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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation stating, “wherein a reinforcing structure is formed, and different strengths or different wall thicknesses from one another are formed in different areas” would be clearer if written as “the floor plate and the rear seat support have different tensile strengths or different wall thicknesses than the connection section” or something similar.
The claim states “wherein a transition from the rear seat plate and the connecting section or at a transition from the connecting section to the floor plate, is a reinforcing bead”. This should read “wherein at a transition from the rear seat plate and the connecting section or at a transition from the connecting section to the floor plate, is a reinforcing bead”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-22 are objected to as above due to dependency on Claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 13, 15-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Chernoff teaches a rear seat plate of a motor vehicle body (Fig. 2 element 15), comprising: a rear part of a floor plate (Fig. 2 element 30) and a rear seat support (Fig. 2 element 24), wherein the floor plate and the rear seat support are vertically offset relative to each other in a motor vehicle vertical direction (Shown in Fig. 2), and the floor plate and the rear seat support are integrally connected via a connecting section as a sheet metal component (Fig. 2 element 28), wherein a reinforcing structure is formed, and different strengths or different wall thicknesses from one another are formed in different areas (“Different portions of the single sheet have different material properties (such as strength)” Par. [0055] lines 8-9).
Chernoff fails to explicitly teach at a transition from the rear seat plate and the connecting section or at a transition from the connecting section to the floor plate, is a reinforcing bead, which extends over more than 50% of a width, and the reinforcing bead is formed in cross section toward a rear axle of the motor vehicle body.
However, Utsunomiya teaches at a transition from the rear seat plate and the connecting section or at a transition from the connecting section to the floor plate, is a reinforcing bead, which extends over more than 50% of a width, and the reinforcing bead is formed in cross section toward a rear axle of the motor vehicle body (Fig. 6 elements 14).
Chernoff and Utsunomiya are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the floor structure of Chernoff to have the transverse beads as disclosed by Utsunomiya. Doing so would provide more reinforcement and structural support at the connection section, where greater load will be applied.
Regarding Claim 10, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff further discloses the rear part of a floor plate and a rear seat support comprises a hot-formed and press-hardened component formed in one press stroke (Shown in transition from Fig. 3-Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff further discloses a reinforcement patch is disposed at least locally (Fig. 2 element 42).
Regarding Claim 15, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Utsunomiya further discloses the rear seat support comprises longitudinal beads which extend in a motor vehicle longitudinal direction over an entire length of the rear sear support (Fig. 7 element 25a) or receptacles for coupling a battery box.
Regarding Claim 16, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Utsunomiya further discloses longitudinal beads or receptacles for coupling a battery box or screw passage sleeves are in a footwell plate (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff further discloses the floor plate comprises a tunnel section (Fig. 2 element 36).
Regarding Claim 18, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff further discloses the floor plate and the rear seat support are formed in on press stroke (Shown in transition between Fig. 3-Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 19, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Utsunomiya further discloses the reinforcing bead extends over the entire width of the rear seat plate (Shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 22, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff further discloses longitudinal beads or receptacles are for coupling a battery box (Fig. 2 element 40; intended use).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A) and further in view of Hitz et al. (US 20180229593 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff and Utsunomiya fail to explicitly teach a high-strength area has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa.
However, Hitz teaches a high-strength area has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa (“In the hardened regions, in particular a tensile strength Rm of greater than 1300 MPa, in particular greater than 1450 MPa and preferably greater than 1750 MPa is provided” Par. [0018] lines 1-3).
Chernoff, Utsunomiya and Hitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structures of Chernoff in view of Utsunomiya to have high tensile strength areas within the range disclosed by Hitz. Doing so would provide reinforcement to areas that receive greater loads without having to increase the strength of the entire structure, reducing the overall weight of the structure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A) and further in view of Hitz et al. (US 20180229593 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff and Utsunomiya fail to explicitly teach a soft area has a tensile strength less than 1000 MPa.
However, Hitz teaches a soft area has a tensile strength less than 1000 MPa (“a tensile strength Rm of between 500 and 1000 MPa, in particular of between 550 and 750 MPa, is provided” Par. [0018] lines 5-7).
Chernoff, Utsunomiya and Hitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structures of Chernoff in view of Utsunomiya to have low tensile strength areas within the range disclosed by Hitz. Doing so would reduce the overall weight of the structure by reducing the strength at areas which do not receive as much of the load during use.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A) and further in view of Hitz et al. (US 20180229593 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff and Utsunomiya fail to explicitly teach the connecting section has a tensile strength greater than 1350 MPa.
However, Hitz teaches the connecting section has a tensile strength greater than 1350 Mpa (“In the hardened regions, in particular a tensile strength Rm of greater than 1300 MPa, in particular greater than 1450 MPa and preferably greater than 1750 MPa is provided” Par. [0018] lines 1-3).
Chernoff, Utsunomiya and Hitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structures of Chernoff in view of Utsunomiya to have a high tensile strength connecting section within the range disclosed by Hitz. Doing so would provide reinforcement to areas that receive greater loads without having to increase the strength of the entire structure, reducing the overall weight of the structure.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A) and further in view of Hitz et al. (US 20180229593 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff and Utsunomiya fail to explicitly teach the soft area has a tensile strength Rm less than 850 MPa.
However, Hitz teaches the soft area has a tensile strength Rm less than 850 Mpa (“a tensile strength Rm of between 500 and 1000 MPa, in particular of between 550 and 750 MPa, is provided” Par. [0018] lines 5-7).
Chernoff, Utsunomiya and Hitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structures of Chernoff in view of Utsunomiya to have low tensile strength areas within the range disclosed by Hitz. Doing so would reduce the overall weight of the structure by reducing the strength at areas which do not receive as much of the load during use.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernoff et al. (US 20050189791 A1) in view of Utsunomiya et al. (US 4402545 A) and further in view of Hitz et al. (US 20180229593 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Chernoff and Utsunomiya teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Chernoff and Utsunomiya fail to explicitly teach the connecting section has a tensile strength Rm greater than 1800 MPa.
However, Hitz teaches the connecting section has a tensile strength Rm greater than 1800 Mpa (“In the hardened regions, in particular a tensile strength Rm of greater than 1300 MPa, in particular greater than 1450 MPa and preferably greater than 1750 MPa is provided” Par. [0018] lines 1-3).
Chernoff, Utsunomiya and Hitz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle floor structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structures of Chernoff in view of Utsunomiya to have high tensile strength areas within the range disclosed by Hitz. Doing so would provide reinforcement to areas that receive greater loads without having to increase the strength of the entire structure, reducing the overall weight of the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights