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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudden (US 5301997) in view of Chen et al. (CN 213892663, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Cudden discloses a joint structure of a vehicle body (10), the joint structure comprising: a front body module (14) fixed to a front part of an under body (17), wherein the front body module is a fixed part (Fig. 2); a rear body module (36) detachably coupled to a rear part of the under body and the front body module (Fig. 3), wherein the rear body module is a variable part having any predetermined shape of a plurality of predetermined shapes; a fixed part joint beam (34) connected to the front body module (14); a variable part joint beam (col. 6, lines 23-41) connected to the rear body module (36); and a joint unit (24), and the joint unit engages with the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam (Fig. 3).
Cudden does not explicitly disclose the joint unit comprising a block, wherein the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam are inserted in the block in a direction of the vehicle body.
Chen et al., like Cudden, teaches a joint structure of a vehicle body, and further teaches a joint unit comprising a block, wherein the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam are inserted in the block in a direction of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint structure of Cudden to include a block as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong connection and hold among the beams within the vehicle structure.
Regarding claim 16, Cudden discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (10) comprising an under body and an upper body (17) disposed on the under body, wherein the upper body comprises: a front body module (14) fixed to a front part of the under body (17), wherein the front body module is a fixed part (Fig. 2) and comprises a fixed part side structure, a fixed part roof structure, and a fixed part floor structure (Fig. 3); a rear body module (36) detachably coupled to a rear part of the under body and the front body module (Fig. 3), wherein the rear body module is a variable part having any predetermined shape of a plurality of predetermined shapes and comprises a variable part side structure, a variable part roof structure, and a variable part floor structure; a fixed part joint beam (34) connected to the front body module (14); a variable part joint beam (col. 6, lines 23-41) connected to the rear body module (36); and a joint unit (24), and the joint unit engages with the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam (Fig. 3).
Cudden does not explicitly disclose the joint unit comprising a block, wherein the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam are inserted in the block in a front-to-back direction of the vehicle body.
Chen et al., like Cudden, teaches a vehicle, and further teaches a joint unit comprising a block, wherein the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam are inserted in the block in a direction of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Cudden to include a block as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a strong connection and hold among the beams within the vehicle structure.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudden (US 5301997) in view of Chen et al. (CN 213892663, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 and claim 16 above respectively, and further in view of Ammerlaan et al. (US 6237989).
Regarding claim 2, Cudden as modified by Chen et al. teaches the joint structure of claim 1. Cudden as modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each of the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam comprises: a body engage portion having a closed cross-section; and a block engage portion that extends in a rib shape from the body engage portion to fit into the joint unit and engages with the joint unit.
Ammerlaan et al., like Cudden, teaches a joint structure of a vehicle body, and further teaches each joint beam comprises: a body engage portion having a closed cross-section ((11), (12)); and a block engage portion that extends in a rib shape from the body engage portion to fit into the joint unit and engages with the joint unit (Fig. 8 shows the block engage portion has a rib shape engaging with the joint unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint structure of Cudden as modified by Chen et al. to include a rib shape extension as taught by Ammerlaan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further allow for fixing means to run through the joint unit and the joint beam to better secure the structure.
Regarding claim 17, Cudden as modified by Chen et al. teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Cudden as modified by Chen et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each of the fixed part joint beam and the variable part joint beam comprises: a body engage portion having a closed cross-section; and a block engage portion that extends in a rib shape from the body engage portion to fit into the joint unit and engages with the joint unit.
Ammerlaan et al., like Cudden, teaches a joint structure of a vehicle body, and further teaches each joint beam comprises: a body engage portion having a closed cross-section ((11), (12)); and a block engage portion that extends in a rib shape from the body engage portion to fit into the joint unit and engages with the joint unit (Fig. 8 shows the block engage portion has a rib shape engaging with the joint unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle of Cudden as modified by Chen et al. to include a rib shape extension as taught by Ammerlaan et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to further allow for fixing means to run through the joint unit and the joint beam to better secure the structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-15 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art made of record teaches the joint unit as claimed. A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lusk (US 20080036240), Wackerle et al. (US 5042395), Buday (US 4995664), Vlahovic (DE 102012110425), FÜLLER KARL-HEINZ (DE 102013010332), and MÜNSTER MARCO (DE-102016200633) teach joint structures for vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights