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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6601902 B1 (cited on the IDS filed on 03/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1, US 6601902 B1 discloses an instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) of a motor vehicle, comprising a crossbeam (crossmember 3 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1), wherein the crossbeam (crossmember 3 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) extends transversely to the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle from one A-pillar (1 in column 6, lines 45-53 show in Fig. 1) to an opposite A-pillar (1 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1), whereby a plate (the flat-shaped component 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) is attached to the cross member in the direction of the front of the vehicle (left side of the body from Fig. 1), with at least one instrument opening
(the cutouts 45 in column 6, lines 60-65 shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4) designed in the plate to accommodate an instrument.
Regarding claim 2, US 6601902 B1 discloses an instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, but does not show the plate
(the flat-shaped component 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) is arranged integrally on the crossbeam (crossmember 3 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1).
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the plate of US 6601902 B1 arranged integrally on the crossbeam, with a reasonable expectation of success would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 3, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the instrument crossbeam is made from a metallic material (“The execution of the flat-shaped component 41 can be an injection-molded part, preferably fiber-reinforced. But executions as a
plastic-metal hybrid composite or as light metal forged parts are also possible”
in in column 7, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the plate (flat shaped piece 41 in column 6, lines 56-57) runs horizontally (shown in Figures 3, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 5, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the instrument crossbar (crossmember 3 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) is formed as a
thick-walled (as seen in Figures 4 and 6), but does not show
one-piece component.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the instrument crossbar of US 6601902 B1 is configured as one-piece component, with a reasonable expectation of success would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 6, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one instrument opening (the openings 45 in column 6, lines 56-67 shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4) is arranged in the plate (flat shaped piece 41 in column 6, lines 56-57) to accommodate an imaging unit (as also in claim 1, here the opening is suitable for accommodating a specific instrument, but the device (instrument) is not part of the claimed object. Nevertheless, a similar opening can be used to accommodate, for example, an imaging unit).
Regarding claim 7, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein at least two instrument openings
(openings 45 in column 6, lines 56-67 shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4) are arranged in the plate (flat shaped piece 41 in column 6, lines 56-57) for reception imaging units (the imaging units are also not part of the claimed object, but they could be inserted into the openings 45).
Regarding claim 8, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 6, wherein at least one the instrument opening (openings 45 in column 6, lines 56-67) has a cooling surface (the side walls of the openings 45 shown in Fig. 4), against which the imaging unit rests in surface contact (when installing such a device, the side walls will act as the contact surface to the device) and which carries away heat from the imaging unit (heat dissipation or heat conduction is an implied property of the metals).
Regarding claim 10, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, but does not show wherein fastening openings configured to fasten the instruments arranged in the plate.
US 6601902 B1 does not explicitly disclose that the instrument crossbar has the fastening openings.
However, such fastening openings are implicitly used for attaching instruments.
Regarding claim 11, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the plate is surrounded by a support in the direction of the vehicle front (in one possible interpretation, the
C-shaped box section 2 forms a support for 41, as shown in Figures 1 and 6 can be seen. In a second possible interpretation, the upper part of 41, in the shape of an arch, containing the guide groove 44, forms the bracing for 41 shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the crossbeam has at least in sections a U-shaped cross-section, at least in some portion or portions (in one interpretation, where the crossbeam is not formed as a solid integral part, i.e., where the crossbeam 3 represents the crossbeam, it can be clearly seen from Fig. 5 that it has a U-shaped cross-section. According to the second interpretation, where the lower part of 41 represents the crossbeam, the cross-sections in the area of formations 46 are U-shaped, as can be seen in Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 11, wherein the support has a U-shaped
cross-section (for example, the guide channel 44 in column 6, lines 66-67 in Fig. 3 according to one interpretation, where the support is integral, or the box-section 2 in column 6, lines 45-50 in Fig. 6 if the support should not be integral).
Regarding claim 14, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the instrument panel crossbeam (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) is designed as a lightweight metal ("The design of the flat-shaped component 41 can be an injection-molded part, preferably fiber-reinforced. But designs as a plastic-metal hybrid composite or as lightweight metal forged parts are also possible" in column 7, lines 60-65) but does not show die-cast part.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, “[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims.”); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as “anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made.”); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6601902 B1 (cited on the IDS filed on 03/17/2025) in view of
DE 102022116803 B3 (cited on the IDS filed on 03/17/2025).
Regarding claim 9, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 6, wherein at least one the instrument opening (openings 45 in column 6, lines 56-67) has a cooling surface (the side walls of the openings 45 shown in Fig. 4) but does not show on which cooling fins are arranged on a side facing away from the imaging unit.
DE 102022116803 B3 teaches the heat sink (38) additionally has cooling fins (40) projecting into a free installation space within the instrument panel (10) in paragraph [0031] shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the instrument opening of US 6601902 B1 with cooling fins, as taught by DE 102022116803 B3, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional cooling by natural convection and/or convection forced by an air conditioning system.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cooling fins of US 6601902 B1, as modified, arranged on a side facing away from the imaging unit with a reasonable expectation of success would not modified the operation of cooling fins mere an obvious matter of design matter.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6601902 B1 (cited on the IDS filed on 03/17/2025) in view of CN 218463736 U.
Regarding claim 14, US 6601902 B1 discloses the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the instrument panel crossbeam (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in
Fig. 1) is designed as a lightweight metal ("The design of the flat-shaped component 41 can be an injection-molded part, preferably fiber-reinforced. But designs as a plastic-metal hybrid composite or as lightweight metal forged parts are also possible" in column 7, lines 60-65) but does not show die-cast part.
CN 218463736 U teaches the beam (10) of the instrument panel (10) includes, but is not limited to, die-casting (in paragraph before Description of pictures).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the instrument panel crossmember of US 6601902 B1 by diecasting, as taught by CN 218463736 U, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for high precision and consistent quality.
Regarding claim 15, US 6601902 B1 discloses a method for producing the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1, comprising the instrument panel crossmember (assembly showing components 3 and 41 in column 6, lines 45-53 shown in Fig. 1) but does not show diecasting.
CN 218463736 U teaches the beam (10) of the instrument panel (10) includes, but is not limited to, die-casting (in paragraph before Description of pictures).
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the instrument panel crossmember of US 6601902 B1 by diecasting, as taught by CN 218463736 U, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for high precision and consistent quality.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights