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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/14/26. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ono.
For claim 1, 7, Ono (12296767) discloses a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body including a frame; and
a side sill (structural member 1) coupled to the frame (vehicle body, implicit) and including a first plate (110) and a second plate (120) arranged contacting the first plate and defining a cavity therebetween,
a first reinforcement structure (210) arranged inside the cavity of the side sill and including a plurality of first segments arrayed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each first segment includes a plurality of first cones arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a plurality of first bridges interconnecting the plurality of first cones, and
a second reinforcement structure (220) coupled to the first reinforcement structure and arranged inside the cavity, the second reinforcement structure includes a plurality of second segments arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle with each second segment including a plurality of second cones arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a plurality of second bridges interconnecting the plurality of second cones,
wherein the plurality of first cones is arranged facing the plurality of second cones and engaged with the plurality of second cones,
the first reinforcement structure and the second reinforcement structure are made of material including resin (Col 7, line 30), and
each of the plurality of second cones define a pair of legs (forming either side of the cone) configured to be correspondingly aligned with a frame of the vehicle and a connecting member extending from the frame to direct an impact load to the frame away from a battery compartment of the vehicle.
An apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. See MPEP section 2114 (“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function… Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does,” citing In re Schrieber 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schrieber 128 F.3d 1478 (quoting In re Swinehart).
For claims 2, 8, each of the plurality of first cones includes a base and a wall adapted to extend in a lateral direction of the vehicle (FIGS.1-2).
For claims 3, 9, each of the plurality of second cones includes a base and a wall adapted to extend in a lateral direction of the vehicle in a direction away from the first cone arranged facing the second cone.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, as applied above, in view of Park et al. (12623724).
For claims 6 and 13, Ono discloses the first and second reinforcement structures are made of resin but fails to specify fiber reinforced resin, as taught by Park et al. which discusses in particular carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) as an advantageous material (Col 4, lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the first and second resin structures of Ono to be fiber reinforced as taught by Park et al. because CFRP is relatively light and has high strength, such that the modification with Park et al. would further strengthen the reinforcement structures of Ono against deformation.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2024/0294210) in view of Ono (12296767).
For claim 1, 7, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body (implicit) including a frame; and a side sill (110) coupled to the frame (implicit),
the side sill (110) including a first plate (114) and a second plate (115) arranged contacting the first plate and defining a cavity therebetween,
a first reinforcement structure (130) arranged inside the cavity of the side sill and including a plurality of first segments arrayed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle,
each first segment includes a plurality of first cones arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a plurality of first bridges interconnecting the plurality of first cones, and
a second reinforcement structure (140) coupled to the first reinforcement structure and arranged inside the cavity, the second reinforcement structure includes a plurality of second segments arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle with each second segment including a plurality of second cones arrayed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and a plurality of second bridges interconnecting the plurality of second cones,
PNG
media_image2.png
423
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
323
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
629
761
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
302
326
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of first cones is arranged facing the plurality of second cones and engaged with the plurality of second cones; and
each of the plurality of second cones define a pair of legs (forming either side of the cone) configured to be correspondingly aligned with a frame of the vehicle and a connecting member extending from the frame to direct an impact load to the frame away from a battery compartment of the vehicle.
An apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. See MPEP section 2114 (“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function… Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does,” citing In re Schrieber 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schrieber 128 F.3d 1478 (quoting In re Swinehart).
For claims 2, 8, each of the plurality of first cones includes a base and a wall adapted to extend in a lateral direction of the vehicle (FIGS.1-2).
For claims 3, 9, each of the plurality of second cones includes a base and a wall adapted to extend in a lateral direction of the vehicle in a direction away from the first cone arranged facing the second cone.
For claims 4, 10, further comprising a panel (120) extending between the first reinforcement structure and the second reinforcement structure and separating the first reinforcement structure from the second reinforcement structure.
For claim 12, the panel (120) is engaged to the first plate (114) and the second plate (115) and divides the cavity into a first chamber (112) and a second chamber (113),
wherein the first reinforcement structure (130) is arranged inside the first chamber (112) and the second reinforcement structure (140) is disposed inside the second chamber (113).
For claims 5, 11, the panel (120) is engaged with the plurality of first cones and the plurality of second cones.
Lee fails to disclose the first reinforcement structure and the second reinforcement structure made of material including resin, a feature taught by Ono at Col 7, line 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the reinforcing structures of Lee from resin as taught by Ono as an obvious material alternative in order to decrease vehicle weight. It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2024/0294210) in view of JP 2017-226353 (JP 353), JP 6826490 (JP 490), and Ono (12296767).
For claims 14-19, Lee discloses all of the limitations of the claim as set forth above and further provides each of the plurality of second cones define a pair of legs. For claim 14 see the rejection of claims 1 and 7; for claim 15, see the rejection of claims 2 and 8; for claim 16, see the rejection of claims 3 and 9; for claim 17, see the rejection of claims 4 and 10; for claim 18, see the rejection of claims 5 and 11; and for claim 19, see the rejection of claim 12.
Lee, however, fails to include the specifics of the vehicle body defining an underbody structure with a battery compartment; a connecting member extending obliquely from the frame towards the side sill, and the specifics of the pair of legs correspondingly aligned with the frame and the connecting member.
JP 353 teaches a vehicle body including a frame and defining an underbody structure with a battery compartment (14,19) (FIGS. 1, 5, 10-11).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
666
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
488
633
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Like Lee, JP 353 further provides a side sill (3B, 3c) coupled to the frame;
the side sill including a first plate (31B,FIG.10) and a second plate (32B or 32C) arranged contacting the first plate and defining a cavity therebetween, and
a reinforcement structure (34B1,B2,FIG.10; or 34C, FIG.11) arranged inside the cavity of the side sill. Each reinforcing structure as seen in cross section can be considered a cone.
JP 353 further teaches a cone having a pair of legs (FIGS.10-11) where the legs are aligned, respectively, with the frame as seen in FIG.5 such that an impact load (F, FIG.5) to the frame is directed from the upper leg (see “Fa”) to the frame.
PNG
media_image8.png
433
677
media_image8.png
Greyscale
JP 353 does not disclose a connecting member, a feature taught by JP 490.
JP 6826490 (JP 490) specifically teaches a connecting member as seen in FIGs.5 and 16.
The connecting member (111, FIG.5) extends obliquely from the frame towards the side sill. The connecting member allows a from (F1) applied to the side sill to be partially distributed along the connecting member (111) as seen with “F3” away from the battery compartment.
PNG
media_image9.png
645
896
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the reinforcing structures of Lee in a vehicle configuration as taught by JP 353 and with an obliquely extending connecting member as taught by JP 490 in order to allow the reinforcing structure to protect the battery compartment from damage should a side impact occur.
Ono teaches the desirability of using resin for a reinforcement structure (Col 7, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the reinforcing structures of Lee, as modified, from resin as taught by Ono as an obvious material alternative in order to decrease vehicle weight. It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Son et al. (11535298) disclose (FIG.5, prior art) a floor panel (131) aligned with a leg.
PNG
media_image10.png
418
669
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Kawabe et al. (10464406) discloses a side sill configuration.
PNG
media_image11.png
464
625
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Tsuyuzaki et al. (2019/0359048) (below, LEFT) disclose a connecting member (63) extending obliquely and Tsuyuzaki et al. (20198/0359260) (below, RIGHT) likewise shows an obliquely extending member (66).
PNG
media_image12.png
505
662
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
403
412
media_image13.png
Greyscale
US Patent 12097755 discloses another sill configuration.
PNG
media_image14.png
437
447
media_image14.png
Greyscale
JP2023-56569 disclose an obliquely extending member engaged with a side sill.
PNG
media_image15.png
597
625
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Saeki (2013/0026786) and JP 5375886 teach an oblique member (46(42)) extending from the frame (24) to the sill (18).
PNG
media_image16.png
318
560
media_image16.png
Greyscale
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available; 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights