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 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 16-19, 21-25, and 36-37 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 claim 16, in the last paragraph, Applicant recites, “wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion and has a length between 100mm and 500 mm and a height between 100 mm and 500 mm.” However, the specification defines the length of the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion as the “distance along the longitudinal axis of the A-pillar portion,” (see paragraph [0062] of the publication of Applicant’s application).
Fig. 6A shows the overlapping region 13 of the hinge pillar and the A-pillar as shown below:
[AltContent: textbox (longitudinal axis of A-pillar)]
[AltContent: textbox (longitudinal axis of hinge pillar)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
410
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the specification defines the height of the transition between the hinge pillar and the A-pillar as the “distance along the longitudinal axis of the hinge pillar portion,” (see paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s specification. Furthermore, paragraph [0063] of the specification states that the length is “perpendicular to the length.”
However, as can be seen above, the longitudinal axis of the A-pillar is not perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hinge pillar. Additionally, the longitudinal axis of the A-pillar does not pass through the transition region in any meaningful way to define a length of the transition region. Thus, it is not clear how Applicant is defining the height and length of the transition region between the A-pillar and the hinge pillar.
In claim 23, Applicant recites “a B-pillar portion” and “a C-pillar portion.” One of these limitations is a double recitation of “a rear pillar portion” (as recited in claim 16).
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 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,643,145 in view of Breidenbach et al. (US 2016/0186280).
With respect to claim 16, claim 5 of the patent recites all the steps and structure of claim 16 except for the step of hot forming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame, and except for the specific dimensions of the transition between the hinge pillar potion and the A-pillar portion, as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
US Pat. No. 11,643,145
16. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
1. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes: a lower beam portion . . . ; an upper beam portion;
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion; and
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion;
a lower beam portion comprising a rocker portion;
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
(claim 3) the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion;
(claim 3) wherein the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion;
wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion.
(claim 5) wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the A-pillar portion and the hinge pillar portion.
Breidenbach et al. teach a similar method of manufacturing a frame of a vehicle including attaching vehicle blanks 1 and 2 forming a composite blank and then hot forming the composite blank (Breidenbach et al., paragraph [0033]; Fig. 4).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Breidenbach et al. with the method recited in claim 5 of the patent for the advantage of causing one or more connection points to have a least a partially hardened microstructure (Breidenbach et al., abstract).
Additionally, while claim 5 of the patent is silent on the dimensions for the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art:
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the non-recited dimensions of claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,592 in view of Breidenbach et al. (US 2016/0186280).
With respect to claim 16, claim 5 of the patent recites all the steps and structure of claim 16 except for the step of hot forming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame, and except for the specific dimensions of the transition between the hinge pillar potion and the A-pillar portion, as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
US Pat. No. 12,103,592
16. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
1. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
deforming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
deforming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes: a lower beam portion . . .; an upper beam portion;
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion; and
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion;
a lower beam portion comprising a rocker portion;
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
(claim 4) the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion;
(claim 4) the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion;
wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion.
(claim 6) wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the A-pillar portion and the hinge pillar portion.
Breidenbach et al. teach a similar method of manufacturing a frame of a vehicle including attaching vehicle blanks 1 and 2 forming a composite blank and then hot forming the composite blank (Breidenbach et al., paragraph [0033]; Fig. 4).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Breidenbach et al. with the method recited in claim 5 of the patent for the advantage of causing one or more connection points to have a least a partially hardened microstructure (Breidenbach et al., abstract).
Additionally, while claim 5 of the patent is silent on the dimensions for the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art:
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the non-recited dimensions of claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Application No. 18/819,050 in view of Hirose (US 2020/0139911).
With respect to claim 16, claim 5 of the patent recites all the steps and structure of claim 16, except for one or more of the plurality of blanks being made of ultra-high strength steel (UHSS), and except for the specific dimensions of the transition between the hinge pillar potion and the A-pillar portion, as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
Application 18/819,050
16. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
16. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
hot forming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
hot forming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion;
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion;
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion;
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion,
wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion.
(claim 21) wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the A-pillar portion and the hinge pillar portion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 26 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of copending Application No. 18/819,050 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of the reference application recites all the structure of claim 26 in the instant application as outlined in the below table:
Instant Application
Application 18/819,050
26. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
16. A method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
joining the blanks to each other to form a composite blank, wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks;
deforming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
deforming the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame;
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
wherein the unitary body side structural frame includes a lower beam portion and an upper beam portion,
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a front pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion, and
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
a rear pillar portion connecting the lower beam portion to the upper beam portion,
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion,
wherein the lower beam portion comprises a rocker portion;
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion, and
the front pillar portion comprises a hinge pillar portion;
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion, and
the upper beam portion comprises an A-pillar portion, and
wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion and the rocker portion.
(claim 22) wherein one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the rocker and the hinge pillar portion.
Hirose teach a similar method of manufacturing a frame of a vehicle including using ultra-high strength steel (UHSS) (“UHSS,” Hirose, paragraphs [0009] and [0011]).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hirose with the method disclosed in claim 22 of the copending application for the advantage of a stronger material used in the frame resulting in a stronger frame.
Additionally, while claim 5 of the patent is silent on the dimensions for the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art:
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the non-recited dimensions of claim 5 of the patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-23, 25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 2012/0299334) in view of Hirose (US 2020/0139911) and Breidenbach et al. (US 2016/0186280).
With respect to claim 16, Takayama et al. disclose the claimed method except that they are silent on whether the one or more of the plurality of blanks are made of ultra-high strength steel (UHSS); except for the entire composite blank being hot formed; and they are silent on the specific dimensions of the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion. Takayama et al. disclose a method for manufacturing a unitary body side structural frame of a vehicle comprising:
providing a plurality of blanks 41/42/35;
joining the blanks 41/42/35 to each other to form a composite blank 14 (Takayama et al., paragraph [0107]; Fig. 1), wherein joining the blanks includes forming one or more overlapping regions formed by partially overlapping two blanks 37(42) and 31/(41) (“The upper end (31a) of the front pillar lower section (31) is joined to the inner surface of the lower end (37c) of the front pillar upper section,” Takayama et al., abstract; Fig. 1);
Takayama et al. disclose teach hot forming the center pillar 35 of the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame 14.
Takayama et al. further disclose that the unitary body side structural frame 14 includes a lower beam portion 33 and an upper beam portion 37, a front pillar portion 31 connecting the lower beam portion 33 to the upper beam portion 37, and a rear pillar portion (pillar 35 or pillar 36) connecting the lower beam portion 33 to the upper beam portion 37 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.),
wherein
the lower beam portion 33 comprises a rocker portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.),
the front pillar portion 31 comprises a hinge pillar portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.), and
the upper beam portion 37 comprises an A-pillar portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.), and
wherein one of the overlapping regions 37c substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion 31 and the A-pillar portion 37 (Takayama et al., abstract, Fig. 1).
Hirose teach a similar method of manufacturing a frame of a vehicle including using ultra-high strength steel (UHSS) for multiple blanks of a frame (“UHSS,” Hirose, paragraphs [0009] and [0011]).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hirose with the method disclosed by Takayama et al. for the advantage of a stronger material used in the frame resulting in a stronger frame.
While, Takayama et al. teach hot forming one of the blanks (center pillar 35) of the composite blanks the composite blank to form the unitary body side structural frame, they are silent on whether the other blanks are also hot formed. However, Breidenbach et al. teach a similar method of manufacturing a frame of a vehicle including attaching vehicle blanks 1 and 2 forming a composite blank and then hot forming the composite blank (Breidenbach et al., paragraph [0033]; Fig. 4).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Breidenbach et al. with the method disclosed by Takayama et al. for the advantage of causing one or more connection points to have a least a partially hardened microstructure (Breidenbach et al., abstract).
Furthermore, while Takayama et al. are silent on the dimensions for the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art:
In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the non-disclosed dimensions of claim Takayama et al.
With respect to claim 17, Breidenbach et al. disclose that joining the blanks to each other comprises welding the blanks to each other in the one or more overlapping regions (“welded with an overlap,” Breidenbach et al., paragraph [0005]).
With respect to claim 18, Breidenbach et al. disclose that the welding the blanks comprises spot welding the blanks (Breidenbach et al., end of paragraph [0005]).
With respect to claim 19, while Takayama et al. disclose that the overlapping region corresponding to the transition between the hinge pillar portion and the A-pillar portion is arranged with the A-pillar portion (“The upper end (31a) of the front pillar lower section (31) is joined to the inner surface of the lower end (37c) of the front pillar upper section,” Takayama et al., abstract). The claimed limitation of the overlapping region being arranged within the hinge pillar portion is simply a reversal of parts. It has been held that reversal of parts is an obvious variation of known structure (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 21, Takayama et al, as modified, disclose that the plurality of blanks comprises blanks made of different material and/or blanks of different thicknesses (“different materials,” Takayama et al., paragraphs [0153], [0154], [0157], and [0179] ).
With respect to claim 22, Takayama et al. disclose that the rear pillar potion 35 comprises a B-pillar portion (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.).
With respect to claim 23, Takayama et al. disclose that the unitary body side structural frame further comprises a B-pillar portion 35 arranged between the hinge pillar portion 31 and a C-pillar portion 36 and extending from the rocker portion 31 to the A-pillar portion 37 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Takayama et al.).
With respect to claim 25, Takayama et al. disclose that the overlapping region corresponding to the transition between the hinge pillar portion 31 and the A-pillar portion 37 has a length that substantially corresponds to the width of the hinge pillar portion 31 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Takayama et al.).
With respect to claim 36, Takayama et al. disclose that the B-pillar portion 35 comprises a U- shaped section 35 (as shown in Figs. 15-16 of Takayama et al.).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 2012/0299334) in view of Hirose (US 2020/0139911) and Breidenbach et al. (US 2016/0186280), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kerby (US 3,159419).
With respect to claim 24, Takayama et al., as modified, discloses the claimed method except for one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponding to a transition between the hinge pillar and the rocker portion. However, Kerby teaches a similar method including a hinge pillar portion 11a and a rocker portoin11a that are mash welded together (Kerby, col. 2, lines 21-22 and 35-37) such that that one of the overlapping regions substantially corresponds to a transition between the hinge pillar portion 11a and the rocker portion 10 (as shown by line C in Fig. 1 of Kerby).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kerby with the method disclosed by Takayama et al,. as modified for the advantage of matching the strength of each blank to local loading while avoiding the use of welding doublers (Kerby, col. 2, lines 26-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 37 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the outer frame configured to be attached to a lower flange of an inner plate of a rocker and to an upper flange of an inner plate of an A-pillar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-19, 21-25, and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While the 102 rejection of in view of Kerby has been overcome, a new grounds of rejection over Takayama et al. in view of Breidenbach et al. and Hirose, and Takayama et al. in view of Breidenbach et al. and Hirose and Kerby has been set forth above.
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
