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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 24-26 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rawlinson (US 2012/0169089).
Regarding Claims 16, 29 and 30, Rawlinson discloses a passenger car body including, two longitudinal beams 707 which are mutually spaced apart in a vehicle transverse direction and formed as light metal castings (aluminum); at least one crossmember 704, 711 which is formed from a first steel (paragraph 0034); and a steel structure 701 which is formed from a second steel (paragraph 0036) different from the first steel, wherein the steel structure is connected to the respective longitudinal beams and to the crossmember (Fig. 8), wherein each respective one of the two longitudinal beams is connected to the crossmember by way of the steel structure 701.
Regarding Claim 24, the steel structure comprises: a first intermediate component 701 which is assigned to a first one of the two longitudinal beams 707, is formed from the second steel, is formed separately from the crossmember and separately from the two longitudinal beams, and is connected to the first longitudinal beam and to the crossmember (Fig. 8), and a second intermediate component 701 which is assigned to the second one of the two longitudinal beams 707, is formed from the second steel, is formed separately from the crossmember, separately from the two longitudinal beams, and separately from the first intermediate component, and is connected to the second longitudinal beam and to the crossmember (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 25, a respective longitudinal end region of a respective longitudinal beam 707 is received in the steel structure 701 (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 26, the two longitudinal beams 707 are components that are formed separately from one another and are connected to one another at least by way of the steel structure 701 and the crossmember 704.
Regarding Claim 28, the structure is a rear body structure.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-20, 22, 27 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann (US 2013/0214558) in view of Kagami (US 2021/0001926).
Regarding Claim 16, Lohmann discloses a passenger car body including, two longitudinal beams 25 which are mutually spaced apart in a vehicle transverse direction; at least one crossmember 24 which is formed from a first steel (paragraph 0054); and a steel structure 18 (Fig. 2) which is formed from a second steel (paragraph 0050) different from the first steel, wherein the steel structure is connected to the respective longitudinal beams and to the crossmember (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each respective one of the two longitudinal beams is connected to the crossmember by way of the steel structure. It is not clear if Lohmann discloses the use of a light metal for the beams. Kagami discloses a rear vehicle structure, wherein the longitudinal beams 30 are formed of light metal (aluminum; paragraph 0031). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the aluminum beams of Kagami for the beams of Lohmann as a weight savings initiative to reduce the weight of the vehicle and to increase the fuel mileage.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, the beams are formed from a light (aluminum) die cast process (paragraph 0031).
Regarding Claims 19, 20 and 22, the steel may be a hot-formed sheet or press-hardened material (paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 27, the beams 25 are single piece and have an additional cross member 20.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Lohmann and Kagami discloses casting, from a light metal (Kagami), two longitudinal beams that are configured to be spaced apart from one another in a vehicle transverse direction (both Lohmann and Kagami); forming, from a first steel, at least one crossmember of the body structure (24; Lohmann); forming, from a second steel different from the first steel, a steel structure (18; Lohmann); and connecting, via the steel structure, the two longitudinal beams and the crossmember (Figs. 1 and 2; Lohmann intermediate component, and is connected to the second longitudinal beam and to the crossmember.
Regarding claim 32, Lohmann discloses the steel structure formed by a first intermediate component 701 which is assigned to a first one of the two longitudinal beams 707, is formed from the second steel, is formed separately from the crossmember and separately from the two longitudinal beams, and is connected to the first longitudinal beam and to the crossmember (Fig. 8), and a second intermediate component 701 which is assigned to the second one of the two longitudinal beams 707, is formed from the second steel, is formed separately from the crossmember, separately from the two longitudinal beams, and separately from the first intermediate component, and is connected to the second longitudinal beam and to the crossmember (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 33, the crossmember (24; Lohmann) is formed as a sheet steel part, and the two longitudinal beams (30; Kagami) are cast of aluminum.
Claim(s) 21, 23 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmann and Kagami as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fekete (US 2022/0388577).
Lohmann discloses the use of steels, but is unclear as to the strength. Fekete discloses a vehicle frame structure including multiple steels including tensile strengths of above 700 MPa, as well as between 300 and 500 MPa (paragraph 0051). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the steel ranges of Fekete in the frame of Lohmann and Kagami in order to tailor the frame to the strength needed as well as the impact readiness desired by the designers. Use of multiple steels allows strength where needed, but additionally allows the designer to tailor the impact resistance to the desired level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights