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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-4 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga (US 5,762,392) in view of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, Suga discloses a passenger compartment (Fig. 7), a plurality of pillars 12, and for each said pillar, a respective covering element 18 having an external surface delimiting said passenger compartment; at least one of said covering elements comprising a skeleton (Figs. 4 and 5) defined by a single piece of polymeric material (column 2, lines 8-12) and comprising: a wall having an inner surface opposite said outer surface (Fig. 4), facing towards the corresponding pillar 12 and spaced from said pillar so as to define a cavity 20 (Fig. 4); a plurality of ribs 32, 34 projecting from said inner surface towards the corresponding pillar; wherein at least some of said ribs comprise respective reduced thickness portions (Figs. 2a-3), wherein said wall and said ribs are integral to one another so as to form said single piece. Suga discloses that the reduced thickness areas are there to control and concentrate the impact loads upon the passenger impacting the covering (column 4, line 56 – column 5, line 6). Suga does not specifically disclose the reduction in thickness, but discloses that it is based upon the loading profile desired. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce the thickness ranging from 25% to 75% with respect to a maximum thickness of the respective ribs in order to effectively control the impact loads it absorbs during an impact. One having ordinary skill in the art is tasked with the loading profile, impact resistance, manufacturability and safety as part of their daily function. Having the thickness reduced to 25%-75% of the base thickness is merely an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, said ribs 32, 34 have respective end edges spaced apart from said inner surface and adjacent to the corresponding pillar (Fig. 4), and wherein said reduced thickness portions are spaced apart from said inner surface (see 40; Figs. 1a, 1b).
Regarding Claim 3, said reduced thickness portions end at said end edges (Fig. 1a, 1b).
Regarding Claim 4, notch (reduced thickness area) 40 has a thickness that decreases orthogonal to the cover and the pillar.
Regarding Claim 6, the thickness of the ribs decreases progressively along the ramp section of notch 40.
Regarding Claim 7, said ribs 32, 34 comprise respective greater thickness portions arranged along said inner surface and having a substantially constant thickness (Figs. 1a, 1b), which is greater than the thickness of said reduced thickness portions 40.
Regarding Claim 8, each rib 32, 34 is defined by a corresponding said reduced thickness portion 40 and by a corresponding said greater thickness portion (Fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 9, said reduced thickness portions 40 are provided with respective notches to define the thickness reduction (Fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 10, in a second embodiment, Suga discloses said notches 38 may be V-shaped (Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 11, Suga discloses the use of reduced thickness areas 36 at the base where the rib meets the inner surface of the cover (Fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 12, said cavity 20 is exclusively engaged by said ribs (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 13-15, said ribs 32, 34 are flat and lie in respective planes which are substantially orthogonal to said wall (Fig. 4), and parallel (Fig. 4), and orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the pillar 12 (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kawai (US 5,927,786).
It is unclear if Suga discloses the ribs decreasing in thickness from the inner surface of the cover towards the pillar. Kawai discloses a pillar cover 343 (Fig. 24) with ribs 349 extending from the cover to the pillar 21, wherein the ribs decrease in thickness from the cover to the pillar (Fig. 24). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the longitudinally decreasing profile of Kawai for the ribs of Suga to enhance the longitudinal impact profile of the ribs, thereby giving a progressive linear crush to the ribs to further assist in impact protection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to vehicle pillar construction, the coverings associated therewith, and the impact protection afforded by such covers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights