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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 07/02/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the drawings have overcome the objection previously set forth.
Applicant's argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-10 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previously presented prior art rejections of claims 1-10, Applicant argues that Torii fails to disclose a second stiffener covering an inner side of the first stiffener as defined by the newly amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive based on the previously mapped elements of Torii, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Although the amended claims have been further limited, the amended claims still read on the prior art of record. Examiner has reconsidered the prior art reference and updated the mapping of the claimed elements to show a second stiffener covering an inner side of a first stiffener. Therefore, each newly added limitation is taught by the applied references as explained in the updated claim rejections below.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torii (US2014/0339855).
Claim 1. Torii discloses: A vehicle side structure (Fig. 1), comprising:
a pillar, provided on an outer side in a vehicle width direction, extending in a vehicle upper-lower direction, and formed in a hollow structure (2 center pillar, Fig. 1; center pillar is implicitly hollow comprising of inner and outer panels; [0022]);
a first stiffener, disposed inside the pillar and extending in the vehicle upper-lower direction (structure of 3A lower pillar and 3B upper pillar reinforcement, Fig. 2);
a second stiffener, disposed inside the pillar and on a lower side in the vehicle upper-lower direction, and having a length in the vehicle upper-lower direction shorter than that of the first stiffener and covering an inner side of the first stiffener (9 hinge reinforcement, Fig. 4; disposed inside of pillar, lower side of structure 3A and 3B, shorter length than 3A and 3B, and covering an inside of the 3A; Fig. 4); and
a door hinge, bonded to a side surface of the pillar in the vehicle width direction (4 hinge, Fig. 2),
wherein a lower end of the second stiffener in the vehicle upper-lower direction is bonded to the door hinge (9 is coupled to 4 by 6 lower hinge attachment portion, Fig. 4), and the second stiffener extends in the vehicle upper-lower direction to a position above the door hinge (9 extends above 4, Fig. 4).
Claim 10. Torii discloses: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lower end of the second stiffener comprises a lower surface (lower end of 9 at 7 upper fragile portion, Fig. 4), and
the lower surface is formed to be bent toward an inner side of the pillar (lower end of 9 is bent toward the inner side of 3A at 7, 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.
Claims 2-3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US2014/0339855) in view of Ishigame et al. (US8,366,183).
Claim 2. Torii disclose: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
a first door beam, extending in a vehicle front-rear direction (10 door impact beam, Fig. 1) and connected with the door hinge (10 is coupled to 4, Fig. 2).
Torii does not disclose: a second door beam, extending in the vehicle front-rear direction, and bonded to the side surface of the pillar in the vehicle width direction at a position below the door hinge in the vehicle upper-lower direction,
wherein, from a viewing perspective in the vehicle width direction, the second door beam is away from or partially overlapped with the lower end of the second stiffener.
Ishigame discloses reinforcing members for a front door of a vehicle.
Ishigame teaches: a second door beam, extending in the vehicle front-rear direction (45 Impact bar, Fig. 2), and bonded to the side surface of the pillar in the vehicle width direction at a position below the door hinge in the vehicle upper-lower direction (rearward end of 45 will be coupled to the lower structure of the pillar at a position below 41 hinge, Fig, 2)
wherein, from a viewing perspective in the vehicle width direction, the second door beam is away from or partially overlapped with the lower end of the second stiffener (rearward end is away from the lower structure of the pillar (i.e. and structure of 3A of Torii), Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a second door beam wherein the position of the rearward end of the door beam positioned under the hinge, and include an oblong strip in the upper end of the pillar stiffener as taught by Ishigame with a reasonable expectation of success in order transmit collision impact load to the pillar as taught by Ishigame (Col. 13, line 48-60).
Claim 3. Torii in view of Ishigame teach: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein an upper part of the first stiffener extends in the vehicle upper-lower direction to a roof rail extending in the vehicle front-rear direction (Torii: structure of 3B couples to roof side rail, [0023]), and
a lower part of the first stiffener extends in the vehicle upper-lower direction to a position below the second door beam (Torii: structure of 3A couples to rocker, [0023]).
Claim 7. Torii in view of Ishigame teach: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein an upper strip (Ishigame: vertical oblong strip in 23 upper portion of 13 pillar reinforcement as shown in Fig. 7), is formed on a side surface of the first stiffener in the vehicle width direction, and
the upper strip is disposed above the second stiffener in the vehicle upper-lower direction and extends in the vehicle upper-lower direction (Ishigame: vertical oblong strip extends in upper-lower direction and is above 24 lower section of 13 pillar reinforcement as shown in Fig. 7).
Claim 8. Torii in view of Ishigame teach: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first stiffener comprises a flange part, the flange part is disposed above the second stiffener in the vehicle upper-lower direction, and extends in the vehicle front-rear direction (Torii: 3C flange of structure of 3B, Fig. 1),
the pillar comprises a pillar inner member (Ishigame: 12 pillar inner panel, Fig. 3) and a pillar outer member (Ishigame: 11 pillar outer panel, Fig. 3), and
the flange part is bonded to the pillar inner member and the pillar outer member (Ishigame :flanges of 13 pillar reinforcement wherein 13 comprises of 23 and 24; Fig. 3).
Torii is silent on the assembly of the pillar reinforcement to the pillar. Ishigame teaches the assembly, therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have bonded the pillar reinforcement to the pillar inner and panels of Torii by utilizing the flange as taught by Ishigame with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assembly the components as taught by Ishigame (Fig. 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US20140339855) in view of Ishigame et al. (US8,366,183) and further in view of Baiju et al. (US11,554,814).
Claim 9. Torii in view of Ishigame teach: The vehicle side structure as claimed in claim 1.
Torri in view of Ishigame does not teach: wherein a side surface of the pillar in the vehicle width direction comprises an insertion hole, and the insertion hole is formed above the door hinge in the vehicle upper-lower and the second stiffener extends to a position above the insertion hole in the vehicle upper-lower direction.
Baiju discloses a plurality of holes in the pillar to provide inflow and discharge of electrodeposition liquid for the pillar.
Baiju teaches: a side surface of the pillar in the vehicle width direction comprises an insertion hole (plurality of 71 holes in 45 inner pillar panel, Fig. 5), and the insertion hole is formed above the door hinge in the vehicle upper-lower (71 holes would be implicitly formed in the pillar above the hinge, Fig. 5).
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 pillar of Torii in view of Ishigame by including a plurality of holes along the length of the pillar as taught by Baiju with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have flow passages for the electrodeposition fluid as taught by Baiju (Col. 18, lines 43-46).
Regarding the limitation: the second stiffener extends to a position above the insertion hole in the vehicle upper-lower direction, Torii in view of Ishigame and further in view of Baiju is silent on insertion holes below the second stiffener. However, as Baiju teaches a plurality of holes along the length of the pillar therefore, 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 holes in the pillar of Torii in view of Ishigame and further in view of Baiju by including a hole below the upper end of the second stiffener of Torri in view of Ishigame with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have flow passages for the electrodeposition fluid as taught by Baiju (Col. 18, lines 43-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Conclusion
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights