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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zierer in view of Nakanishi does not teach the amended claim limitation of “the fastening portions include located on a vehicle width inner side and an outer fastening portion located on a vehicle width outer side, the inner fastening portion is spaced apart from an outer surface of the base portion of the front suspension member and an outer surface of the base portion of the first crash box, and the inner fastening portion and the outer fastening portion are arranged at only two positions diagonally in a cross section of the first crash box.” (italics emphasis-added).
I.
Regarding the locations of the fastening portions relative to the vehicle width inner/outer sides, applicant appears to only present an assertion without providing any specific arguments and/or evidence. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion/argument because the combination of Zierer in view of Nakanishi teaches “located on a vehicle width inner side and an outer fastening portion located on a vehicle width outer side” since Zierer teaches the claimed flange interface in Zierer’s Fig. 1-2 in which the flange interface (Zierer; Fig. 1-2; corresponding connection region 32) is parallel to and/or aligned with the horizontal (left/right or inner/outer) configuration while Nakanishi teaches the two fastening portions at corresponding inner/outer sides (Nakanishi; labeled Fig. 3 in the office action below).
II.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Zierer in view of Nakanishi includes all 8-welds from Nakanishi’s Fig. 3. and thus does not teach “the inner fastening portion and the outer fastening portion are arranged at only two positions”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding the fastening portions being arranged at only two positions, applicant argues that the combination of Zierer in view of Nakanishi includes all 8-welds from Nakanishi’s Fig. 3. This argument is not on point because the 4/1/26 office action only incorporated 2-welds and not all 8-welds (see labeled figure below with cloud-bubbles to indicate the one/sole inner fastening portion and the one-sole outer fastening portion that were incorporated).
PNG
media_image1.png
849
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the combination of Zierer in view of Nakanishi teaches “the inner fastening portion and the outer fastening portion are arranged at only two positions” because only the 2 diagonal welds of Nakanishi are incorporated into Zierer and not all 8-welds.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims are similarly refuted as described above.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zierer et al. US20190256021 in view of Nakanishi US20150061307.
Regarding independent claim 9, Zierer discloses, in Figures 1-3,
A front structure of a vehicle (Zierer; Fig. 1-3), comprising:
a pair of left and right front suspension members (Zierer; longitudinal member 40) that constitute a subframe of a vehicle body (Zierer; Fig. 1-3);
and a pair of left and right first crash boxes (Zierer; crash box 30) respectively connected to front ends of the respective front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1-3),
wherein each of the first crash boxes is connected to the front suspension member so that a front portion of the first crash box is rotationally displaced toward a vehicle width outer side when a collision load is input to the vehicle body due to an offset frontal collision (Zierer; Fig. 3; the front distal end of crash box 30 is rotationally displaced in the outward direction towards the wheelhouse 2 and wheel 4),
the front suspension members and the first crash boxes each includes a base portion and a flange portion, the base portion extending in a vehicle body front-rear direction, the flange portion extending outward from an end portion of the base portion (Zierer; the flange interface between crash box 30 and longitudinal member 40 with the base portion extending away from the flange interface along the x-axis),
each front suspension member and the first crash box connected thereto respectively have the flange portions that are aligned with each other to be fastened by fastening portion (Zierer; crash box 30 is fastened to the longitudinal member 40 at the flange portion by fastening portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
621
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zierer is silent regarding
each front suspension member and the first crash box connected thereto respectively have the flange portions that are aligned with each other to be fastened by fastening portions at a plurality of positions,
the fastening portions include an inner fastening portion located on a vehicle width inner side and an outer fastening portion located on a vehicle width outer side,
the inner fastening portion is spaced apart from an outer surface of the base portion of the front suspension member and an outer surface of the base portion of the first crash box, and
the inner fastening portion and the outer fastening portion are arranged at only two positions diagonally in a cross section of the first crash box.
Nakanishi teaches
each front suspension member and the first crash box connected thereto respectively have the flange portions that are aligned with each other to be fastened by fastening portions at a plurality of positions,
the fastening portions include an inner fastening portion located on a vehicle width inner side and an outer fastening portion located on a vehicle width outer side,
the inner fastening portion is spaced apart from an outer surface of the base portion of the front suspension member and an outer surface of the base portion of the first crash box, and
the inner fastening portion and the outer fastening portion are arranged at only two positions diagonally in a cross section of the first crash box (Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3 below; [0045] “Note that, each reference symbol "x" in FIG. 2 to FIG. 4 indicates a welding area in the case of spot welding.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
894
895
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nakanishi labeled Figure 3.
PNG
media_image5.png
791
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Nakanishi labeled figure incorporating only the two (2) diagonal welds from Nakanishi into Zierer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the fastening means as taught by Zierer with the two (2) spot-weld diagonal fastening means as taught by Nakanishi since both are known elements that obtain the predictable result of providing fastening means that cooperate with crash/crush boxes with a reasonable expectation of success and with no unexpected results (MPEP 2143(I)(B) "Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results").
18713964 applicant’s Fig. 5
Nakanishi Fig. 3
PNG
media_image6.png
596
635
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
791
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the outer fastening portion is arranged on a vehicle width inner side relative to an outer end portion of the base portion of the front suspension member and an outer end portion of the base portion of the first crash box (Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 13, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Claim(s) 10-12, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zierer et al. US20190256021 in view of Nakanishi US20150061307 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sotoyama US20160046250.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 9.
Modified Zierer does not teach a pair of left and right front side members respectively disposed above the front suspension members; a pair of left and right second crash boxes respectively connected to front ends of the front side members; and a pair of left and right bumper reinforcement sides that connects front ends of the first crash boxes and front ends of the second crash boxes on both left and right sides of the vehicle body, respectively.
Sotoyama teaches a pair of left and right front side members (Sotoyama; upper front side members 12; Fig. 1-2 and 4) respectively disposed above the front suspension members (Sotoyama; lower front side members 40); a pair of left and right second crash boxes (Sotoyama; upper crash boxes 14) respectively connected to front ends of the front side members (Sotoyama; Fig. 1-2 and 4); and a pair of left and right bumper reinforcement sides (Sotoyama; coupling plates 44) that connects front ends of the first crash boxes and front ends of the second crash boxes on both left and right sides of the vehicle body, respectively (Sotoyama; Fig. 1-2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the front structure as taught by Modified Zierer to include front side members, a pair of left and right second crash boxes, and a pair of left and right bumper reinforcement sides as taught by Sotoyama for the purpose of distributing the collision load throughout more vehicle body sections (Sotoyama; [0016] load distribution).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein each of the second crash boxes (Sotoyama; upper crash boxes 14) has a shape that expands toward a vehicle width outer side toward front (Sotoyama; sequence of Fig. 7A-7C).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein each of the front suspension members (Zierer; longitudinal member 40) has a base portion that has a front region with an outer side surface having a shape that extends toward front and toward a vehicle width outer side (Zierer; sequence of Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein each of the front suspension members (Zierer; longitudinal member 40) has a base portion that has a front region with an outer side surface having a shape that extends toward front and toward a vehicle width outer side (Zierer; sequence of Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 11, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 12, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Zierer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The front structure of the vehicle according to claim 15, wherein a power plant of the vehicle is disposed on a vehicle width inner side of the front suspension members so as to be adjacent to the front suspension members (Zierer; Fig. 1 and 3; engine unit 8)(Nakanishi; see labeled Figure 3).
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 JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 8/25/26
Prosecution Insights