DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 7/10/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS), alone.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 1: Winkler discloses a swept beam configured for a vehicle body structure (Fig. 1; title; [0010]). Winkler discloses the swept beam comprising a tube profile having a curved shape along its longitudinal length (Figs. 1-4; [0010], [0020]). Winkler doses not explicitly disclose that the curved shape defines a compression side and an opposite tension side or that a flange extends integrally from the tube profile along a compression side of the curved shape. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that the Winkler configuration comprises a curved shape defining a compression side and an opposite tension side and that a flange extends integrally from the tube profile along the compression side of the curved shape (i.e. same shape as illustrated in the instant invention). As both Winkler and the drawings of the instant application teach a substantially similar tube profile having a curved shape and as it is known in the arts that a curved tube would have a compression side (concave side) and a tension side (convex side), it would have been within routine skill to have understood that the geometric and mechanical configuration of a tube shaped to have a curved profile would have a compression side and a tension side opposite the compression side. Such an understanding and such a configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Winkler discloses a flange 6 extending integrally from the tube profile along a compression side of the curved shape (Figs. 1-3; [0027]). Winkler discloses the flange having a wave edge opposite the tube profile (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2: Winkler discloses a metal sheet forming the tube profile and the flange ([0001]-[0002], [0004]).
Regarding claim 9: Winkler discloses that the flange comprises a flange length, the wave edge comprising a depth between 50% and 80% of the flange length (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Winkler discloses a swept beam configured for a vehicle body structure (Fig. 1; title; [0010]). Winkler discloses a structural portion having at least a first wall and a second wall angled relative to each other along a longitudinal length of the structural portion, the structural portion having a curved shape at least partially along the longitudinal length( Figs. 1-4; [0010], [0020]). Winkler doses not explicitly disclose that the curved shape defines a compression side and an opposite tension side or that a flange extending integrally from the structural portion along the compression side of the curved shape. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that the Winkler configuration comprises a curved shape defining a compression side and an opposite tension side and that a flange extends integrally from the tube profile along the compression side of the curved shape (i.e. same shape as illustrated in the instant invention). As both Winkler and the drawings of the instant application teach a substantially similar tube profile having a curved shape and as it is known in the arts that a curved tube would have a compression side (concave side) and a tension side (convex side), it would have been within routine skill to have understood that the geometric and mechanical configuration of a tube shaped to have a curved profile would have a compression side and a tension side opposite the compression side. Such an understanding and such a configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results. Winkler discloses the flange 6 having a wave edge opposite the structural portion (Fig. 1). Winkler discloses that the structural portion and the flange are formed from a sheet material ([0001]-[0002], [0004]).
Regarding claim 12: Winkler discloses that the structural portion comprises a tube profile along the longitudinal length having a hollow area (see above; Figs. 1-4 – hollow member).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS), as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Himsl et al. (US 20020040525).
Winkler discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 3: Winkler does not explicitly disclose that the metal sheet comprises an ultra-high strength steel sheet roll-formed to form the tube profile. Himsl discloses that a swept beam can be formed from a metal sheet that comprises an ultra-high strength steel sheet roll-formed to form the tube profile ([0006], [0033]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Winkler so that the metal sheet comprises an ultra-high strength steel sheet roll-formed to form the tube profile as taught by Himsl. As both Winkler and Himsl are directed to a swept beam for a vehicle body structure, as Winkler teaches that the beam sheet can be metal, as Winkler is silent naming the exact metals and thus does not preclude steel, and as Himsl explicitly teaches that the metal sheet comprises an ultra-high strength steel sheet roll-formed to form the tube profile, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material bearing a desired strength from a finite selection of beam forming materials (i.e. aluminum or steel having a desired strength). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11: Winkler, as modified by Himsl, discloses that the sheet material is an ultra-high strength steel (see above; [0006], [0033]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS) and Himsl et al. (US 20020040525), as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Joyce et al. (US 20170151603).
Winkler and Himsl disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 4: Winkler, as modified by Himsl, does not explicitly disclose that the wave edge is defined by a series of repeating curves formed along an edge of the metal sheet. Joyce discloses that the wave edge is defined by a series of repeating curves formed along an edge of the metal sheet (Figs. 2, 3; [0029]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Winkler, as modified by Himsl, so that the wave edge is defined by a series of repeating curves formed along an edge of the metal sheet as taught by Joyce. As Winkler, Himsl, and Joyce are directed to a swept beam for a vehicle body structure, as Winkler teaches a wave ridge, as Winkler and Himsl are silent regarding the wave shape, and as Joyce explicitly teaches that that the wave edge is defined by a series of repeating curves formed along an edge of the metal sheet, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired end shape from a finite selection of known swept beam shapes (i.e. straight, curves, repeated curves or waves). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Joyce et al. (US 20170151603).
Winkler and Joyce disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 5: Winkler does not explicitly disclose that the wave edge comprises a sinusoidal wave shape. Joyce discloses that the wave edge comprises a sinusoidal wave shape (Figs. 3, 4). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Winkler so that the wave edge comprises a sinusoidal wave shape as taught by Joyce. As Winkler and Joyce are directed to a swept beam for a vehicle body structure, as Winkler teaches a wave ridge, as Winkler is silent regarding the wave shape, and as Joyce explicitly teaches that the wave edge comprises a sinusoidal wave shape, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired end shape from a finite selection of known swept beam shapes (i.e. straight, curves, repeated curves, or sinusoidal curves/waves). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Winkler, as modified by Joyce, discloses that the wave edge is defined by a series of repeating curves (Joyce - see above; Figs. 2, 3; [0029]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renzzulla et al. (US 20030038489).
Winkler discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 6: Winkler does not explicitly disclose that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 2°. Renzzulla discloses preventing buckling deformation ([0079] – no deformation is less than 2°). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Winkler so that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 2° as taught by Renzzulla. As both Winkler and Renzzulla are directed to a swept beam for a vehicle body structure, as Winkler is silent regarding the amount of buckling deformation, and as Renzzulla explicitly teaches a buckling deformation of less than 2°, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material and manufacturing process to control the buckling deformation from a finite selection of beam forming operations (i.e. determining the allowable buckling deformation). Such a simple configuration and selection would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7: Winkler, as modified by Renzzulla, discloses that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 0.5 mm (Renzzulla - [0079] – no deformation is less than 0.5 mm).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS) and Joyce et al. (US 20170151603), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Renzzulla et al. (US 20030038489).
Winkler, Joyce, and Renzzulla disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 14: Winkler, as modified by Joyce, does not explicitly disclose that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 2°. Renzzulla discloses preventing buckling deformation ([0079] – no deformation is less than 2°). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Winkler, as modified by Joyce, so that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 2° as taught by Renzzulla. As Winkler, Joyce, and Renzzulla are directed to a swept beam for a vehicle body structure, as Winkler, as modified by Joyce, is silent regarding the amount of buckling deformation, and as Renzzulla explicitly teaches a buckling deformation of less than 2°, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material and manufacturing process to control the buckling deformation from a finite selection of beam forming operations (i.e. determining the allowable buckling deformation). Such a simple configuration and selection would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15: Winkler, as modified by Joyce and Renzzulla, discloses that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 0.5 mm (see above; Renzzulla - [0079] – no deformation is less than 0.5 mm).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (US 20230096529) in view of Winkler (EP 1382518 – see IDS) and in view of Renzzulla et al. (US 20030038489).
Winkler, Joyce, and Renzzulla disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Cites pertaining to Winkler are from the Espace translation found in the Notice of References Cited.
Regarding claim 18: Hernandez discloses a vehicle body structure 10 comprising an A-pillar 22a, a roof rail; and a swept beam extending between the A-pillar and the roof rail 24 (Fig. 1; [0026], [0027] – the examiner finds that the swept beam is the unnumbered curved section extending between 22a and 24). Hernandez is silent regarding the construction of the swept beam, the A-pillar, and the roof rail and thus does not explicitly disclose that the swept beam comprises a tube profile having a curved shape and defining a compression side and an opposite tension side, a flange extending integrally from the compression side of the tube profile, and the flange having a wave edge opposite the tube profile and exhibiting a minimum of buckling. Winkler discloses the swept beam comprises a tube profile (see above; Figs. 1-4; [0010], [0020] – hollow member – e.g. tube profile). Winkler discloses a flange 6 extending integrally from the tube profile (see above; Figs. 1-3; [0027]). Walker discloses the flange having a wave edge opposite the tube profile (see above; Fig.1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Hernandez so that the swept beam comprises a tube profile, a flange extending integrally from the tube profile, and the flange having a wave edge opposite the tube profile as taught by Winkler. As both Hernandez and Winkler are directed to a vehicle body structure, as Hernandez teaches a swept beam but is silent regarding the construction details, as swept beams and vehicle side roof structures are well known in the art, and as Winkler explicitly teaches the construction details of a swept beam, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired swept beam having a desired configuration from a finite selection of swept beam configurations (i.e. closed tube or other sheet formed configuration). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Hernandez, as modified by Winkler, does not explicitly disclose that the tube profile has a curved shape and defines a compression side and an opposite tension side or that the flange extends integrally from the compression side of the tube profile. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to understand that the Hernandez, as modified by Winkler, configuration (see Winkler) comprises a curved shape defining a compression side and an opposite tension side and that a flange extends integrally from the tube profile along the compression side of the curved shape (i.e. same shape as illustrated in the instant invention). As Hernandez, as modified by Winkler (see Winkler) and the drawings of the instant application teach a substantially similar tube profile having a curved shape, and as it is known in the arts that a curved tube would have a compression side (concave side) and a tension side (convex side), it would have been within routine skill to have understood that the geometric and mechanical configuration of a tube shaped to have a curved profile would have a compression side and a tension side opposite the compression side. Such an understanding and such a configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Hernandez, as modified by Winkler, does not explicitly disclose that the flange exhibits a minimum of buckling. Renzzulla discloses preventing buckling deformation (see above; [0079]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Hernandez, as modified by Winkler, so that the flange has a minimum of buckling as taught by Renzzulla. As Hernandez, Winkler, and Renzzulla are all directed to a vehicle body structure, as Hernandez and Winkler are silent regarding the amount of buckling, and as Renzzulla explicitly teaches preventing buckling deformation, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material and manufacturing process to control the buckling deformation from a finite selection of beam forming operations (i.e. an operation determining the allowable buckling deformation). Such a simple configuration and selection would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19: Hernandez, as modified by Winkler and Renzzulla, discloses that the flange has a minimum of buckling deformation of less than 2° (see above; Renzzulla - [0079] – no deformation is less than 2°).
Regarding claim 20: Hernandez, as modified by Winkler and Renzzulla, discloses the swept beam comprises a metal sheet forming the tube profile and the flange, and that the metal sheet comprises an ultra-high strength steel sheet roll-formed to form the tube profile (see above; Winkler Figs. 1-4; Renzzulla – abstr.; [0002], [0008] (roll-formed and ultra-high strength)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Vehicle body structures including vehicle roof structures, and swept beam structures are well known in the arts. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Joyce et al. (US 20170151603), Hernandez et al. (US 20230096529), Himsl et al. (US 20020040525), Renzzulla et al. (US 20030038489), Joyce et al. (US 8998307), Oxley et al. (US 20220212720), Toyota (JP 2008114728 – see IDS), Audi (EP 1382518 – see IDS). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle, a vehicle A-pillars, roof rails, a swept beam, and the swept beam having a tube profile and an integral flange with a wave edge and exhibiting a minimum of buckling. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited structural components of the flange when combined with the swept beam recitations. Specifically, the art does not disclose some of the specific flange edge geometry and its relationship to the swept beam and structural integrity of the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, steps, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 1-20 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection..
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights