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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by JP 7754068.
As concerns claims 1 and 12, JP 7754068 discloses a vehicle-body-integrated rail structure configured to be installed on a vehicle body and disposed in a door opening portion in the vehicle body, the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure comprising:
an upper rail (14) disposed at an upper side of the door opening portion;
a center rail (16) disposed at a vehicle body rear center side of the door opening portion; and
a lower rail (56) disposed at a vehicle body lower side of the door opening portion, wherein rail openings are disposed in the upper rail (whereby 24 engages rail 14) and the lower rail (whereby 44 engages with rail 56) and define sliding movement routes for a door (20).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 2, 4-5, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7754068 in view of Kang (US 12,434,774).
As concerns claims 2 and 13, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 1 and 12, wherein the lower rail (56) comprises:
a rail part (56a) in which the rail opening is disposed in a longitudinal direction (front back) of the vehicle body (Figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
533
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP 7754068 fails to specify a pillar connection part; a center cross member connection part; and
vehicle body connection parts as claimed.
Kang (US 12,434,774) teaches a lower rail comprising a rail part in which the rail opening is disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body;
a pillar connection part extending from the rail part toward an upper side of the vehicle body and connected to a pillar;
a center cross member connection part extending from a lower end of the rail part toward a central portion of the vehicle body and connected to a center cross member of the vehicle body; and
vehicle body connection parts extending from lower ends of two opposite sides of the rail part in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connected to the vehicle body.
PNG
media_image3.png
553
1357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Due to the fact that Kang discloses a lower rail system that is physically identical to Applicant’s (see Figure of Kang on left, as compared to Applicant’s Figure 6 on the right), and because Kang also illustrates joints intended for a pillar member, cross members, and side sill members, Kang anticipates these elements in the claims.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify (JP 7754068) as taught by Kang to include the lower rail as claimed, for the expected benefit of providing increased structural integrity and rigidity to the rail system and the opening of the vehicle, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 4 and 15, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 2 and 13, wherein:
the center cross member connection part has a shape that is concave toward a lower side of the vehicle body and is connected to and overlaps an end of the center cross member (Kang – Figure 1 illustrates such concavity); and
an end of the center cross member connection part is connected to the end of the center cross member by a blind rivet (Kang discloses the use of “mechanical fastening members” rather than welding. Such are considered to be known and analogous to blind rivets. Column 5, Lines 32-43).
As concerns claims 5 and 16, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 2 and 13, wherein:
each of the vehicle body connection parts has a stepped tunnel shape and is connected to and overlaps an end of the vehicle body; and
the vehicle body is inserted into and connected to an inside of the stepped tunnel shape of the vehicle body connection parts. (Kang – Figure1 illustrates an identical rail, understood to interact with the vehicle body parts in the same manner as claimed)
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7754068 in view of Kang and further in view of May et al (US 9,150,258).
As concerns claims 6 and 17, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 5 and 16, however fails to specify particulars about further connection between the vehicle body and vehicle body connection parts.
May et al (US 9,150,258) teaches wherein:
an upper side of a vehicle body is coupled to an upper side of a vehicle body connection parts by a self-piercing rivet; and
a lower side of the vehicle body is coupled to a lower side of the vehicle body connection parts by a blind rivet.
(May - Figure 1, Column 2, Lines 32-46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by May to include blind and self-piercing rivets for the connection of body parts and body connection parts, for the expected benefit of using known fastener styles for vehicle body construction, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 7 and 18, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 2 and 13, wherein:
the pillar connection part has a stepped tunnel shape and is connected to and overlaps an end of a B-pillar and an end of a C-pillar;
the B-pillar is inserted into and connected to an inside of the stepped tunnel shape of the pillar connection part;
an outer side of the B-pillar is connected to an outer side of the pillar connection part by a flow drill screw;
an inner side of the B-pillar is connected to an inner side of the pillar connection part by a fastener;
the C-pillar is inserted into and connected to the inside of the stepped tunnel shape of the pillar connection part; and
the C-pillar is coupled to the inside of the stepped tunnel shape of the pillar connection part by a fastener. (Kang – Figure 1 showing an identical rail system is understood to anticipate this claim in near entirety; as compared to the rejection of claim 4 where a generic fastener was considered analogous to the claimed rivets, below a teaching of May is used. Both are considered sufficient to anticipate the claimed invention, however.)
The combination fails to specify the use of blind rivets or self-piercing rivets.
May et al (US 9,150,258) teaches wherein:
vehicle body connections are made by self-piercing rivets and/or blind rivets.
(May - Figure 1, Column 2, Lines 32-46)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by May to include blind and self-piercing rivets for the connection of body parts and body connection parts, for the expected benefit of using known fastener styles for vehicle body construction, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7754068 in view of Shim et al (US 2024/0208580).
As concerns claims 8 and 19, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 1 and 12, however fails to specify particulars about the upper rail.
Shim et al (US 2024/0208580) teaches wherein the upper rail comprises:
a rail part in which the rail opening extends in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body;
a pillar connection part extending from the rail part toward a lower side of the vehicle body and connected to a pillar;
a roof rail connection part extending from an upper end of the rail part toward a central portion of the vehicle body and connected to a roof rail of the vehicle body; and
a vehicle body connection part extending from the upper end of the rail part in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body and connected to the vehicle body. (As Shim illustrates – Shim’s Figure 4 - an upper rail identical to Applicant’s upper rail – see Applicant’s Figure 11 - , the claims are found to be anticipated.)
PNG
media_image4.png
378
904
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Shim to include an upper rail having connections as claimed for the expected benefit of providing increased structural integrity and rigidity to the rail system and the opening of the vehicle, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 7754068 in view of Kwon et al (KR 20250001138).
As concerns claims 9 and 20, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claims 1 and 12, however fails to specify the particulars of the center rail.
Kwon et al (KR 20250001138) however teaches wherein the center rail comprises:
a rail part (elongated section spanning from C to A-B) in which the rail opening extends in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body;
a first pillar connection part (“A”) extending from a first end of the rail part toward upper and lower sides of the vehicle body and connected to a C-pillar of the vehicle body; and
a second pillar connection part (“C”) extending from a second end of the rail part toward a rear side of the vehicle body. (Kwon illustrates an identical center rail – Applicant’s Figure 12 as compared to Kwon’s Figure 7 – and thus is found to anticipate the claimed center rail.)
PNG
media_image5.png
474
1322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Kwon to include the center rail having a rail opening and pillar connection parts for the expected benefit of providing increased structural integrity and rigidity to the rail system and the opening of the vehicle, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claim 9, wherein the first pillar connection part comprises:
a first upper pillar connection part (Kwon - “A”) extending from an end of the rail part toward an upper side of the vehicle body and connected to an upper portion of the C-pillar; and
a first lower pillar connection part (Kwon - “B”) extending from the end of the rail part toward a lower side of the vehicle body and connected to a lower portion of the C-pillar.
As concerns claim 11, the combination discloses the vehicle-body-integrated rail structure of claim 10, wherein a closed cross-section portion configured as a cross-shaped bead is disposed between the first upper pillar connection part and the first lower pillar connection part. (Kwon - See Figure 7, area between “A” and “B”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
As concerns claims 3 and 14, the prior art discloses rails as claimed, however fails to anticipate the claimed protrusions disposed on an inner surface of a lower portion of the rail opening.
Neither JP 7754068 nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, wherein a lower portion of the rail opening was provided with a protrusion that protrudes toward an inside of the rail opening, and bearing connected to a door arm as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights