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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recited “at least one under-door side member”. Claim 5, which depend from claims 1 and 4 recites “each under-door side member”. There is no antecedent basis for “each under-door side member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: claim 4, which depend from claim 1, recites “a first longitudinal recess facing the first longitudinal recess of the other under-door side member”. However, claim 1 recites “at least one longitudinal recess” and “at least one under-door side member”. Therefore, “the first longitudinal recess” and “the other under-door side member” are unclear. in other words, what is a first recess facing a first recess?. Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6: claim 6 recites “an IPE beam”. Upon review of the specification, the “IPE” has not been defined. Therefore, examiner is unclear what is required by “an IPE beam”. For examination purposes, it would be assumed to be any generic beam.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by L.L. Bishop (U.S. 1,654,033).
Regarding claim 1, L.L. Bishop discloses a car (10, fig. 1) comprising a passenger compartment (see annotated fig. 1 below); two access doors (see annotated fig. 1 below. The second door is on the opposite side of the car) to access the passenger compartment (as shown); and a support frame (16), which defines a lower floor (17) of the car and comprises, in turn, two under-door side members (“running board 12”; refer to col. 1, lines 35-40; the second being on the opposite side), each mounted under a relative access door (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) and comprising a section bar (32, fig. 4; 27, 35, fig. 5) with an elongated shape (as shown in figs. 4-5), which is longitudinally delimited by two end faces (upper and lower ends of 32, fig. 4 and 27, 35, fig. 5) and is laterally delimited by an outer surface (outside body of 32, fig. 4 and 27, 35, fig. 5); and
characterized in that at least one under-door side member (12) comprises at least one longitudinal recess (“grooved longitudinally as at 20”; refer to col. 1, lines 46-50), which opens outwards in the area of said outer surface (as shown in fig. 5) and houses, on the inside, at least one electrical wiring (37; see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, L.L. Bishop discloses wherein each under-door side member (12) comprises at least one longitudinal recess (“grooved longitudinally as at 20”; refer to col. 1, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 5, L.L. Bishop discloses wherein each under-door side member (12) comprises a second longitudinal recess (38) opposite the relative first longitudinal recess (20).
Regarding claim 6, L.L. Bishop discloses wherein the section bar (32, fig. 4; 27, 35, fig. 5) of each under-door side member has the shape of an IPE beam (as shown in figs. 4-5. Also see the 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 10, L.L. Bishop discloses wherein each longitudinal recess (20) has a depth that is such as to house, on the inside, at least one electrical wiring (37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-9 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.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ching et al. (U.S. 2022/0306002A1), Meszaros et al. (U.S. 10,814,790 B2), Smith (U.S. 2020/0062183A1), and Barbuta (U.S. 10,518,727B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672