Park et al., in view of Marquez et al., with the open cross-sectional crossmember shape as taught by Uchida with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of increasing the structural stiffness of the vehicle floor (Uchida paragraph 0011).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Park et al., in view of Marquez, and further in view of Uchida, disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the crossmember comprises a pair of tubular members (Park et al. 21/22) that are divided by the upper and lower wall portions, and wherein the lower wall portion is welded to the ridge to arrange the pair of tubular members on opposing sides of the ridge (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 3; Park et al. paragraphs 0039-0040).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Park et al., in view of Marquez, and further in view of Uchida, disclose the vehicle floor assembly of claim 11, as discussed above,
a second crossmember attached and spanning between the pair of rocker members at a longitudinally spaced distance from the first crossmember (see annotated Park et al. Fig. 1; Park et al. paragraph 0018); and
a seat assembly coupled at and supported by the first and second crossmembers (Park et al. paragraph 0061-0063).
PNG
media_image5.png
362
571
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim et al. US 20170043654 A1 disclose crossmembers with closed cross-section shapes.
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 Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights