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 § 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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the curved support" at the end of line 1 and beginning of line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation because the term “the curved support” was not recited in claim 1, the only claim claim 9 depends on. For this reason, the term “the curved support” could potentially refer to the integral curved support mentioned in claim 4 or to the crossbeam mentioned in claim 1. One way of resolving this 112(b) rejection would be to render claim 9 dependent on claim 4, where the curved support is introduced and defined.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudart et al. (US 20140327270 A1) in view of Dormanns et al. (US 20190210464 A1) and further in view of Atkin et al. (US 20200070893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baudart et al. discloses a front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, comprising: two mutually opposing A-pillars (Baudart et al. paragraph [0025] discloses a crossbeam fastened between “A” posts, which are equivalent to A-pillars); and a crossbeam, wherein the crossbeam extends transversely with respect to the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle from a first A-pillar of the mutually opposing A-pillars to a second A-pillar of the mutually opposing A-pillars (Baudart et al. Annotated Figure 1), wherein the crossbeam is supported or mounted exclusively on the mutually opposing A-pillars (Baudart et al. paragraph [0025] discloses a crossbeam fastened between “A” posts, which are equivalent to A-pillars).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baudart et al. fails to discloses a front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, comprising: a bulkhead which delimits in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle; and wherein the crossbeam is in a form of a die-cast component.
Dormanns et al. teaches a front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, comprising: a bulkhead which delimits in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (Dormanns et al. paragraph [0057] discloses a partition wall 66 that separates the passenger compartment 44 from the engine compartment 68. Bulkheads are structures that are responsible for separating the engine compartment from the passenger compartment. Therefore, the partition wall is a bulkhead).
Atkin et al. teaches a front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, comprising: and wherein the crossbeam is in a form of a die-cast component (Atkin et al. paragraph [0042] mentions “the cross-car beam 100a may be … with a smaller die cast machine.” The cross-car beam is a crossbeam.).
It would be obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle as disclosed by Baudart et al. to incorporate a bulkhead, as taught by Dormanns et al., because the addition of a bulkhead would help keep deformation from reaching a vehicle’s occupants in the event of a frontal crash.
It would be obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the crossbeam of the modified front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, as disclosed by Baudart and Dormanns et, by die casting, as taught by Atkin et al., because die casting produces metal parts quickly and cheaply relative to other well-known methods of manufacturing, rendering the crossbeam cheaper to produce.
Regarding claim 2, Baudart et al. does not disclose the front region according to claim 1, wherein a continuously open footwell is formed transversely relative to the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle from the first A-pillar up to the second A-pillar and in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle up to the bulkhead.
Dormanns et al. teaches the front region according to claim 1, wherein a continuously open footwell is formed transversely relative to the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle from the first A-pillar up to the second A-pillar (Dormanns et al. paragraph [0012] mentions that “in electrically driven cars a center console is not needed.” Without a central console, there is nothing to obstruct the footwell from extending from the first A-pillar to the second A-pillar) and in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle up to the bulkhead (Dormanns et al. paragraph [0050] mentions that “the legroom of the passenger compartment 44 below the instrument panel 39 is not limited by girder or the like.” This means that there is nothing keeping the footwell from reaching the bulkhead).
It would obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the front region of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, as disclosed by Baudart et al., Dormanns et al. and Atkins et al, to incorporate a continuously open footwell, as taught by Dormanns et al., because a continuously open footwell would increase the amount of legroom available for occupants of the vehicle to utilize.
Regarding claim 3, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. discloses the front region according to claim 1, wherein the crossbeam has at both ends end portions (Baudart et al. Annotated Figure 1), and wherein the crossbeam is supported exclusively on the end portions (Baudart et al. Annotated Figure 1, the section break indicates that there is no significant structure in the middle of the crossbeam).
Regarding claim 7, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. discloses the front region according to claim 1, wherein the crossbeam is configured at least partially in a U-shaped manner (Baudart et al. Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. discloses the front region of according to claim 7, wherein the U-shape of the crossbeam is open in a downward direction in a negative Z direction (Baudart et al. Annotated Figure 1).
Claims 4-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudart et al., and as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Michel et al. (FR 2623776 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. fails to disclose the front region according to claim 1, wherein an integral curved support is arranged on the crossbeam and extends towards a vehicle front space.
Michel et al. teaches the front region according to claim 1, wherein an integral curved support is arranged on the crossbeam and extends towards a vehicle front space (Michel et al. Annotated Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the front region of a passenger compartment, as disclosed by Baudart et al., Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al., to incorporate an integral curved support, as taught by Michel et al., because an integral curved support is necessary to support the windshield.
PNG
media_image2.png
504
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. Atkin et al. and Michel et al. discloses the front region according to claim 4, wherein … the curved support ….
Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. Atkin et al. and Michel et al. fails to disclose the front region according to claim 4, wherein a connection location is arranged at an apex of the … support to support or mount the curved support on a body of the vehicle or on the bulkhead.
Dormanns et al teaches the front region according to claim 4, wherein a connection location is arranged at an apex of the … support to support or mount the curved support on a body of the vehicle or on the bulkhead (Dormanns et al. Annotated Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the curved support of a front region of a passenger compartment, as disclosed by Baudart et al., Dormanns et al., Atkin et al., and Michel et al. to incorporate a connection at an apex of a support, as taught by Dormanns et al., because it would allow the curved support to bear some of the forces that would otherwise be endured entirely by the bulkhead during a frontal impact.
PNG
media_image3.png
409
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. fails to disclose the front region according to claim 4, wherein a plate is arranged between the crossbeam and the curved support, wherein the crossbeam, the curved support and the plate are configured integrally or in one piece.
Michel et al teaches the front region according to claim 4, wherein a plate is arranged between the crossbeam and the curved support, wherein the crossbeam, the curved support and the plate are configured integrally or in one piece (Michel et al. Annotated Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the curved support of a front region of a passenger compartment, as disclosed by Baudart et al., Dormanns et al., Atkin et al., and Michel et al. to incorporate a plate between and merged with the crossbeam and the curved support, because the addition of a plate would further increase the strength of the combined curved support and crossbeam.
Regarding claim 9, Baudart et al. as previously modified by Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al. fails to disclose the front region of a passenger compartment according to claim 1, wherein the curved support is configured in a U-shaped manner.
Michel et al teaches the front region of a passenger compartment according to claim 1, wherein the curved support is configured in a U-shaped manner (Michel et al. Annotated Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the front region of a passenger compartment, as disclosed by Baudart et al., Dormanns et al. and Atkin et al., to integrate an integral curved support shaped like a U, as taught by Michel et al., because a U-shaped integral curved support best supports an aerodynamically optimal windshield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL R SACKINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-0840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. 6 p.m. ET..
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 5712705500. 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.
/G.R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights