CTNF 18/818,845 CTNF 101551 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 2. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 3. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 4. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudden (US 5301997 A) in view of Jung et al. (US 20240190519 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Cudden teaches “A joint structure of a vehicle body, the vehicle body (10; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) comprising a front body module (14; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) fixed to an under body (17; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) and a rear body module (36; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) that is detachably coupled (28; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) to the front body module along a front to rear direction of the vehicle body, the joint structure (28; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) comprising: a joint unit disposed in a rear portion of the front body module (24; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) and a front portion of the rear body module (Cudden Col 6 Lines 23-27) , respectively; a fixed part sealing flange (34; Cudden Annotated Fig 3 )… , a fixed part center pillar assembly (As seen in Cudden Annotated Fig 3) , and a fixed part floor assembly (As seen in Cudden Annotated Fig 3) respectively connected to the rear portion of the front body module to mount a fixed part inner sealing member (Cudden Col 6 Lines 30-41); and a variable part sealing flange (Cudden Col 6 Lines 23-41) …, a variable part center pillar assembly (As seen in Cudden Annotated Fig 3) , and a variable part floor assembly (Cudden Col 6 Lines 23-27) respectively connected to the front portion of the rear body module to mount a variable part inner sealing member (Cudden Col 6 Lines 23-41) .” Cudden fails to teach fixed and variable roof rails. However, Jung et al. a fixed roof rail assembly (23; Jung et al. Fig 6) with seal (29; Fig 6) and variable roof rail assembly (53; Jung et al. Fig 6 ) with seal (52; Fig 6). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the roof rails assemblies of Jung et al. with the joint structure of Cudden with a reasonable expectation of success for a joint structure vehicle with more storage space. PNG media_image1.png 502 746 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 11, Cudden teaches the joint structure vehicle body (10; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) . Cudden fails to teach fixed module roof rails and a roof panel, as well as a variable roof rail and a roof cover panel. However, Jung et al. teaches “the fixed part roof rail assembly (23; Jung et al. Fig 6) comprises a fixed part roof rail (23; Jung et al. Fig 6) connected to a fixed part roof panel (25; Jung et al. Fig 6) and a fixed part roof cover (25a; Jung et al. Fig 6) connected to the fixed part roof panel and the fixed part roof rail; and the variable part roof rail assembly (53; Jung et al. Fig 6) comprises a variable part roof rail (53; Jung et al. Fig 6) connected with a variable part roof panel (57; Jung et al. Fig 6) , a variable part rail extension member (55; Jung et al. Fig 6) connected with the variable part roof rail, and a variable part roof cover (57a; Jung et al. Fig 6) connected with the variable part roof panel and the variable part rail extension member.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the roof rails assemblies of Jung et al. with the joint structure of Cudden with a reasonable expectation of success for a joint structure vehicle with more storage space. In reference to claim 13, Cudden teaches the joint structure vehicle body (10; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) and a fixed module center pillar assembly (As seen in Cudden Annotated Fig 3) , as well as a variable module center pillar assembly (As seen in Cudden Annotated Fig 3) . Cudden fails to teach the center pillar and cover of the variable a fixed modules. However, Jung et al. teaches “…a fixed part center pillar (11; Jung et al. Fig 3) and a fixed part pillar cover (17; Jung et al. Fig 3) connected to the fixed part center pillar…[and] a variable part center pillar (41; Jung et al. Fig 3) and a variable part pillar cover (47; Jung et al. Fig 3) connected to the variable part center pillar.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the center pillar assemblies of Jung et al. with the joint structure of Cudden with a reasonable expectation of success for a joint structure vehicle better configured to prevent foreign object intrusion and fluid entering the cabin . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 6. Claim s 1-9 and 18-20 allowed. Regarding claim 1, Cudden teaches “A joint structure of a vehicle body (10; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) , the vehicle body comprising a front body module (14; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) fixed to an under body (17; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) and a rear body module (36; Cudden Fig Annotated 3) that is detachably coupled (28; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) to the front body module along a front to rear direction of the vehicle body...” Cudden fails to teach the joint structure, as described in claim 1 of the pending application. While Desaki et al. (US 20200385064 A1) teaches a striker and latch mechanism to join a roof panel and vehicle frame pillars, the art is not analogous to multi-module vehicle body structures, thus combining them would require impermissible hindsight. Therefore, claim 1 and its subsequent dependent claims are allowable subject matter. With respect to claim 18, Cudden teaches “A joint structure of a vehicle body (10; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) , the vehicle body comprising a front body module (14; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) fixed to an under body (17; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) and a rear body module (36; Cudden Fig Annotated 3) that is detachably coupled (28; Cudden Annotated Fig 3) to the front body module along a front to rear direction of the vehicle body...” Cudden fails to teach the joint structure, fixed and variable roof rail assemblies, as described in claim 18 of the pending application. While Desaki et al. (US 20200385064 A1) teaches a striker and latch mechanism to join a roof panel and vehicle frame pillars, the art is not analogous to multi-module vehicle body structures, thus combining them would require impermissible hindsight. Therefore, claim 18 and its subsequent dependent claims are allowable subject matter. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 7. Claim s 12 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cudden and Jung et al., as described in claim 11, teaches a sealing flange (Cudden Col 6 Lines 30-41) , a fixed module roof cover (25; Jung et al. Fig 6) and a variable module roof cover (57a; Jung et al. Fig 6) . The combination of references does not teach that the sealing flanges are disposed on their respective module roof covers. There is no other art that could be taken individually or in combination with Cudden to meet the limitations of fixed module roof rails and a roof panel, variable module roof rails and a roof panel, with flanges disposed on the outer cover panels and seals. Therefore, claim 12 is objected to due to dependence on rejected claim 11. With respect to claim 14, the combination of Cudden and Jung et al., as described in claim 11, teaches a sealing flange (Cudden Col 6 Lines 30-41) , a fixed part center pillar cover (17; Jung et al. Fig 3) and a variable part center pillar cover (47; Jung et al. Fig 3) . The combination of references does not teach that the sealing flanges are disposed on their respective module center pillar covers. There is no other art that could be taken individually or in combination with Cudden to meet the limitations of fixed module center pillar covers, with flanges disposed on the outer cover panels and seals. Therefore, claim 14 is objected to due to dependence on rejected claim 13. In reference to claim 15, there is no multi-module vehicle structure that can be taken in combination with Cudden in view of Jung et al. to achieve the limitations to described in claim 15. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are objected to due to dependence on rejected claim 10. Pertaining to claim 17, there is no multi-module vehicle structure that can be taken in combination with Cudden in view of Jung et al. to achieve the limitations to described in claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is objected to due to dependence on rejected claim 10. Conclusion 07-96 AIA 8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bonfilio et al. (US-4422685-A) discloses a vehicle structure with a plurality of structural modules. Bonfilio et al. (US-4676545-A) discloses a vehicle structure with a plurality of structural modules. Although, in many embodiments, a module could only be used when others where not actively installed. Huang et al. (US-6896319-B1) discloses a vehicle structure with a plurality of structural modules. Kim et al. (US-20220205290-A1) teaches a striker and latch to combine two body panels. However, the feature does not directly pertain to the joining of a plurality of vehicle body modules and can not be combined with Cudden without destroying the art. 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.. 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 5712705500. 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. /D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612 /AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 2 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 3 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 4 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 5 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 6 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 7 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 8 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/818,845 Page 9 Art Unit: 3612
Prosecution Insights