DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwering et al. (DE 102021206368 A1) in view of Kettler et al. (EP 3530760 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schwering et al. teaches “A front wall for a motor vehicle (40; Schwering et al. (DE 102021206368 A1) Annotated Fig 4), the front wall comprising: a partition wall (10; Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4) to an engine compartment located at a front in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle, wherein the partition wall, in an installed state, is oriented in a vertical direction of the motor vehicle; and a footwell metal sheet (As seen in Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4), wherein the footwell metal sheet is oriented at least in portions in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle, and a front region of the footwell metal sheet is connected to the partition wall in one piece, wherein the front wall is a one-piece sheet-metal forming component, formed in a single press stroke (Schwering et al. ¶0011 [US 20240116100 A1 used as translation and all paragraph citations refer to this reference]), wherein the footwell metal sheet has at least one of a greater wall thickness or a greater tensile strength than the partition wall, wherein the front wall has a high-strength region which has a tensile strength (Schwering et al. ¶0018 & ¶0040)… that wherein a bead extending in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle comprises a transition between the partition wall and the footwell metal sheet, and wherein the bead is formed in a cross section in at least one of the longitudinal direction or the vertical direction of the motor vehicle (Schwering et al. ¶0038 &¶0040 states each individual sections joined via weld[synonymous with bead]).”
Schwering et al. discloses sections of various strength or thickness, but fails to explicitly describe the material properties.
However, Kettler et al. teaches “…a high-strength region which has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa (Kettler et al. (EP 3530760 A1) ¶0023) and a soft region which has a tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa (Kettler et al. ¶0014)…”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the materials of Kettler et al. with the design of Schwering et al. with a reasonable expectation for success of a front wall that is more well equipped to prevent foreign intrusion and lighter were less support is needed.
PNG
media_image1.png
792
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Schwering et al. and Kettler et al. as seen in claim 14 teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein the one-piece sheet-metal forming component is a hot-formed and press-cured component (Schwering et al. ¶0011[one piece form] &¶0012 [hot form]).”
In reference to claim 16, the aforementioned combination of prior art teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein a region of the front wall has at least one of a forming geometry integrated in the region, an increased material thickness or a higher strength, such that the region is configured to function as a cross member (Schwering et al. ¶0018 & ¶0040).”
Regarding claim 17, the combination of references, as seen in claim 14, teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein a region of the front wall has at least one of a forming geometry integrated in the region, an increased material thickness or a higher strength such that the region is configured to function as a longitudinal member (Schwering et al. ¶0018 & ¶0040).”
With respect to claim 18, the combination of prior art teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein the soft regions has a tensile strength of less than 850 MPa (Kettler et al. ¶0014).”
In reference to claim 19, the combination of prior art teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, further comprising: a reinforcing patch applied in a region of the bead that extends in the transverse direction, a central or outer longitudinal bead of the front wall, or a wheel arch of the front wall (30; Schwering et al. Fig 3 [¶0038]).”
Regarding claim 20, Schwering et al. teaches a bead (30; Schwering et al. Fig 3 [¶0038]) and a sheet metal blank (24; Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4).
Neither Schwering et al. or Kettler et al. teaches the bead depth to be five times greater than the thickness of the sheet metal blank.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, 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 to construct the bead of Schwering et al. to be five times greater than the thickness of the sheet metal blank with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the bead depth has minimal impact on the structural integrity of the front wall and is akin to design choice.
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Schwering et al. and Kettler et al. as seen in claim 14 teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein the tensile strength in a region of the bead is greater than 1,180 MPa (Kettler et al. ¶0023).”
In reference to claim 22, the aforementioned combination of prior art teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, further comprising: a patchwork metal sheet (30; Schwering et al. Fig 3 [¶0038]) attached in a region of the bead, wherein the tensile strength in this region is greater than 980 MPa (Kettler et al. ¶0023).”
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned combination of prior art teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein the footwell metal sheet is curved along multiple axes or in three dimensions on an outer side thereof in the transverse direction of the motor vehicle (Schwering et al. ¶0037), such that a wheel arch is formed at least in portions (26; Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4).”
With respect to claim 24, Schwering et al teaches a footwell (26; Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4).
Kettler et al. teaches the soft region to have a tensile strength less than 980 MPa (Kettler et al. ¶0014).
Neither Schwering et al. or Kettler et al. teaches the outer regions of the footwell be less than 100 mm thick.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, 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 to construct the footwell of Schwering et al. to be less than 100 mm thick with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, many outer region thicknesses can achieve the task of preventing foreign object intrusion.
In reference to claim 25, Schwering et al teaches a one piece blank (Schwering et al. ¶0011).
Kettler et al. teaches an aluminum silicon coating (Kettler et al. ¶0009).
Neither Schwering et al. or Kettler et al. teaches the coating layer to be between 15 and 40 pm.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, 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 to construct the one piece blank of Schwering et al. with the aluminum silicon coating of Kettler et al, to be between 15 and 40 pm with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, many coating layer thicknesses can achieve the task of preventing corrosion.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Schwering et al. and Kettler et al. as seen in claim 14 teaches “The front wall according to claim 14, wherein the footwell metal sheet has a central tunnel (As seen in Schwering et al. Annotated Fig 4) with at least one central longitudinal bead (Schwering et al. ¶0038 &¶0040 states each individual sections joined via weld [synonymous with bead]) and configuring a front longitudinal portion of a transmission tunnel.”
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights