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 Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 25, lines 1-2, “wherein a lower window frame cross member” should be changed to --wherein the at least two bows include a lower window frame cross member--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-19, 21-26, and 29-31 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "a tailored welded blank material" and “a one-piece sheet metal component” in lines 4 and 7 respectively. It is unclear if the one-piece sheet metal component is meant to be “formed” from the tailored welded blank material or if referring to something separate. For examination purposes, the claim is being examined as though the one-piece sheet metal component is formed from the tailored welded blank material.
Claims 18-19, 21-26, and 29-31 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
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 17-19 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0097549) in view of Saeki (US 2004/0195863), Elfwing et al. (US 2014/0191536), and Fujimoto et al. (US 2021/0354248).
Regarding claim 17, Fischer et al. discloses a window or roof frame of an automobile (Fig. 2) comprising: at least two bows ((7), (10)), (Fig. 2); a tailored welded blank material having adjacent regions that are interconnected by laser welds (paragraph [0013], laser welded blanks); and at least two longitudinal members ((8), (9)), wherein the window or roof frame is a one-piece sheet metal component (Fig. 2, paragraph [0025]) having different wall thicknesses or tensile strengths Rm (Fig. 4, paragraph [0027] teaches differences in the wall thickness), an entirety of the window or roof frame is coated with an aluminum-silicon coating configured as scale protection (paragraph [0011] teaches a coating of 90% aluminum and 10% silicon).
Fischer et al. does not explicitly disclose at least two bows running transversely relative to a direction of travel of the automobile; the tailored welded blank is butt-jointed; the tensile strengths Rm differs by at least 10% between different tensile strengths Rm, and the at least two longitudinal members and bows, in cross-section, are U-shaped or V-shaped or hat-shaped.
Saeki, like Fischer et al., teaches window or roof frame of an automobile, and further teaches at least two bows running transversely relative to a direction of travel of the automobile (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orientation of the frame concept of Fischer et al. to have the at least two bows running transversely relative to the direction of travel of the automobile as taught by Saeki, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Fischer et al. states that the one-piece construction helps to simplify manufacturing of a frame which would be beneficial to any frame positioned around the automobile (Fischer et al.: paragraph [0008]).
Elfwing et al., like Fischer et al., teaches a frame of an automobile, and further teaches using the tailored blank process, and wherein the tensile strengths Rm differ by at least 10% (paragraphs [0037] and [0038] teach the hard/soft differences being 1300 MPa/800 MPa, which provides more than a 10% difference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Fischer et al. as modified by Saeki to have the tensile strengths Rm differ by at least 10% as taught by Elfwing et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide lightweight metals when harder strength is not required, thereby decreasing the overall weight of the automobile, which reduces costs, etc.
Fujimoto et al., like Fischer et al., teaches a frame of an automobile and further teaches using a tailored welded blank material wherein the tailored welded blank is butt-jointed (abstract), and the at least two longitudinal members and bows, in cross-section, are U-shaped or V-shaped or hat-shaped (Fig. 11, paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the cross-section of the frame of Fischer et al. modified by Saeki and Elfwing et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for space if patch reinforcements are necessary (Fujimoto et al.: paragraph [0191]).
Regarding claim 18, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches (references to Saeki) wherein the window or roof frame comprises a lower bow, an upper bow, and two A-pillars (Figs. 2 and 7 show a lower bow (7), upper bow (6), and two A-pillars (5).
Regarding claim 19, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches (references to Saeki) wherein the window or roof frame comprises a front bow (7), and at least one middle or rear bow (6), and longitudinal roof members (5) positioned lateral to each other and running in a longitudinal direction (X) of the automobile (both (5) run in the longitudinal direction of the automobile).
Regarding claim 21, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches (references to Fujimoto et al.) the frame is a hot formed and press-hardened component (title and paragraph [0098] teach the frame is a hot formed and press-hardened component).
Regarding claim 22, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches (references to Elfwing et al.) wherein the tensile strength of a high strength region is greater than or equal to 1350 MPa (paragraph [0038] teaches 1300 MPa or more).
Elfwing et al. does not explicitly teach greater than or equal to 1350 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. to increase the minimum tensile strength of the high strength region for safety purposes. Further, it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 23, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches (references to Elfwing et al.) wherein a region is formed as a soft region which is defined as a tensile strength less than 1000 MPa (paragraph [0037] teaches a tensile strength of 800 MPa or lower).
Elfwing et al. does not explicitly teach the region of the at least two longitudinal members is in a longitudinal direction (X) of the automobile behind a B-pillar. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. to position the soft region along areas that do not require as much tensile strength, such as behind a B-pillar along a roof section.
Regarding claim 24, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 19, and teaches (references to Saeki) wherein the longitudinal roof members extend in the longitudinal direction (X) of the automobile behind a B-pillar (Figs. 9 and 15 show a less shaded portion behind the B-pillar which indicates a soft region).
Regarding claim 25, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17, and teaches wherein a lower window frame cross member (7).
Regarding claim 26, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 25, and teaches wherein the lower window frame cross member has a tensile strength Rm of less than 1000 MPa (Saeki: Fig. 7 shows the cross member as having a soft region, Elfwing et al: paragraph [0037] teaches the soft region having a tensile strength of 800 MPa or lower).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0097549) in view of Saeki (US 2004/0195863), Elfwing et al. (US 2014/0191536), and Fujimoto et al. (US 2021/0354248) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (DE 102021101094) and Wolkersdorfer (US 7467821).
Regarding claim 29, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. teaches the frame of claim 17 and teaches wherein a reinforcing patch is applied at least locally (Fujimoto et al.: paragraph [0191]) and the reinforcing of corners of the frame are provided (Saeki: Fig. 7 shows higher tensile strength at the corners of the frame).
However, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the reinforcing patch is applied between a roof bow and an A-pillar, and wherein the reinforcing patch is L-shaped or T-shaped.
Wagner et al., like Fischer et al., a reinforcing patch is applied at least locally, in a node region between a roof bow and A-pillar, bow and longitudinal roof member running in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (as best understood with respect to the 112b rejection, paragraph [0032] of the machine translation teaches that tailored blank or patches can be used to reinforce regions of a piece of sheet metal, therefore, patches can be placed similarly at this corners as an option to increase the reinforcement or in place of a formal tailored blank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., and Fujimoto et al. to include a reinforcement patch as taught by Wagner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provided additional thickness at a transition section to better reinforce a section that may need it, or to provide additional reinforcement at sections that require additional strength than what is provided in the high strength sections.
Wagner et al. does not specify the exact shape of the reinforcement patch.
Wolkersdorfer, like Saeki, teaches a frame for an automobile, and further teaches a reinforcement portion that has an L-shape to it (Fig. 2, (19), col. 3, lines 7-14, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., Fujimoto et al., and Wagner et al. to include a reinforcement patch that has an L-shape so that it lies in form with the rest of the frame so it is not in the way of any additional processes.
Regarding claim 30, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., Fujimoto et al., Wagner et al., and Wolkerdorfer teaches the frame of claim 29 and teaches (references to Wagner et al.) a reinforcing patch is applied between a roof bow and A-pillar (paragraph [0032] of the machine translation teaches that tailored blank or patches can be used to reinforce regions of a piece of sheet metal, therefore, patches can be placed similarly at this corners as an option to increase the reinforcement).
Regarding claim 31, Fischer et al. modified by Saeki, Elfwing et al., Fujimoto et al., Wagner et al., and Wolkerdorfer teaches the frame of claim 29 and teaches (references to Wagner et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the reinforcing patch is applied in the longitudinal direction (X) of the automobile in the longitudinal roof member (paragraph [0032] of the machine translation teaches that tailored blank or patches can be used to reinforce regions of a piece of sheet metal, therefore, patches can be placed such as where (52) is in Fig 7 of Saeki or any other area along (5)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kerscher et al. (US 2019/0352734), Naitou et al. (US 2016/0010171), Sikora et al. (WO 2011/023499), Pohl et al. (US 2014/0144973), Lanzerath (US 2014/0193659), and Mollick et al. (US 2007/0228777) teach TWB methods.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights