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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the under body mounting unit and the under body are bolted together in . . . a length direction of the vehicle body,” (as recited in claims 3 and 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 13, Applicant recites, “the outer cross member disposed on both sides of the width direction of the vehicle body.” However, the specification defines the outer cross member as member 72. It appears that Applicant is intending to recite two outer cross members, one disposed on each side of the width direction of the vehicle body.
In claim 16, Applicant invokes 112(f) in this claim, however, the specification does not clearly define which structure is correlated with “means for selectively connecting the variable part. Is it structure 30 or 50 or both?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20-0251526).
With respect to claim 1 KR 20-0251526 discloses a connection structure of a vehicle body comprising:
an under body 50 with an under body mounting unit 52 mounted thereon (as shown in Fig. 4 of KR 20-0251526; and
a variable part 51 including a variable part mounting unit 57 selectively connected to the under body mounting unit 52 and an outer cross member 1 mounted on an upper portion of the variable part mounting unit 57 (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of KR 20-025156). Note, Applicant is only reciting a single variable part, thus there is no recited frame of reference that makes it variable within the claims. Thus, any part can be interpreted as a variable part.
With respect to claim 2, KR 20-025156 disclose an under body insert hole is in an upper part of the under body50, and wherein the under body mounting unit is inserted into the under body insert hole as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Kr 20-025156:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (portion of under body mounting unit inserted in insert hole)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (insert hole)]
PNG
media_image1.png
291
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 5-6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandel et al. (EP 584576).
With respect to claim 1 Brandel et al. disclose a connection structure of a vehicle body comprising:
an under body 13 with an under body mounting unit 34/35 mounted thereon (as shown in Fig. 3 of Brandel et al.; and
a variable part 1 including a variable part mounting unit 16/17 selectively connected to the under body mounting unit 34/35 and an outer cross member 31 mounted on an upper portion of the variable part mounting unit (as shown in Figs. 1-3 of Brandel et al.). Note, Applicant is only reciting a single variable part, thus there is no recited frame of reference that makes it variable within the claims. Thus, any part can be interpreted as a variable part.
With respect to claim 5, Brandel et al. disclose that the variable part comprises a rear floor 7, wherein the variable part mounting unit 16/17 coupled to the rear floor (via sidewalls), and wherein the outer cross member 31 is coupled to an upper part of the rear floor (as shown in Fig. 1 of Brandel et al.).
With respect to claim 6, Brandel et al. disclose that the outer cross member 31 and the rear floor 7 form a cross member closed space along a length direction of the vehicle body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Brandel et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (closed space along length of vehicle body)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
141
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, Brandel et al. disclose a vehicle body comprising:
an under body 13;
a variable part 1; and
means 16/17/34/35 for selectively connecting the variable part 1 to the under body 13,
(as shown in Fig. 3 of Brandel et al.).
With respect to claim 18, Brandel et al. discloses that the variable part 1 comprises means 31 for increasing strength of the vehicle body.
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 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandel et al. (EP 584576), as applied to claim 5 or 16 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2019/0168810).
With respect to claim 10, Brandel et al. disclose the claimed structure except for a plurality of floor cross members that are connected to a lower part of the rear floor in a width direction of the vehicle body and disposed spaced apart along a length direction of the vehicle body.
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar structure including a plurality of floor cross members 32 that are connected to a lower part of a rear floor 28 in a width direction of the vehicle body and disposed spaced apart along a length direction of the vehicle body 14 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Yamazaki).
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 Yamazaki with the structure disclosed by Brandel et al. for the advantage of the additional support provided to the floor by the floor cross members.
With respect to claim 11, Yamazaki discloses that the plurality of floor cross members 32 comprises: a central cross member; a front cross member disposed at a front of the central cross member; and a rear cross member disposed at a rear of the central cross members shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Yamazaki:
[AltContent: textbox (front cross member)][AltContent: textbox (rear cross member)][AltContent: textbox (central cross member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
179
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Brandel et al. disclose the claimed vehicle body except for the under body comprising means for increasing strength of the vehicle body.
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar vehicle body including the under body means including means 32 for increasing strength of vehicle body (as shown in Fig. 1 of Yamazaki).
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 Yamazaki with the vehicle body disclosed by Brandel et al. for the advantage of the additional support provided to the floor by the floor cross members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12 and 14-15 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.
Claim 13 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3-4 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the under body being bolded in a length direction of the vehicle body.
Claims 7-9 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the connection support mounted between the rear floor and the outer cross member.
Claims 12-15 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the plurality of seat cross members connected to the upper part of the rear floor in the length direction of the vehicle body and disposed spaced apart along the width direction of the vehicle body.
Claims 19-20 have been indicated as allowable subject matter primarily for the under body insert hole is in an upper part of the under body, wherein the under body mounting unit is inserted into the under body insert hole, wherein the under body mounting unit and the under body are bolted together in a length direction of the vehicle body, wherein an under body connection recess portion is on at least one side of the under body, and a connection support mounted between the rear floor and the outer cross member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 2022/0194482), Reeves (GB 2178701) and Codron (EP3536584) are cited to show other examples of connection structures between an under body and a variable part.
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
Prosecution Insights