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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 6 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6 July 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 September 2024, 17 March 2025, 20 June 2025, 10 February 2026, and 21 July 2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to independent claim 1, this claim sets forth that “a thickness of the aluminum alloy cargo compartment plate is configured to change gradually and form a variable cross-section structure in an up and down direction of the cargo compartment.” The metes and bounds of these limitations cannot be determined. First, it is not clear how much change is necessary to be considered gradual. Second, the phrase “in an up and down direction” is not clear because the claim does not establish how this direction is determined and therefore it is not clear which orientation is utilized in this determination.
For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting these limitations to mean that the thickness changes progressively rather than abruptly and in a direction from one side of the cargo compartment to the other.
As to claims 2-7 and 13-14, these claims depend from claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent claim 1.
As to claim 3, this claim sets forth the phrase “decrease gradually” in the second line of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what would be considered to be a gradual change versus one that is not gradual. For the purposes of examination the Office is construing this to mean that the change is not abrupt.
As to claims 4-7, these claims depend from claim 3 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to claim 3.
As to claims 9-10, these claim set forth the phrase “decrease gradually” in the second line of the claim. The metes and bounds of this particular limitation cannot be determined since it is not clear what would be considered to be a gradual change versus one that is not gradual. For the purposes of examination the Office is construing this to mean that the change is not abrupt.
As to claim 11, this claim depends from claim 10 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, these claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to claim 10.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 203293966 (CN ‘966) in view of CN 104862624 (CN ‘624).
In regards to independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, CN ’966 is directed to a self-unloading carriage. (Line 16) The lightweight design of vehicles is generally based on configuration reduction and material replacement to achieve the purpose of lightweighting but the product design still uses ordinary structure, which forms a bottleneck constraint on the degree of lightweighting. (Lines 34-36) CN ‘966 addresses the problem of the poor lightweight of vehicles in the previous art. (Lines 44-45)
CN ‘966 sets forth a carriage, which includes a front panel assembly, a side panel assembly, a bottom panel assembly, a rear door assembly, a high seat assembly, and a rear door opening and closing assembly. (Lines 49-51)
Figure 1 shows a perspective view of a carriage. (Lines 121) Figure 3 shows a rear panel assembly of a carriage. (Line 129) Figure 4 shows a bottom plate. (Line 133)
PNG
media_image1.png
514
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
421
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The rear door assembly includes a rear panel which is made of a whole piece of steel plate with obliquely symmetrically pressed reinforcement grooves. (Lines 200-201) The rear door side frame is composed of an upper cross beam 16, a side vertical beam 17, and a lower cross beam 18. (Lines 201-202) The cross section of the side vertical beam in the length direction is a variable cross section, which is symmetrical about the center of the rear panel and matches the shape of the reinforcement groove. (Lines 202-204) As shown in the figures, the structure corresponds to the claimed lightweight variable cross-section carriage.
The front plate assembly includes a top plate 11 and a front plate 12. (Line 190) The front plate is made of a steel plate with a horizontal pressed reinforcement groove. (Lines 190-191) The horizontal beam and the vertical beam are welded to the front plate symmetrically about the center of the front plate. (Lines 191-192) The floor panel includes a floor and a floor reinforcement frame. (Lines 208) The floor is a rectangular flat steel plate with a floor reinforcement frame welded on the surface to enhance the strength of the floor assembly. (Lines 208-209)
According to the strength and performance requirements of different parts, the parts are designed with variable cross-section shapes. (Lines 241-245) Weight-reducing holes and unequal thickness sidewall structures can be designed for components and redundant materials can be removed to achieve lightweight and also improve component molding accuracy and material utilization. (Lines 249-251)
This structure corresponds to the claimed structure as set forth in the instant claims.
This shows a thickness of a compartment plate that changes gradually in thickness and has a variable cross-section in an up and down direction of the carbo compartment.
This reference does not set forth that the component is made from aluminum and does not necessarily set forth the variations in thicknesses, e.g. transition zones, as set forth in the instant claims.
In the same field of endeavor of automotive body panels, CN ‘624 is directed to differential thick rolling of high strength aluminum alloys. (Lines 14-15) It was known that the outer body plate is made of steel, but one method of reducing the weight of a steel body is to use a tailored material to create a variety of thicknesses throughout the panel. (Lines 19-20) Aluminum alloy outer panels are also being developed to reduce the vehicle weight. (Lines 20-21) The plates are differentially rolled to form a differentially rolled plate having at least two thickness lengths along its length. (Lines 42-43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized aluminum panels as taught by CN ‘624 within the compartment structure of CN ‘966. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, including utilizing a known material having the variety of thicknesses that allow for the reduction of vehicle weight and while selecting the thickness necessary for the particular conditions that portion of the component would be expected to meet. It is further noted that the changes in thickness would be dependent on the properties necessary for the intended use and the conditions in which that portion would be exposed to, thus the changes in thickness and presence of transition zones would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for these reasons as well.
It is noted that the claims include product-by-process features. These processes do not necessarily inherently result in a product that is patentably distinct from that of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights