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 .
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, 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/071410.
Regarding claim 1, and with reference to annotated Fig. 6 below, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
A side sill (102; Fig. 6) for a vehicle, comprising:
a first side sill frame (Fig. 6 below);
a second side sill frame (Fig. 6 below); coupled to the first side sill frame to form a hollow portion together with the first side sill frame (such hollow portion is shown in Fig. 6 below);
a first reinforcing frame (118; Fig. 6 below); disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first side sill frame (by way of tongue 157a (Fig. 4 and 6) at flange (180; Fig 6) of the first sill frame to form a first closed cross-section (Fig. 6); and
a second reinforcing frame (120; Fig. 6) disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first reinforcing frame (at the circled area in Fig. 6 below) to form a second closed cross-section (158; Fig. 6),
wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame include a concavo-convex portion (Fig. 6 below) that is continuously formed in a longitudinal direction of the side sill for a vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, and with reference to annotated Fig. 1 below, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the each of the concavo-convex portions are configured so that a protruding surface (Fig. 1 below) and an insertion surface (Fig. 1 below) are alternately formed in a longitudinal direction (106; Fig. 1) of the side sill, and an inclined surface (Fig. 1 below) is formed between the protruding surface and the insertion surface, and
each of the protruding surface, the insertion surface, and the inclined surface is continuously formed on a width direction-height direction cross-section of the side sill, intersecting a longitudinal direction of the side sill, as shown in Figs. 1 and 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
864
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, and with reference to annotated Fig. 1 above, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 3, as explained above, wherein the protruding surface of the first reinforcing frame overlaps the protruding surface of the second reinforcing frame (Fig. 1 above), and the insertion surface of the first reinforcing frame overlaps the insertion surface of the second reinforcing frame (Fig. 1 above), where the overlapping aspect is shown in annotated Fig 1 above and can be seen by the cross-section shown in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 10, and with reference to annotated Fig. 6 above, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame (Figs. 1 and 6 above) and the second reinforcing frame (Figs. 1 and 6 above) are configured so that an installation width thereof does not decrease (along the length of the sill as shown in Fig. 1 above) in a direction oriented from a second inner surface of the second side sill frame (Fig. 1 above) to a first inner surface of the first side sill frame (Fig. 1 above).
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 0142928.
Regarding claim 1, and with reference to annotated Fig. 3 below, KR 0142928 discloses:
A side sill (Fig. 3) for a vehicle, comprising:
a first side sill frame (11; Fig. 3);
a second side sill frame (12; Fig. 3) coupled to the first side sill frame to form a hollow portion together with the first side sill frame (such hollow portion can be seen in Fig. 3 below);
a first reinforcing frame (13; Fig. 3) disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first side sill frame (at an upper, vertically extending flange thereof) to form a first closed cross-section (as pointed out in Fig. 3 below); and
a second reinforcing frame (15; Fig. 3) disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first reinforcing frame to form a second closed cross-section (as pointed out in Fig. 3 below),
wherein the first reinforcing frame (13) and the second reinforcing frame (15) include a concavo-convex portion (shown in Fig. 3) that is continuously formed in a longitudinal direction of the side sill for a vehicle.
PNG
media_image3.png
573
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, and with reference to annotated Fig. 3 below, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame (13; Fig. 3) and the second reinforcing frame (15; Fig. 3) are configured so that an installation width does not decrease in a direction oriented from a second inner surface of the second side sill frame to a first inner surface of the first side sill frame in that the first and second reinforcing frames extend along the sill (as shown in Fig. 1) so that the “installation width” is constant at least along a portion of the sill. .
Regarding claim 12, and with reference to enlarged annotated Fig. 3 below, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame has a bending point (circled in annotated Fig. 3 above also pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 below) with a shape of protruding outward (as can be seen in Fig. 3 below) from the first closed cross-section (Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1252
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, and with reference to enlarged annotated Fig. 3 below, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 12, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame (13; Fig. 3) comprises:
a first section (pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 directly above) extending toward a first inner surface (pointed out at bottom left corner of annotated Fig. 3 directly above) of the first side sill frame (11; Fig. 3) with the bending point as a boundary; and
a second section(pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 directly above) bent with the bending point as a boundary to extend toward a second inner surface of the second side sill frame (pointed out at the top right corner area of annotated Fig. 3 directly above), and forming a bending angle (labelled as such in annotated Fig. 3 directly above) with the first section in the first closed cross-section (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 directly above).
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/225590.
Regarding claim 1, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 below, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
A side sill (Fig. 2) for a vehicle, comprising:
a first side sill frame (pointed out in Fig. 2 below);
a second side sill frame (pointed out in Fig. 2 below); coupled to the first side sill frame to form a hollow portion together with the first side sill frame, where such hollow portion can be seen in Fig. 2 below;
a first reinforcing frame (pointed out in Fig. 2 below); disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first side sill frame to form a first closed cross-section (as pointed out in Fig. 2 below); and
a second reinforcing frame (pointed out in Fig. 2 below); disposed in the hollow portion and having one side bonded to the first reinforcing frame to form a second closed cross-section (as pointed out in Fig. 2 below),
wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame include a concavo-convex portion (as can be seen in Fig. 2 below) that is continuously formed in a longitudinal direction (as can be seen in Fig. 3) of the side sill for a vehicle.
PNG
media_image5.png
854
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 above, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein at least one of the first side sill frame, the second side sill frame, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame is formed of a steel material. See page 17, lines 1-4.
Regarding claim 10, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 above, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame are configured so that an installation width does not decrease in a direction oriented from a second inner surface of the second side sill frame to a first inner surface of the first side sill frame. Such continuous installation width can be seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 above, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame which are made from steel as disclosed on page 17, lines 1-4. The phrase “formed by bending a single steel sheet in multiple stages” is considered a product by process limitation. In addition, the claimed steel product is the same as the steel product of the prior art reference WO 2020/225590 and:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777.
Regarding claim 12, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 above, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame has a bending point (as circled in annotated Fig. 2 above) with a shape of protruding outward (in a vertical direction as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above) from the first closed cross-section (Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, and with reference to annotated Fig. 2 above, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 12, as explained above, wherein the first reinforcing frame (pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 above) comprises:
a first section (annotated Fig. 2 above) extending toward a first inner surface of the first side sill frame (as can be seen in Fig. 2 above) with the bending point (circled in annotated Fig. 2 above) as a boundary; and
a second section (annotated Fig. 2 above) bent with the bending point as a boundary to extend toward a second inner surface of the second side sill frame (as can be seen in Fig 2 above), and forming a bending angle (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 above) with the first section in the first closed cross-section (in the same manner that the current invention can be defined as such).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/071410 in view of Alwan 9,493,100.
Regarding claim 2, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein at least one of the first side sill frame, the second side sill frame, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame is formed of a steel material.
Nonetheless, Alwan discloses a side sill (27; Fig. 1) having a side sill frame made up of an inner side sill frame member (28; Fig. 1) and an outer side sill frame member (24; Fig. 1) defining a hollow portion therebetween, with a first reinforcing frame (12; Fig. 3A) and a second reinforcing frame (14; Fig. 3b) disposed in the hollow portion. The side sill frame (27; made from “steel”; col. 2, lines 1-3), first reinforcing frame (12; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) and second reinforcing frame (14; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) are all made from steel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alwan reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Alwan reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle side sill constructions, as the WO 2021/071410 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first side sill frame, the second side sill frame, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame of WO 2021/071410 from a steel material as taught by Alwan with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of steel, well known for its strength, to reinforce a side sill helps to prevent unwanted deformation thereof into the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a side impact event.
Regarding claim 11, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame are formed from steel
Nonetheless, Alwan discloses a side sill (27; Fig. 1) with a first reinforcing frame (12; Fig. 3A) and a second reinforcing frame (14; Fig. 3b) disposed therein. The first reinforcing frame (12; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) and second reinforcing frame (14; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) are all both from steel.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame of WO 2021/071410 from a steel material as taught by Alwan with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of steel, well known for its strength, to reinforce a side sill helps to prevent unwanted deformation thereof into the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a side impact event.
In addition, the phrase “formed by bending a single steel sheet in multiple stages” is considered a product by process limitation. In addition, the claimed steel product is the same as the steel product of the prior art reference WO 2021/071410 and:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 0142928 in view of Alwan 9,493,100.
Regarding claim 2, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein at least one of the first side sill frame, the second side sill frame, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame is formed of a steel material.
Nonetheless, Alwan discloses a side sill (27; Fig. 1) having a side sill frame made up of an inner side sill frame member (28; Fig. 1) and an outer side sill frame member (24; Fig. 1) defining a hollow portion therebetween, with a first reinforcing frame (12; Fig. 3A) and a second reinforcing frame (14; Fig. 3b) disposed in the hollow portion. The side sill frame (27; made from “steel”; col. 2, lines 1-3), first reinforcing frame (12; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) and second reinforcing frame (14; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) are all made from steel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Alwan reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Alwan reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle side sill constructions, as the KR 0142928 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first side sill frame, the second side sill frame, the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame of KR 0142928 from a steel material as taught by Alwan with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of steel, well known for its strength, to reinforce a side sill helps to prevent unwanted deformation thereof into the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a side impact event.
Regarding claim 11, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein the first reinforcing frame and the second reinforcing frame are formed from steel
Nonetheless, Alwan discloses a side sill (27; Fig. 1) with a first reinforcing frame (12; Fig. 3A) and a second reinforcing frame (14; Fig. 3b) disposed therein. The first reinforcing frame (12; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) and second reinforcing frame (14; made from “steel”; col. 4 lines 33-35) are all both from steel.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first reinforcing frame, and the second reinforcing frame of KR 0142928 from a steel material as taught by Alwan with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of steel, well known for its strength, to reinforce a side sill helps to prevent unwanted deformation thereof into the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a side impact event.
In addition, the phrase “formed by bending a single steel sheet in multiple stages” is considered a product by process limitation. In addition, the claimed steel product is the same as the steel product of the prior art reference KR 0142928 and:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/071410 .
Regarding claim 9, WO 2021/071410 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 3, as explained above, except for the specific dimensions of the protruding surface (annotated Fig. 1 above) and the insertion surface (annotated Fig. 1 above) have an installation length of 15 to 50 mm in the longitudinal direction of the side sill, and where the inclined surface (annotated Fig. 1 above) is considered to form a step portion of 2 to 10 mm between the protruding surface and the insertion surface.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which 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.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the protruding surface and the insertion surface to have an installation length of 15 to 50 mm in the longitudinal direction of the side sill, and where the inclined surface forms a step portion of 2 to 10 mm between the protruding surface and the insertion surface with a reasonable expectation of success 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” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/225590.
Regarding claim 13, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 12, wherein the first reinforcing frame (pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 above) is formed so that the bending point (pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 above) is spaced apart from a first inner surface of the first side sill frame a distance “A” (illustrated in annotated Fig. 2 above) which is much less than an installation width of the first reinforcing frame illustrated as distance “B” in annotated Fig. 2 above.
However, WO 2020/225590 does not disclose that the distance that the bending point is spaced apart from a first inner surface of the first side sill frame is 30% to 70% of an installation width of the first reinforcing frame.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which 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.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first reinforcing frame of WO 2020/225590 so that the distance that the bending point is spaced apart from a first inner surface of the first side sill frame is 30% to 70% of an installation width of the first reinforcing frame with a reasonable expectation of success 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” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 0142928.
Regarding claim 15, KR 0142928 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 14, as explained above, except wherein the first reinforcing frame is configured so that the bending angle (pointed out in Fig. 3 above) is formed inside the first closed cross-section, and the bending angle has a range of 165 to 175 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which 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.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first reinforcing frame of KR 0142928 to have a bending angle with a range of 165 to 175 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success 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” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/225590.
Regarding claim 15, WO 2020/225590 discloses:
The side sill for a vehicle of claim 14, as explained above, except wherein the first reinforcing frame is configured so that the bending angle (pointed out in Fig. 2 above) is formed inside the first closed cross-section, and the bending angle has a range of 165 to 175 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which 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.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first reinforcing frame of WO 2020/225590to have a bending angle with a range of 165 to 175 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success 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” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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:
The recitation of first and second buffer spaces in claims 5 and 7, respectively, which are formed by the respective protruding surfaces of the respective reinforcing frames being spaced apart from respective inner surfaces of respective side sill frames when the respective inserting surfaces of the respective reinforcing frames are bonded to respective inner surfaces of the respective side sill frames are not shown nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, with respect to WO 2021/071410 which is the only prior art of record which reads on parent claim 3 of claims 5 and 7, the first reinforcing frame (118; Fig. 6) is bonded to the first side sill frame by tongues 157a-c as shown in Figs. 2 and 6 not by the inserting surfaces. Thus, no first buffer space, as recited in claim 5, is created. Also, in WO 2021/071410 the second reinforcing frame (120; Fig. 6) is bonded to the first reinforcing frame (118; Fig. 6) and not to the second inner surface of the second side sill frame. Thus, no second buffer space, as recited in claim 7, is created.
Claims 6 and 8 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least because they depend on claims 5 and 7, respectively which contain allowable subject matter as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR970006062 discloses a sill construction with two internal reinforcements. See Fig. 2
Takashina et al. US 6,409,257 disclose a side sill 4 with two internal reinforcements 5, 6. See Fig. 2.
Kawabe US 2018/0236863 discloses a side sill construction with two internal reinforcements. See Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612