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
Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 3, “1000MPa” seems to be directed to state --1000 MPa--, as similarly recited in previous claims.
In claim 21, lines 2-3, “a tensile strength > 1,350 MPa, and a second section with a tensile strength of < 1,000 MPa” seems to be directed to state --a tensile strength greater than 1,350 MPa, and a second section with a tensile strength of less than 1,000 MPa--, as similarly recited in previous claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mildner et al. US 20150108790 A1, in view of Fischer et al. US 20060097549 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Mildner et al. disclose a rear side part (Mildner et al. 10) of a motor vehicle body (Mildner et al. 2) (Mildner et al. paragraph 0015), the rear side part comprising:
a C pillar (annotated Mildner et al. Fig. 3), a D pillar (see annotated Mildner et al. Fig. 3), and a wheel housing segment (Mildner et al. 12; Mildner et al. Fig. 1; Mildner et al. paragraphs 0003 and 0062),
wherein the C pillar and the D pillar are C-shaped, U-shaped or hat-shaped in cross-section (Mildner et al. Fig. 3; Mildner et al. paragraphs 0025, 0036, and 0060),
wherein the rear side part has adjacent areas with at least one of different tensile strengths or different wall thicknesses (Mildner et al. paragraph 0035).
Mildner et al. do not disclose the rear side part manufactured as a one piece sheet metal forming part in one press stroke.
However, Fischer et al. disclose a side part (Fischer et al. 6) of a motor vehicle manufactured as a one piece sheet metal forming part in one press stroke (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0007-0008).
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 combine the rear side part of Mildner et al. with the one piece manufacturing technique as taught by Fischer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of reducing the overall weight of the side part due to the absence of material overlap, eliminating strength-decreasing joints in the structure (Fischer et al. paragraph 0008).
The examiner notes that Fischer et al. also disclose a side part wherein adjacent areas have different wall thicknesses (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0013-0014).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Mildner et al. do not disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, being a hot-formed and press-hardened component.
However, Fischer et al. disclose a side part (Fischer et al. 6) being a hot-formed and press-hardened component (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0012 and 0014).
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 combine the rear side part of Mildner et al. with the hot-forming and hardening techniques as taught by Fischer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing targeted absorptions of crash energies in the side part structure necessary for survival in the event of a crash (Fischer et al. paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 14, Mildner et al., in view of Fischer et al., disclose a side part that requires different areas to have different strengths throughout the structure (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0008 and 0014), but do not explicitly disclose wherein a high-tensile area of the rear side part has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa. However, sections 2144.05 II. A. and 2144.05 III. C. of the MPEP set forth the case of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), which held that, 'the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious’.
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 design a high-tensile area of the rear side part that has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this instance, a high-tensile area of the rear side part that has a tensile strength greater than or equal to 1350 MPa is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Mildner et al., in view of Fischer et al., disclose a side part that requires different areas to have different strengths throughout the structure (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0008 and 0014), but do not explicitly disclose wherein a low-tensile area of the rear side part has a tensile strength of less than [1000 MPa]. However, sections 2144.05 II. A. and 2144.05 III. C. of the MPEP set forth the case of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), which held that, 'the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious’.
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 design a low-tensile area of the rear side part that has a tensile strength of less than [1000 MPa] with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this instance, a low-tensile area of the rear side part that has a tensile strength of less than [1000 MPa] is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Mildner et al. disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, further comprising a reinforcement patch applied at least locally to the C pillar (Mildner et al. paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 17, Mildner et al. disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, wherein the wheel housing segment is contoured in the shape of a partial sphere or a spherical segment (Mildner et al. paragraph 0057), or the wheel housing segment is contoured in an L-shape in cross-section in an area of a wheel arch (Mildner et al. 29) (Mildner et al. Fig. 7; Mildner et al. paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 18, Mildner et al. disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, wherein the wheel housing segment (Mildner et al. 12) has at least one of a lower tensile strength or an increased wall thickness in an area of a wheel arch (Mildner et al. D-D; Mildner et al. Figs. 9 and 13).
Regarding claim 19, Mildner et al. disclose the rear side part according to claim 18, wherein the wheel arch has a semi-circular configuration (see annotated Mildner et al. Fig. 1) and extends over an angular range greater than 30° (see annotated Mildner et al. Fig. 1). A semi-circular configuration implies a 180° structure, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
261
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Mildner et al. do not disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, wherein the one piece sheet metal forming part is manufactured from a tailored welded blank used as sheet metal blank.
However, Fischer et al. disclose a side part (Fischer et al. 6) of a motor vehicle wherein a one piece sheet metal forming part (Fischer et al. paragraph 0007) is manufactured from a tailored welded blank used as sheet metal blank (Fischer et al. paragraph 0027).
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 combine the rear side part of Mildner et al. with the manufacturing techniques of Fischer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of establishing a higher energy absorption in the structure to achieve desired deformation behaviors in the event of a crash (Fischer et al. paragraphs 0014 and 0027).
Regarding claim 21, Mildner et al., in view of Fischer et al., disclose a side part that requires different areas to have different strengths within a C pillar (Fischer et al. paragraph 0014), but do not explicitly disclose wherein the C pillar has a first section with a tensile strength [greater than] 1,350 MPa, and a second section with a tensile strength of [less than] 1,000 MPa. However, sections 2144.05 II. A. and 2144.05 III. C. of the MPEP set forth the case of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), which held that, 'the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious’.
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 design a C pillar that has a first section with a tensile strength [greater than] 1,350 MPa, and a second section with a tensile strength of [less than] 1,000 MPa with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this instance, a C pillar that has a first section with a tensile strength [greater than] 1,350 MPa, and a second section with a tensile strength of [less than] 1,000 MPa is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 22, Mildner et al. disclose the rear side part according to claim 12, wherein the C pillar, the D pillar and the wheel housing segment enclose an opening (Mildner et al. 13) (Mildner et al. Fig. 4; Mildner et al. paragraph 0015).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horton et al. US 20040239091 A1 disclose a modular frame with a stamped sheet side part.
Nagata DE 102011089436 B4 discloses a side part of a vehicle made of high-tensile sheet metal.
Xu et al. CN 217532998 U disclose a punch pressed rear side part of a vehicle.
Yu CN 217477410 U discloses a rear side wall assembly between a C pillar, D pillar, and wheel housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights