DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-3 and 6-11 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.
The limitation “wherein an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions of the torsion beam is equivalent to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam” in claim 1 is indefinite. As explained in paragraph 0052 of the instant application (i.e., 18/849,814), “equivalent (substantially almost constant) includes not only a case where t1 to t3 completely coincide with each other, but also a case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other and substantially coincide with each other. The case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other can be, for example, a case where a difference between the smallest value and the largest value among t1 to t3 is less than 5% of the largest value.” Thus, the limitation “wherein an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions of the torsion beam is equivalent to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam” has no definite limits, since no definite limits are associated with the terms “equivalent” and/or “slightly different”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (JP H0650370 A). Inoue discloses a tubular torsion beam 10 extending in a longitudinal direction, the torsion beam comprising a center portion 11 and end portions (12, 13) connected to both sides of the center portion by shape changing portions (14, 15), wherein a ratio S1/(L1 x t1) determined by a cross-sectional area S1 including an internal space in a transverse section, which is a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction in the center portion of the torsion beam in the longitudinal direction, an outer surface circumferential length L1 in the transverse section, and an average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam in the longitudinal direction is 1.4 or more and less than 10 (paragraph 0009), wherein an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions of the torsion beam is equivalent to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam (as explained in paragraph 0052 of the instant application (i.e., 18/849,814), “equivalent (substantially almost constant) includes not only a case where t1 to t3 completely coincide with each other, but also a case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other and substantially coincide with each other. The case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other can be, for example, a case where a difference between the smallest value and the largest value among t1 to t3 is less than 5% of the largest value”), wherein in a transverse section in which a gap in the internal space is the smallest, the minimum value between inner surfaces of the center portion is 1.0 mm or more (paragraph 0009), wherein the outer surface circumferential length L1 is less than an outer surface circumferential length L2 in a transverse section, which is a cross section of the end portion orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (paragraph 0011). A relationship between the average value t1 and a bending radius R satisfies 1.5t1 < R in a transverse section having a portion where the bending radius R of the center portion in a circumferential direction is smallest (paragraph 0009). The average value t1 is 2.5 mm or more (paragraph 0009). In a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, a wall thickness of the torsion beam is -20% or more and 0% or less of a maximum value of the wall thickness (since the wall thickness of the center portion of the torsion beam is substantially constant). The transverse section at the center portion does not include a portion protruding toward the internal space (Fig. 8). The average value t1 and an average value t2 of the wall thickness at the end portion are different from each other (paragraph 0011).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP H0650370 A) in view of Edahiro et al. (JP 2011-046232 A). Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Inoue does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3. Edahiro teaches a tubular torsion beam wherein a material of the torsion beam has a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more (paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a torsion beam as taught by Inoue from a material having a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more, as taught by Edahiro, so that the torsion beam is strong and lightweight. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a torsion beam as taught by Inoue from a material having a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more, as taught by Edahiro, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP §2144.07. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP H0650370 A) in view of Müller et al. (DE 102016207369 A1). Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Inoue does not teach the limitations of claims 9 and 10. Müller teaches a torsion beam 36 wherein an axis of a center portion (e.g., 36a or a central portion of 36a (i.e., a portion of 36a that is spaced from end portions 36b)) in a longitudinal direction and an axis of an end portion 36b in the longitudinal direction are shifted from each other (Figs. 10 and 10a; paragraph 0066), wherein the axis of the center portion is a curve (Figs. 10 and 10a; paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a torsion beam as taught by Inoue such that an axis of a center portion in a longitudinal direction and an axis of an end portion in the longitudinal direction are shifted from each other and wherein the axis of the center portion is a curve, according to the known technique taught by Müller, so that the torsion beam may be utilized with different “installation conditions in the vehicle” (paragraph 0022). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments in the first full paragraph on page 7, paragraph 0052 of the instant application (i.e., 18/849,814) states, “equivalent (substantially almost constant) includes not only a case where t1 to t3 completely coincide with each other, but also a case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other and substantially coincide with each other. The case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other can be, for example, a case where a difference between the smallest value and the largest value among t1 to t3 is less than 5% of the largest value.” Thus, in light of applicant’s specification, Inoue satisfies the limitation “wherein an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions of the torsion beam is equivalent to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam”, since an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions (14, 15) of the torsion beam is equivalent (equivalent including “a case where t1 to t3 are slightly different from each other” – see paragraph 0052 of the instant application (i.e., 18/849,814)) to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion 11 of the torsion beam. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein an average value t3 of a wall thickness in the shape changing portions of the torsion beam is equivalent to the average value t1 of a wall thickness in the center portion of the torsion beam” is not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as explained above.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9, paragraph 0009 of Inoue does in fact teach the dimension of the center portion, the dimension of the center portion being the same as the dimension of the hollow material 20 from which the tubular torsion beam 10 is made (i.e., “an outer diameter of Փ34 mm, a wall thickness of 6 mm”). The disclosed dimensions correspond to the claimed dimensions as follows:
S1 = π(17mm)2
L1 = π(34mm)
t1 = 6mm
The ratio S1/(L1 x t1) is therefore π(17mm)2/( π(34mm) x 6mm) ≈ 1.417. Thus, said ratio is “1.4 or more and less than 10”, as recited in claim 1. The minimum value between the inner surface of the center portion in Inoue is 34mm – 12mm = 22mm, which is “1.0 mm or more”, as recited in claim 1, and an outer surface circumferential length L1 (i.e., the circumference of the center portion 11) is less than an outer circumferential length L2 (i.e., the circumference of an end portion (12, 13)), since the diameter of the center portion 11 is less than the diameter of an end portion (12, 13), as explained in paragraph 0011 and as shown in Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9. Thus, contrary to applicant’s assertions, Inoue satisfies all of the limitations of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614