DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/12/2026. Examiner further acknowledges the amendments to the Specification and Claims to correct a mistranslation from the original German PCT application. Claims 1-15 have been rejected as follows.
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 1, 3-5, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al (US 2003/0090129) in view of Wu (US 2020/0269925).
Regarding claim 1, Riley et al discloses a system (10, Fig. 1 & 7) of a reinforced structural element (16, Fig. 1 & 7) of a motor vehicle, the system comprising a reinforcement element (12, Fig. 1 & 7), which has a support (12, Fig. 1 & 7) and an expandable material (14, Fig. 1 & 7) arranged thereon; and a structural element (16, Fig. 7), which comprises an upper plate (Fig. 7, see annotated Figure 1 below) and a lower plate (Fig. 7, see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein there is a cavity (Fig. 7, see annotated Figure 1 below) between the plates; wherein the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 7) is arranged in the cavity (Fig. 7) of the structural element (16, Fig. 7), and wherein the structural element is a front roof crossmember (roof header, page 8, claims 4 & 11; roof system, roof crossmembers being included in the roof system, [0033], line 21 & [0043], lines 25-37) of a vehicle body of the motor vehicle ([0043], lines 1-5). However, Riley et al does not explicitly disclose plates that are sheet metal plates forming the hollow structural element cavity of the front roof crossmember.
Wu teaches the use of sheet metal (para. [0032]) to form an elongated structural component of a header cavity (1, Fig. 1 & 5) with an upper part (30, Fig. 5A/B) and lower part (20, Fig. 5A/B) made of thin metal in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle frame structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural element (16, Fig. 7) of Riley et al to be formed of sheet metal material as taught by Wu for the purpose of forming a vehicle front roof crossmember. Though not explicitly disclosed in Riley et al, it is well known to construct hollow structural frame members using sheet metal as a starting point to form any shape desired, as evident by the teachings of Wu.
Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
505
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Riley et al further discloses wherein the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 8-9) is arranged substantially centrally (Fig. 8-9, shown centrally located; [0041], lines 9-19) in the front roof crossmember (roof header, page 8, claims 4 & 11) such that there is a free region (spaces to right & left of 12, Fig. 8-9) in the cavity (16, Fig. 8-9) on both sides of the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 4, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Riley et al further discloses wherein the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 7) has at least one fixing element (18, Fig. 7; [0038], lines 23-24) for positioning the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 7) in the structural element (16, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and Riley et al further discloses wherein the fixing element (18, Fig. 7) is designed as a pin (18, Fig. 7; [0038], lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 11, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Riley et al further discloses wherein the support has at least four longitudinal ribs (Fig. 1 & 8-9, at least 4 longitudinal ribs are shown) and/or at least twelve transverse ribs (Fig. 1 & 8-9, more than 12 transverse ribs are shown).
Regarding claim 15, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Riley et al further discloses wherein the longitudinal ribs are curved (Fig. 1 & 8-9, curved longitudinal ribs) and/or wherein the longitudinal ribs run substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 1 & 8-9, longitudinal ribs run parallel).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al (US 2003/0090129) in view of Wu (US 2020/0269925).
Regarding claim 2, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein a length of the reinforcement element is from 60% to 90% of a length of the front roof crossmember.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Riley et al in view of Wu to have a length of the reinforcement element from 60% to 90% of a length of the front roof crossmember since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Riley et al in view of Wu would not operate differently with the claimed length and since the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 8-9) is intended to reside within the structural element (16, Fig. 8-9) with a free region (Fig. 8-9) on both sides of the reinforcement element (12, Fig. 8-9), the device would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification pg. 3, lines 15-17).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al (US 2003/0090129) in view of Wu (US 2020/0269925) further in view of Roberts et al (US Patent No. 6,413,611).
Regarding claim 6, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 5 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the pin is arranged on a bottom side of the reinforcement element.
Regarding claim 8, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 5 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the reinforcement element has just one pin.
Regarding claim 10, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 5 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the pin has a hole in a region of a pin bottom.
Roberts et al teaches a reinforcing element (16a, Fig. 2-4) for a vehicle crossmember (column 4, line 35) that has a pin fixing element (32, Fig. 2-4) wherein the pin (32, Fig. 2-4; column 6, lines 46-47) is arranged on a bottom side (bottom of 16a, Fig. 2-4) of the reinforcement element (16a, Fig. 2-4; column 6, lines 38-47), the reinforcement element has just one pin (32, Fig. 2-4), and the pin has a hole (see annotated Figure 2 below) in a region of a pin bottom in the analogous field of the claimed invention of reinforcement systems for vehicle structural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pin of Riley et al in view of Wu by incorporating the type of pin as taught by Roberts et al. Doing so would ensure precise alignment and orientation of the reinforcement element within the vehicle structure as well as resisting shearing forces and preventing loosening of the reinforcement element from vibration caused by vehicle movement.
Figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
384
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Riley et al in view of Wu further in view of Roberts et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and Roberts et al further discloses wherein the bottom plate (bottom surface of wall 24 of structural member 14, Fig. 4) has an opening or recess in which the pin (32, Fig. 4; column 6, lines 46-47) engages.
Regarding claim 9, Riley et al in view of Wu further in view of Roberts et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 8 above, and Roberts et al further discloses wherein the pin (32, Fig. 2-4) is arranged in a central region of the reinforcement element (16a, Fig. 2-4).
Claims 2 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley et al (US 2003/0090129) in view of Wu further in view of Takahashi et al (US 7,735,906).
Regarding claim 2, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein a length of the reinforcement element is from 60% to 90% of a length of the front roof crossmember.
Takahashi et al teaches a reinforcement element (92, Fig. 5) wherein a length of the reinforcement element (92, Fig. 5) is from 60% to 90% (column 6, lines 65-67) of a length of the structural element (100, Fig. 5) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of reinforcement systems for vehicle structural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement element of Riley et al in view of Wu by incorporating the length range as explicitly taught by Takahashi et al. Doing so would increase strength of the roof structure, prevent the roof structure from twisting under stress and allow for controlled energy absorption by improved deformation behavior during an impact.
Regarding claim 12, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein longitudinal ribs of the support are thicker than transverse ribs of the support.
Takahashi et al teaches a reinforcement element with a support (10, Fig. 1A-C) in which longitudinal ribs (22, Fig. 1A-C; column 3, lines 18-24) of the support (10, Fig. 1A-C) are thicker than transverse ribs (40, Fig. 1A-C; column 3, lines 8-11) of the support (10, Fig. 1A-C) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of reinforcement systems for vehicle structural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribs of Riley et al in view of Wu by incorporating the relative thicknesses as taught by Takahashi et al. Doing so would enhance the desired degree of reinforcement and the material used for the carrier member (column 4, lines 26-34).
Regarding claim 13, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein less expandable material is arranged on a top side of the reinforcement element than on a bottom side of the reinforcement element.
Regarding claim 14, Riley et al in view of Wu discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Riley et al in view of Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the expandable material on the top side is arranged in two strips, which are bounded by longitudinal ribs and/or wherein the expandable material on the bottom side is arranged in three strips, which are bounded by longitudinal ribs.
Takahashi et al teaches a reinforcement element (92, Fig. 3A-C) with a support (10, Fig. 1A-C) wherein less expandable material (90, Fig. 3A; column 4, lines 44-55) is arranged on a top side of the reinforcement element (92, Fig. 3A) than on a bottom side (90, Fig. 3B) of the reinforcement element (92, Fig. 3B); and wherein the expandable material on the top side is arranged in two strips (90, Fig. 3A), which are bounded by longitudinal ribs and/or wherein the expandable material on the bottom side is arranged in three strips (90, Fig. 3B), which are bounded by longitudinal ribs in the analogous field of the claimed invention of reinforcement systems for vehicle structural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement element of Riley et al in view of Wu by incorporating the amount of expandable material as taught by Takahashi et al. Doing so would provide structural stiffness for improved crash energy management and vibration damping noise reduction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that Riley fails to disclose "front roof crossmember" since the reference discloses “roof headers”. With respect to these arguments, it is old and well known in the art of vehicle body frames that "front roof crossmember" and “roof header” are used interchangeably to describe the structural beam running horizontally across the top of the windshield. Both terms refer to the same physical location on the vehicle frame and function structurally to connect the A-pillars, provide windshield and roof support and crash protection.
On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that Riley fails to disclose “sheet metal plates” and is silent on the material of the frame or rail structures. With respect to these arguments, they 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. It is well known in the art of vehicle body frames to construct hollow structural frame members using sheet metal for the desired benefits of high strength-to-weight efficiency and the ability to form desired shapes, as in forming a hollow cavity. As evidenced, Wu (US 2020/0269925) is relied on for the explicit teaching that sheet metal upper and lower plates forming a cavity are known for use in the construction of front roof crossmember structural elements and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights