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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (10,293,862) in view of Ignes et al. (US 2022/0315110).
Patel et al. discloses a reinforcement member comprising a profile (26), as shown in Figure 2-6. The profile (26) has an axial extension and a perimeter, as shown in Figures 3-6. The profile (26) has a multitude of substantially identical structure improvement parts (30) provided on at least on a section of the perimeter of the profile (26), as shown in Figures 2-6.
In reference to claim 2, the profile (26) is a continuous profile whose cross section does not essentially along its axial extension, as shown in Figures 3-6.
In reference to claim 3, the profile (26) is inherently made from metal since the profile (26) is welded to other structures, as disclosed on lines 33-35 of column 3.
In reference to claim 4, the multitude of structure improvement parts (30) are distributed along the axial length of the profile (26), as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 5, the profile comprises two end sections, as shown in Figure 4. Each end section is provided a structure improvement part (30), as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 6, the reinforcement member comprises a connector (50), as shown in Figures 5a-6 and disclosed on lines 31-40 of column 3.
In reference to claim 7, the structure improvement part (30) comprises a carrier, as broadly claimed. Various items are attached/carried via the structure improvement part (30), such as flange (50), as shown in Figures 5a-6.
In reference to claim 8, the structure improvement part (30) has various functions including an energy absorbing, load path management, and stiffening function, as disclosed on lines 15-28 of column 1.
In reference to claim 9, an automotive part (20) comprises the reinforcement member (26,30), as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
In reference to claim 10, the automotive part (20) is a hollow structure or having a cavity, as shown in Figure 3. The reinforcement member (26,30) is provided in the hollow structure or cavity, as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 11, an axial length of the reinforcement member (26,30) is at least essentially equal to the axial length of the automotive part (20), as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 12, the structure improvement parts (30) are distributed along its axial length, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 13, the structure improvement parts (30) are identical in size and shape, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 14, the automotive part (20) comprises a reinforcement member (26,30) and a structure improvement part (30) at its circumference, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 15, the structure improvement part (30) is a connector (50) that connects two automotive parts (22,26), as shown in Figure 6.
In reference to claim 16, the automotive part (20) is a rocker, as shown in Figure 2.
However, Patel et al. does not disclose the rib structures and the expanding adhesive.
Ignes et al. teaches forming a hollow profile of a reinforcement member (60) with rib structures (64) extending within the hollow body along the axial extension of the hollow profile, as disclosed in paragraph [0034] and shown in Figures 4A and 5A. Expandable adhesive is located on at least a portion of the perimeter (62) of the profile, as disclosed in paragraph [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
Provide rib structures extending within the hollow profile along the axial extension of the hollow profile of Patel et al., as taught by Ignes et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve energy absorption resulting from an impact even while inhibiting bending and/or torsion; and,
Provide expandable adhesive on at least a portion of the profile of Patel et al., as taught by Ignes et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to secure the reinforcement member within the vehicle to prevent vibrations.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 9, in view of Godthi et al. (US 2022/0250565).
Patel et al., as modified, does not disclose an electric vehicle.
Godthi et al. teaches using a rocker (14,16) as part of a battery case of an electric vehicle to protect batteries (22), as shown in Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rocker and reinforcement member of Patel et al., as modified, as part of a battery case of an electric vehicle, as taught by Godthi et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a vehicle that meets crash test standards with minimal emissions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 9, in view of Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041).
Patel et al., as modified, does not disclose the automotive part is a cross member.
Belpaire et al. teaches using a reinforcement member in many different locations, including in a rocker and a cross member, as shown in Figure 1a.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reinforcement member of Patel et al., as modified, in a vehicle cross member, as taught by Belpaire et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a strong yet lightweight cross member to handle various forces while meeting fuel economy objectives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ignes et al. (US 2022/0315110).
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 GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights