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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 8/27/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 18/816,350 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 2:
Applicant has used a capital letter in the middle of the claim.
Claim 19 recites “vertical to the the longitudinal direction of the vehicle”. One of the “the” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/816,483 (reference application) in view of Park (US 20230339546 A1). Claim 8 of the reference application recites all the structures of claim 1 except for the “the crash box at a front end of the front side member”. Claim 1 of the reference patent recites the structure of claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the below table:
Instant Application
Application No. 18/816,483
Claim 1: A body of a vehicle comprising: a front side member comprising a crash box at a front end of the front side member, wherein the front side member is configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle; a shock absorber housing disposed between the front end and a rear end of the front side member and connected to the front side member; and a pillar connected to the rear end of the front side member, wherein the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar are molded integrally with each other, and first horizontal ribs and first vertical ribs are formed to cross each other at the front end to create spaces, wherein the first horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and wherein the first vertical ribs are vertical to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
Claim 1: A body of a vehicle comprising: a front side member extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle; a shock absorber housing disposed between front and rear ends of the front side member and connected to the front side member; and a pillar connected to the rear end of the front side member, wherein the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar are molded integrally with each other.
Claim 8: The body of claim 1, wherein one or more selected from a group, comprising the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar, comprise horizontal ribs and vertical ribs formed to cross each other to create spaces, wherein the horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and wherein the vertical ribs are vertical to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
Application No. 18/816,483 fails to teach a crash box at a front end of the front side member. However, Park teaches a crash box (15a, Fig. 1) at a front end of the front side member (12, Fig. 1). 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 a front side member by Application No. 18/816,483 to include a crash box at a front end of the front side member by Park with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to absorb impact from a frontal collision.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230339546 A1) in view of Saje (US 20150001884 A1) and in further view of Yang (CN 114104118 A).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a body of a vehicle comprising: a front side member (Park, 12, Fig. 1) comprising a crash box (Park, 15a, Fig. 1) at a front end of the front side member (Park, 10), wherein the front side member (Park, 12) is configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Park, as shown in Fig. 1); a shock absorber housing (Park, 4, Fig. 1) disposed between the front end and a rear end of the front side member and connected to the front side member (Park, 12); and a pillar (Park, 11, Fig. 1) connected to the rear end of the front side member (Park, 12)
Park fails to teach the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar are molded integrally with each other, first horizontal ribs and first vertical ribs are formed to cross each other at the front end to create spaces, wherein the first horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and wherein the first vertical ribs are vertical to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Saje teaches it’s known to integrally mold a plurality of components together.
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to configure molded integrally with each other as disclosed by Saje with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to ease in manufacturing with less parts to assemble.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mold integrally with each other, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
However, Yang discloses first horizontal ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) and first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are formed to cross each other at the front end to create spaces, wherein the first horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are vertical to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4).
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to include first horizontal and first vertical ribs as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to minimize the impact energy transmitted to the front side member by allowing the impact energy to evenly disperse of a frontal collision.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the first horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) and first vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) are configured to face an outer side of the vehicle (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the first horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) are configured to locate horizontal sections of a portion of the first horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) on a same level as horizontal sections of the front side member (the combination of the front side member of Park (12) would be configured to be on the same level as the horizontal ribs of Yang to be placed behind Park (12)).
Regarding claim 4, Park the front end of the front side member (Park, 12, Fig. 1) comprises a crash box mounting part (Park, shown below in annotated Fig. 1) to which the crash box (Park, 15a, Fig. 1) is configured to be coupled.
PNG
media_image3.png
655
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the crash box mounting part (Park, shown above in annotated Fig. 1).
Park fails to teach the first horizontal ribs and the first vertical ribs. Yang discloses the first horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) and the first vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) are configured to be behind the crash box mounting part.
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 crash box mounting part as disclosed by Park to configure the first horizontal ribs and the first vertical ribs as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of crash boxes which minimizes the impact energy transmitted to the front side member.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the front end of the front side member (Park, 12) comprises a connection bracket (Park, see above annotated Fig. 1) to which a front end portion of a fender apron member (Park, 3, as shown above in Fig. 1) is configured to be connected.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the front end portion of the fender apron member (Park, 3, Fig. 1) is configured to be connected to a first end of the connection bracket (Park, as shown above in annotated Fig. 1), and a second end of the connection bracket (Park, as shown above in annotated Fig. 1).
Park fails to teach the first vertical ribs. Yang discloses the first vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) formed at the front end portion of the front side member (the combination of the front side member of Park (12) would be configured the vertical ribs of Yang to be formed at the front end portion of the front side member of Park (12)).
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 second end of the connection bracket as disclosed by Park to combine the first vertical ribs to configure to be on the same level of the second end of the connection bracket formed at the front end portion of the front side member as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of crash boxes which minimizes the impact energy transmitted to the front side member.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the front end of the front side member (Park, 12, as shown above in Fig. 1) comprises a crossbar mounting part (Park, see below annotated Fig. 1) to which a crossbar (Park, 12c, Fig. 1) for connecting a pair of front side members (Park, 12) is configured to be mounted.
PNG
media_image4.png
546
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses the crossbar mounting part (Park, see above annotated Fig. 1) is configured to extend in a transverse direction of the vehicle and is configured to be open at one surface (Park, as shown in Fig. 1 where the crossbar mounting part is configured to be open in a transverse direction of the vehicle),
Park fails to teach a portion of surfaces constituting the crossbar mounting part is configured to be on a same level as a portion of the first horizontal ribs or a portion of the first vertical ribs formed at the front end of the front side member.
However, Yang discloses the first horizontal ribs (Yang, as shown above in annotated Fig. 4) or a portion of the first vertical ribs (Yang, as shown above in annotated Fig. 4) formed at the front end of the front side member (the combination of the front side member of Park (12) would be configured the vertical ribs of Yang to be formed at the front end portion of the front side member of Park (12)). 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 crossbar mounting part as disclosed by Park to combine the first horizontal ribs or a portion of the first vertical ribs formed at the front end portion of the front side member as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of crash boxes which minimizes the impact energy transmitted to the front side member.
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses second horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) and second vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) formed to cross each other to create spaces (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses second horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) are configured to create spaces toward an outside space of the vehicle by extending from the first horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses the spaces created by the second horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) and the second vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) crossing each other are configured to face an inside space or an outside space of the vehicle (Yang, as shown above in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Yang discloses comprise diagonal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4), wherein the diagonal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) are configured to pass through cross points of the second horizontal ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4) and the second vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4), to partition the spaces created by the second horizontal ribs and the second vertical ribs (Yang, shown above in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses vehicle comprising: a front side member (Park, 12) comprising a crash box (Park, 15a) at a front end of the front side member (Park, 12), wherein the front side member (Park, 12) is configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Park, as shown in Fig. 1); a shock absorber housing (Park, 4) disposed between the front end and a rear end of the front side member and connected to the front side member (Park, 12); and a pillar (Park, 11) connected to the rear end of the front side member (Park, 12), and wherein the spaces are configured to be deformed upon receiving a load to the crash box (Park, 15a) such that crash impact to the vehicle is reduced
Park fails to teach the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar are molded integrally with each other and first horizontal ribs and first vertical ribs are formed to cross each other at the front end to create spaces.
However, Saje teaches it’s known to integrally mold a plurality of components together.
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to configure molded integrally with each other as disclosed by Saje with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to ease in manufacturing with less parts to assemble.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mold integrally with each other, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
However, Yang discloses first horizontal ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) and first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are formed to cross each other at the front end to create spaces, wherein the first horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are vertical to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Yang, as shown in Fig. 4).
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to include first horizontal and first vertical ribs as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to minimize the impact energy transmitted to the front side member by allowing the impact energy to evenly disperse of a frontal collision.
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses a method for manufacturing a body of a vehicle, the method comprising: forming a front side member (Park, 12) comprising a crash box (Park, 15a) at a front end of the front side member (Park, 12), wherein the front side member (Park, 12) is configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Park, as shown in Fig. 1); a shock absorber housing (Park, 4) disposed between the front end and a rear end of the front side member and connected to the front side member (Park, 12); and a pillar (Park, 11) connected to the rear end of the front side member (Park, 12)
Park fails to teach the front side member, the shock absorber housing, and the pillar are molded integrally with each other; and creating spaces by forming first horizontal ribs and first vertical ribs to cross each other at the front end, wherein the first horizontal ribs are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and wherein the first vertical ribs are vertical to the the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
However, Saje teaches it’s known to integrally mold a plurality of components together.
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to configure molded integrally with each other as disclosed by Saje with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to ease in manufacturing with less parts to assemble.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mold integrally with each other, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
However, Yang discloses creating spaces by forming first horizontal ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) and first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) to cross each other at the front end, wherein the first horizontal ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and wherein the first vertical ribs (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4) are vertical to the the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Yang, annotated in Fig. 4).
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park to include first horizontal and first vertical ribs as disclosed by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to minimize the impact energy transmitted to the front side member by allowing the impact energy to evenly disperse of a frontal collision.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230339546 A1) in view of Yang (CN 114104118 A) and in further view of Saje (US 20150001884 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20220048570 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Yang and further view of Saje discloses the front end of the front side member (Park, 12)
Park fails to teach a sub-frame mounting part to which a sub-frame is configured to be coupled.
However, Kim discloses a sub-frame mounting part (Kim, 20, Fig. 1) to which a sub-frame is configured to be coupled (Kim, Para. [0075]).
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park in view of Yang and in further view of Saje to include a sub-frame mounting part as disclosed by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to reducing harsh vibration and noise transmitted to the front side member.
PNG
media_image5.png
566
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Yang discloses the first vertical ribs (Yang, as shown above in annotated Fig. 4) formed at the front end of the front side member (Park, 12) except the sub-frame mounting part. However, Kim discloses the sub-frame mounting part (Kim, 20, Fig. 1).
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park in view of Yang and in further view of Saje to include a sub-frame mounting part as disclosed by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to reducing harsh vibration and noise transmitted to the front side member.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230339546 A1) in view of Yang (CN 114104118 A) and in further view of Saje (US 20150001884 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mochidome (US 20030075952 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Park in view of Yang and in further view of Saje discloses a front side member.
Park fails to teach a structure of a back beam.
However, Mochidome discloses a structure of a back beam (Mochidome, 32, Fig. 4) connected to the crash box (Mochidome, 39d, Fig. 4) so that an object that has collided with a front portion of the vehicle to obliquely pass the vehicle. (Depending on the angle of the object strikes the front portion of the vehicle, the object is capable of obliquely passing the vehicle. The limitation is being treated as an intended use limitation based on a series of variables.)
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 a front side member as disclosed by Park in view of Yang and in further view of Saje to include a structure of a back beam with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to minimize the impact energy transmitted to the front side member.
PNG
media_image6.png
635
914
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Mochidome discloses angle of deformation of a back beam (Mochidome, 32, Fig. 4) connected to the crash box (Mochidome, 39d, Fig. 4) is set so that an object colliding with a front portion of the vehicle is caused to pass the vehicle at an angle that is not perpendicular (Depending on the angle of the object strikes the front portion of the vehicle, the object is capable of passing the vehicle at angle that is not perpendicular. The limitation is being treated as an intended use limitation based on a series of variables.)
Regarding claim 20, Mochidome discloses setting an angle of deformation of a back beam (Mochidome, 32, Fig. 4) connected to the crash box (Mochidome, 39d, Fig. 4) so that an object colliding with a front portion of the vehicle is caused to pass the vehicle at an angle that is not perpendicular (Depending on the angle of the object strikes the front portion of the vehicle, the object is capable of passing the vehicle at angle that is not perpendicular. The limitation is being treated as an intended use limitation based on a series of variables.)
PNG
media_image7.png
650
931
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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 R 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.
/Alma D. Schuster/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights