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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of mislabeled part 33D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-17 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. In claim 1, the term “configured for being fixed” and “configured for fixing” does not positively recite the second element that is being configured to be fixed to by the first element. Particularly, it is unclear for the “firewall panel” if it is intended to be claimed as part of the structure in claim 1, when it is later positively claimed in claims 4 and 14. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the firewall panel" in Ln. 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieminski et al. (US Patent 6260914 B1), henceforth Nieminski.
Regarding claim 1, Nieminski discloses
a front structure (dash assembly 50, Fig. 1) for a cabin (vehicle cab 101, Fig. 1) of an industrial vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 1), comprising:
a reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) configured for being fixed to a firewall panel of the cabin (Col. 7, Ln. 24-32; as shown in annotated Fig. 14 below);
a cross member (horizontal cross piece 119, Fig. 14) configured for being fixed to the reinforcement structure and for overlapping the reinforcement structure (Col. 7, Ln. 18-19; as shown in annotated Fig. 14 below);
and a fixing element (part of transition pieces 110 circled in blue in annotated Fig. 14 below) configured for fixing the reinforcement structure to a structural beam (part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 below) of the cabin (Col. 7, Ln. 15-23),
the structural beam (part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 below) extending in a longitudinal direction of the cabin (Col. 7, Ln. 13-23; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 14 from Nieminski
Regarding claim 5, Nieminski discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) is a single metal stamped element (Col. 4, Ln. 58-60).
Regarding claim 14, Nieminski discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
a cabin (vehicle cabin 101, Fig. 1) comprising the front structure (dash assembly 50, Fig. 1) of claim 1 (as applied above in claim 1), wherein:
the reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) is fixed to a firewall panel (dash panel 70/70b, Fig. 14) of the cabin (Col. 5, Ln. 49-50);
the cross member (horizontal cross piece 119, Fig. 14) is fixed to the reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) and overlaps the reinforcement structure (Col. 7, Ln. 18-19; as shown in annotated Fig. 14 above);
and the fixing element (part of transition pieces 110 circled in blue in annotated Fig. 14 below) fixes the reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) to a structural beam (part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 above) of the cabin (Col. 7, Ln. 15-23; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 14 above).
Regarding claim 15, Nieminski discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
a truck (Abstract, discloses the cabin for use for a heavy-duty truck) comprising a frame (vehicle chassis from Col. 4, Ln. 31-33) and the cabin (vehicle cab 101, Fig. 1) of claim 14,
wherein the cabin (vehicle cab 101, Fig. 1) is fixed to the frame of the truck (Col. 4, Ln. 31-33).
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieminski et al. (US Patent 6260914 B1), henceforth Nieminski, in view of Mondragon Sarmiento et al. (US Patent 6315351 B1), henceforth Mondragon Sarmiento.
Regarding claim 16, Nieminski discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
an assembly process of a cabin of an industrial vehicle, comprising:
providing a cabin (vehicle cab 101, Fig. 1) comprising A-pillars (‘A’ pillars 105a and 105b, Fig. 1);
providing the front structure (dash assembly 50, Fig. 1) of claim 1 (as applied above in claim 1);
and fixing the reinforcement structure (dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) to a structural beam (part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 above) of the cabin.
But Nieminski does not teach
welding the reinforcement structure to the A-pillars of the cabin;
welding the cross member to the reinforcement structure.
Mondragon Sarmiento discloses a modular cabin frame, where each of the parts are manufactured and fixed together by resistance spot welding (Col. 5, Ln. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dash assembly of Nieminski to have the parts be modularly fixed together by welding with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to allow for the separate parts to be manufactured separately but be fixed together in assembly (Mondragon Sarmiento; Col. 5, Ln. 9-13) and to use a common, well known, and cost-effective technique in automotive manufacturing for joining the parts.
Regarding claim 17, Nieminski, as modified by Mondragon Sarmiento above in claim 16, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
wherein fixing the reinforcement structure (Nieminski; dash reinforcement 10, Fig. 14) to a structural beam (Nieminski; part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 above) of the cabin (Nieminski; vehicle cab 101, Fig. 1) comprises:
welding a load transfer element (Nieminski; part of fixing element as circled in yellow in annotated Fig. 14 above) to the reinforcement structure (as taught by Mondragon Sarmiento that the cabin parts would be welded together when assembled in Col. 5, Ln. 9-13);
and bolting a fixing bracket (Nieminski; part of fixing element as circled in red in annotated Fig. 14 above) to the structural beam (Nieminski; part of transition pieces 110 circled in green in annotated Fig. 14 above) of the cabin (Nieminski; as detailed in annotated Fig. 14 above).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patschicke et al. (DE Patent 102009058287 A1), henceforth Patschicke, in view of Murayama (US Patent Application 20160121934 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
355
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Patschicke
Regarding claim 1, Patschicke discloses
a front structure (front structure 100, Fig. 1) for a cabin of an industrial vehicle (not present), comprising:
a reinforcement structure (as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above) configured for being fixed to a firewall panel of the cabin (not present);
a cross member (bumper cross member 14, Fig. 1) configured for being fixed to the reinforcement structure and for overlapping the reinforcement structure (Paragraph [0038] of English Machine Translation provided; as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above);
and a fixing element (positive locking means 36, Fig. 2) configured for fixing the reinforcement structure to a structural beam (longitudinal beams 30 and 32, Fig. 1) of the cabin, the structural beam (longitudinal beams 30 and 32) extending in a longitudinal direction of the cabin (Paragraph [0047] of English Machine Translation provided; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
431
585
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Murayama
The missing elements not taught by Patschicke are disclosed by Murayama, which teaches a similar vehicle front structure, which can be attached to various vehicles that include a front side member (Murayama; Paragraph [0028]),
a front structure (Patschicke; front structure 100, Fig. 1) for a cabin of an industrial vehicle (Murayama; cabin 12, Fig. 1), comprising:
a reinforcement structure (Patschicke; as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above) configured for being fixed to a firewall panel of the cabin (Murayama; as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above, where the dash panel is the firewall panel, which through the structural members would fix to the front structure of Patschicke).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle front structure of Patschicke to be fixed in front of a firewall panel of a vehicle cabin by the structural members with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to protect the cabin from deformation in a frontal collision (.
Regarding claim 2, Patschicke, as modified by Murayama above in claim 1, teaches all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the reinforcement structure (Patschicke; as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above) comprises:
an upper member (Patschicke; upper cross member 10, Fig. 1);
a lower member (Patschicke; lower cross member 12, Fig. 1);
and a connecting member (Patschicke; structural elements 16 and 18, Fig. 1) linking the upper member and the lower member, the connecting member comprising two intermediate links (Patschicke; Paragraph [0039] of English Machine Translation provided; as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Patschicke, as modified by Murayama above in claim 1, teaches all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the upper member (Patschicke; upper cross member 10, Fig. 1) of the reinforcement structure (Patschicke; as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above) comprises two flat portions linked by a linking portion (Patschicke; as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above) having a substantially U-shaped profile (Patschicke; as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 6-13 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 4 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the firewall panel having an indented portion to face the linking portion of the upper member of the reinforcement structure. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Patschicke et al. (DE Patent 102009058287 A1), henceforth Patschicke, and Murayama (US Patent Application 20160121934 A1), which in combination teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the firewall panel, but does not teach the indented portion that faces the linking portion of the upper member of the reinforcement structure. These deficiencies in Patschicke, as modified by Murayama, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the cross member being a metal stamped element defining a supporting member for a bottom edge of a cabin windshield. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Nieminski et al. (US Patent 6260914 B1), henceforth Nieminski, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach the cross member as a supporting member for the cabin windshield, instead it is just supporting the reinforcement structure. These deficiencies in Nieminski are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 7 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the upper member of the reinforcement structure being disposed in an internal cavity defined by the cross member. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Patschicke et al. (DE Patent 102009058287 A1), henceforth Patschicke, and Murayama (US Patent Application 20160121934 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach such an engagement between the cross member and the upper member of the reinforcement structure. These deficiencies in Patschicke, as modified by Murayama, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 8 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the load transfer element of the fixing element is a stamped metal part and the fixing bracket of the fixing element is a cast metal part. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Nieminski et al. (US Patent 6260914 B1), henceforth Nieminski, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the load transfer element and the fixing bracket of the fixing element, but does not teach the specific manufacturing method of each part. While metal stamping and metal casting are both well-known manufacturing methods in the art, it is the opinion of the Office that it would be hindsight reasoning to say that it would be obvious to use these specific methods for manufacturing each separate part. These deficiencies in Nieminski are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 10 and 12 are dependent on claim 8 and thus are also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 9 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the fixing element comprising a load transfer element and a fixing bracket. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Patschicke et al. (DE Patent 102009058287 A1), henceforth Patschicke, and Murayama (US Patent Application 20160121934 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but the fixing element is not comprised of the separate load transfer elements and fixing bracket. These deficiencies in Patschicke, as modified by Murayama, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 11 and 13 are dependent on claim 8 and thus are also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon disclose similar front cabin structures, but with some missing elements to the structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights