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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “subframe” in claims 1-10 is used by the claim to mean “lower frame,” while the accepted meaning is “cradle below frame for attachment of suspension and/or powertrain.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is not clearly understood because “the outer face” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020120068 in view of Saje et al. (US 2015/0001882).
WO 2020120068 discloses a body frame for a hybrid or electric motor vehicle comprising a floor (3) extending transversely between two lateral spars (4,5) and at least one cross member (21-24) fixed to the top of the floor and extending transversely between the two lateral spars (4,5), to which it is fixed, as shown in Figures 1-5. Each lateral spar (4,5) comprises an elongate hollow body (4,5) of closed cross section composed of an internal spar part (30) and an external spar part (33) secured together, as shown in Figure 2. An inner reinforcement (26) extends longitudinally along and inside the hollow body, as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 9, the body frame comprises two of the seat cross members (21-24) spaced longitudinally apart from one another, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 10, a motor vehicle comprises a body frame according to claim 1.
However, WO 2020120068 does not disclose the outer reinforcement.
Saje et al. teaches providing an outer reinforcement (30) fixedly attached to the outer face of a zone of the internal spar part (15) located opposite a seat cross member (52), as shown in Figures 1-4 and disclosed in paragraphs [0019-0022].
In reference to claim 5, the outer reinforcement (30) has cut-outs (42) made in respective zones of the internal part of each lateral spar (12) provided with attachment holes, as shown in Figures 1-5 and disclosed in paragraph [0020]. Screws (32) are driven through cutouts into the internal spar so there must be holes in the lateral spar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide outer reinforcements with cut-outs to the external surface of the internal part of each spar of WO 2020120068, as taught by Saje et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve side pole crashworthiness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2020120068 and Saje et al. (US 2015/0001882), as applied to claim 1, in view of Miyasaka et al. (6,428,085).
WO 2020120068, as modified, does not disclose the outer reinforcement is obtained from a sheet.
Miyasaka et al. teaches forming an outer reinforcement (49) from a sheet, as shown in Figure 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the outer reinforcement of WO 2020120068, as modified, from a sheet, as taught by Miyasaka et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide reinforcement while simplifying manufacturing to reduce cost.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of WO 2020120068 and Saje et al. (US 2015/0001882), as applied to claim 1, in view of Halonen et al. (US 2022/0135136).
WO 2020120068, as modified, does not disclose the details of the inner reinforcement.
Halonen et al. teaches forming an inner reinforcement (40) by a metal section obtained by extrusion, as disclosed in paragraphs [0037] and [0043].
In reference to claim 8, the inner reinforcement has a honeycomb structure composed of an outer shell including top (45) and bottom (47) and a network of internal partitions (49) crisscrossing an interior volume of the shell, as shown in Figure 2. Reference number (42) points to a connecting side wall of the outer shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention form the inner reinforcement of WO 2020120068, as modified, as an extruded metal outer shell with a network of internal partitions crisscrossing an interior volume of the shell, as taught by Halonen et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to strengthen the inner reinforcement to provide passengers with increased safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of the claimed invention is the inverted L-shape of the outer reinforcement with a lateral flange bearing against the outer face of the lateral web and an upper flange extending away from the floor and bearing against the outer face of the upper plate, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Charbonneau et al. (8,702,161) shows another arrangement of seat cross members and network of internal partitions of the inner reinforcement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 1, 2026
