CTNF 18/609,236 CTNF 95999 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 3/19/2024 has been considered as noted and is included in the file. Please note a full copy of each foreign filed document must be submitted. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because specific limitations “a reinforcing structure”, “a first space”, and “inner surface” have been recited in the claims that are not labeled in the Figures . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites purported merits. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: limitations “a reinforcing structure”, “a first space”, and “inner surface” have not been provided with reference numbers . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are 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. Claims 1 and 9 recite “a first rail reinforcement” starting at line 4 and “a reinforcing structure” starting at line 7 as separate limitations, which is misrepresentative of the disclosed invention. The first rail reinforcement is a part of the reinforcing structure. Therefore, for examination purposes, the claim will be read as a reinforcing structure comprising a first rail reinforcement in addition to the other limitations listed in the claim. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 5696883, machine translation attached) in view of Mori (US 2014/0333092) . Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a vehicle body comprising: first and second side sills (2), wherein the first side sill has a first entry hole configured to allow a first rail unit for a first sliding door to enter a first inner side of the vehicle body (paragraph [0025] of the machine translation, Figs. 1-2 show a rail panel (10) of the first rail unit inside a first entry hole of the outer side sill portion (5)); a first rail reinforcement (12) protruding inward relative to the first side sill (Figs. 1-2 show (12) protruding inward relative to the first side sill (2)), the first rail reinforcement being shaped and configured to block the first rail unit at the first inner side of the vehicle body adjacent to the first entry hole (Fig. 1, positioned just inside the first side sill at the location of the first entry hole providing reinforcement of that zone); and a reinforcing structure in which the first rail reinforcement (12) is connected to a member (14) crossing the vehicle body from side to side, and to the side of the first entry hole (Fig. 1), the reinforcing structure being configured to reinforce a first side surface of the vehicle body (paragraph [0001] of the machine translation). Nakamura does not disclose a second cross member on the other side of the first entry hole. Mori, like Nakamura, teaches a vehicle body, and further teaches cross members ((4),(5)) in front of and behind the first reinforcement (paragraph [0019], Fig. 1, (50)). 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 vehicle body of Nakamura to include a second cross member at the side of the first reinforcement as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide enhanced rigidity and reduce weight (Mori: paragraph [0020]). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza , 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding an additional cross member would provide additional reinforcement as expected. Regarding claim 2, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 1, and teaches (references to Nakamura) wherein a first space is formed between the first rail reinforcement (12) and the first entry hole (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the first space being configured to receive the first rail unit therein, and wherein two ends of the first rail reinforcement are fixed to the first inner surface of the first side sill (see annotated Fig. 2 below). PNG media_image1.png 476 632 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 2 of Nakamura Regarding claim 3, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 1, and teaches (references to Mori) wherein the reinforcing structure is formed in a rectangular shape between first and second side sills (paragraph [0054]), wherein the first and second side sills are left and right side sills (paragraph [0054]). Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses a vehicle body comprising: first and second side sills (2), wherein the first side sill has a first entry hole configured to allow a first rail unit for a first sliding door to enter a first inner side of the vehicle body (paragraph [0025] of the machine translation, Figs. 1-2 show a rail panel (10) of the first rail unit inside a first entry hole of the outer side sill portion (5)); a first rail reinforcement (12) protruding inward relative to the first side sill (Figs. 1-2 show (12) protruding inward relative to the first side sill (2)), the first rail reinforcement being shaped and configured to block the first rail unit at the first inner side of the vehicle body adjacent to the first entry hole (Fig. 1, positioned just inside the first side sill at the location of the first entry hole providing reinforcement of that zone); a reinforcing structure in which the first rail reinforcement (12) is connected to a member (14) crossing the vehicle body from side to side and to the side of the first entry hole (Fig. 1), the reinforcing structure being configured to reinforce a first side surface of the vehicle body (paragraph [0001] of the machine translation); and a first side sill reinforcement (9) having a corrugated cross-section shape and is fixed to the first side sill (Fig. 2). Nakamura does not disclose a second cross member on the other side of the first entry hole. Mori, like Nakamura, teaches a vehicle body, and further teaches cross members ((4),(5)) in front of and behind the first reinforcement (paragraph [0019], Fig. 1, (50)). 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 vehicle body of Nakamura to include a second cross member at the side of the first reinforcement as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide enhanced rigidity and reduce weight (Mori: paragraph [0020]). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza , 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding an additional cross member would provide additional reinforcement as expected. Regarding claim 12, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 9, and teaches (references to Nakamura) wherein the first entry hole is in an upper part of a sidewall of the first side sill (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and further comprising a first connecting reinforcement (11) fixed on a lower part of the sidewall of the first side sill below the first entry hole (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 9, and teaches (references to Nakamura) wherein the first side sill reinforcement (9) has a “W” shaped cross-section (Fig. 3 shows a “W” shape cross-section for (9)) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 5696883, machine translation attached) in view of Mori (US 2014/0333092) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinoda et al. (EP2060474) . Regarding claim 4, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 1, and teaches (references to Mori) wherein the reinforcing structure comprises: crossmembers connected between the first and second side sills at front and rear sides of the first rail reinforcement, respectively (Fig. 1). Nakamura as modified by Mori does not explicitly teach crossmember extensions formed from the crossmembers toward the first rail reinforcement and fixed to inner surfaces of the side sills. Shinoda et al., like Nakamura, teaches a vehicle body and further teaches crossmember extensions (11) formed from the crossmembers ((7), (9)) toward the first rail reinforcement and fixed to inner surfaces of the side sills (Fig. 8). 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 vehicle body of Nakamura as modifed by Mori to include crossmember extensions as taught by Shinoda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to connect the crossmembers and provide a closed section with the side sills to reduce the breaking of components (Shinoda et al.: paragraph [0029]). Regarding claim 5, Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. teaches the vehicle body of claim 4, and teaches wherein the crossmember extensions are connected to the first rail reinforcement (In the combination, the crossmember extensions of Shinoda et al. would connect to the first rail reinforcement as well completing the closed section). Regarding claim 6, Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. teaches the vehicle body of claim 4, and teaches (references to Shinoda et al.) the crossmember extensions are longitudinally connected to multiple crossmembers (Fig. 8). Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. does not explicitly teach wherein multiple crossmembers are connected to each of the front and rear sides of the first rail reinforcement. 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 vehicle body of Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. to have additional crossmembers added to the area in order to increase the reinforcement at a weakened zone. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza , 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding additional cross members would provide additional reinforcement as expected. Regarding claim 16, Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. teaches the vehicle body of claim 4, and teaches (references to Nakamura) the vehicle body further comprising a first support reinforcement (13A) connected between the first rail reinforcement and the crossmembers (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Nakamura as modified by Mori and Shinoda et al. teaches the vehicle body of claim 16, and teaches (references to Nakamura) wherein a first end and a rear end of the first support reinforcement are connected to a front crossmember and a rear crossmember, respectively, and a side end of the first support reinforcement is connected to an inner side of the first rail reinforcement (Fig. 1 shows the positioning along one crossmember, and in the combination, would also be along the second crossmember) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 5696883, machine translation attached) in view of Mori (US 2014/0333092) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Honda et al. (US 2012/0119546) . Regarding claim 10, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 9. However, Nakamura as modified by Mori does not explicitly teach wherein in the corrugated cross-section shape of the first side sill reinforcement has an upper convex portion adjacent to a lower convex portion, and wherein the upper convex portion is larger than the lower convex portion. Honda et al., like Nakamura, teaches a vehicle body, and further teaches wherein in the corrugated cross-section shape of the first side sill reinforcement has an upper convex portion adjacent to a lower convex portion, and wherein the upper convex portion is larger than the lower convex portion (Fig. 5 shows a larger upper convex portion over the lower convex portion). 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 vehicle body of Nakamura as modified by Mori to modify the shape of the first side sill reinforcement with an upper convex portion larger than a lower convex portion as taught by Honda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, dependent upon the desired support for the side sill related to impact and weak points within the side sill. Regarding claim 11, Nakamura as modified by Mori teaches the vehicle body of claim 9. However, Nakamura as modified by Mori does not explicitly teach wherein in the corrugated cross-section shape of the first side sill reinforcement has an upper convex portion adjacent to a lower convex portion, and wherein the upper convex portion protrudes further outward from the vehicle body than the lower convex portion. Honda et al., like Nakamura, teaches a vehicle body, and further teaches wherein in the corrugated cross-section shape of the first side sill reinforcement has an upper convex portion adjacent to a lower convex portion, and wherein the upper convex portion protrudes further outward from the vehicle body than the lower convex portion (Fig. 5 shows a larger upper convex portion over the lower convex portion, and further outward (towards outer side (12)). 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 vehicle body of Nakamura as modified by Mori to modify the shape of the first side sill reinforcement with an upper convex portion protrudes further outward from the vehicle body than a lower convex portion as taught by Honda et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, dependent upon the desired support for the side sill related to impact and weak points within the side sill . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7-8, 13-14, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although the references of record show features similar to those of Applicant’s vehicle body of claims 708, 13-14, and 18-20, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the combination of these dependent limitations along with the other limitations in the claims . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. An (US 2022/0032757) teaches a battery equipped vehicle body having a sliding portion. Saiki et al. (US 2022/0289005) teaches a sliding door structure. Kawata (DE 102018124174) teaches a side sill for a sliding door vehicle. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 2 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 3 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 4 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 5 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 6 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 7 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 8 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 9 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 10 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 11 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 12 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 13 Art Unit: 3643 Application/Control Number: 18/609,236 Page 14 Art Unit: 3643
Prosecution Insights