unDETAILED 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Office believes that the instant specification uses both “an inner bent portion” in Paragraphs [0053], [0055], [0056], [0065], and [0067], and “an inner end portion” in Paragraphs [0007] and [0075] to refer to the same element, but it is not made clear that these are the same element in either the claim language or the language used in the specification. The language used between the claims and within the specification itself should be consistent and clear.
In Paragraph [0007] of the instant specification says “an overlapping portion that is located on an inner side of another portion of the outer reinforcement”. It is not clear, as will be mentioned about the claim language below regarding claim 1, as to what “another portion” is referring to in the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “the side sill” in Ln. 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 of the claim. The element is first referenced as “a pair of left and right side sills”, thus when reciting “the side sill”, it is unclear and indefinite as to which side sill(s) is being referenced. Claim 1 further recites the limitation of “an overlapping portion that is located on an inner side of another portion of the outer reinforcement” in Ln. 16 of the claim. It is unclear and indefinite as to what element “another portion of the outer reinforcement” is intended to reference. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “and an inner end portion” in Ln. 20 of the claim. This appears that it should be referencing the inner bent portion 41b element, but is not made clear between the claim language and the language used in the specification, thus the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Claim 1 also recites the limitation of “an upper wall portion” in Ln. 22 of the claim. It appears from the drawings that this should be the inner upper wall portion, 21, but it is not made clear in the claim language. The claim language is unclear and indefinite as to what element is being referenced. Thus, the claim language for claims 1-12 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 10 is further rejected because it recites limitations involving “material strength” of different components, but it is not clear what the scope of this phrase is. Paragraph [0046] of the instant Specification discloses a special definition of “material strength”, where it is “a parameter determined by, for example, tensile strength and thickness of the plate.” It is also further defined where “The material strength is increased as the tensile strength is increased, and is increased as the thickness is increased.” This special definition makes it unclear as to what the relation is between tensile strength and thickness and how it defines “material strength” regarding the different components. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as pertaining to the difference in thickness of the different components.
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 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuyuzaki et al. (US Patent Application 20190359260 A1), henceforth Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau et al. (US Patent Application 20220281304 A1), henceforth Gibeau.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
493
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 2 and 3 from Tsuyuzaki
Regarding claim 1, Tsuyuzaki discloses
a vehicle lower body structure (Fig. 2) comprising:
a pair of left and right side sills (left and right side sills 14, Figs. 2-3), each of which has a closed cross-sectional structure extending in a vehicle front-rear direction (Paragraph [0033]; as can be seen in Figs. 2-3);
a floor panel (floor panel 16, Figs. 2-3) that is fixed to the side sill (left and right side sills 14, Figs. 2-3) and constitutes a floor surface of a cabin (Paragraph [0034]; as can be seen in Fig. 2);
a battery (battery pack 28, Fig. 3) that is disposed below the floor panel (floor panel 16, Fig. 3) and supported by the side sill (Paragraph [0034]; as can be seen in Fig. 3);
a cross member (cross members 34, 35, 36, Fig. 2) that extends in a vehicle width direction (Paragraph [0035]; as can be seen in Fig. 2), and each end portion in the vehicle width direction of which is fixed to the side sill at a position above the floor panel (Paragraph [0035]; as can be seen in Fig. 3);
However, Tsuyuzaki does not disclose the specifics of the side sill structure
an outer reinforcement that is fixed to an outer wall portion as an outer wall surface of the side sill in the vehicle width direction, cooperates with the side sill to form a closed cross section, and overlaps an area where the battery is disposed in the vehicle front-rear direction in the closed cross-sectional structure of the side sill; and an inner reinforcement that is fixed to an inner wall portion as an inner wall surface of the side sill in the vehicle width direction and overlaps the cross member in the vehicle front-rear direction in the closed cross-sectional structure of the side sill, wherein the outer reinforcement includes an overlapping portion that is located on an inner side of another portion of the outer reinforcement in the vehicle width direction and overlaps the inner reinforcement in an up-down direction, and the inner reinforcement includes: a first inner reinforcement that has a horizontal surface portion extending in the vehicle front-rear direction and the vehicle width direction, and an inner end portion of which in the vehicle width direction is fixed to the inner wall portion; and a second inner reinforcement that has a vertical surface portion fixed to the horizontal surface portion, an upper wall portion of the side sill, and the inner wall portion and extending in the up-down direction and the vehicle width direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
497
767
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Gibeau
Gibeau discloses a similar vehicle lower body structure (vehicle underbody structure 2, Figs. 1-2) that teaches the missing structure of the side sills wherein
an outer reinforcement (first profile part 48, circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) that is fixed to an outer wall portion as an outer wall surface of the side sill (outer sill member 10, Fig. 2) in the vehicle width direction (Paragraphs [0114]-[0121]), cooperates with the side sill (side sills 6, Fig. 2) to form a closed cross section (as can be seen in Fig. 2), and overlaps an area where the battery (battery pack 118, Fig. 2) is disposed in the vehicle front-rear direction in the closed cross-sectional structure of the side sill (as can be seen in Fig. 2 the cross sectional view shows both the battery pack 118 and the first profile part 48 share the same space in the longitudinal direction, and Fig. 3 shows the first profile part 48 extending in the longitudinal direction, which is discussed in Paragraph [0114]; and it is reasonable to expect the battery to extend in the longitudinal direction as well, thus the two elements overlap the same longitudinal space/area);
and an inner reinforcement (as circled in green in annotated Fig. 2 above) that is fixed to an inner wall portion as an inner wall surface of the side sill (external profile part 68, Fig. 2) in the vehicle width direction and overlaps the cross member (transversal beam 4, Fig. 2) in the vehicle front-rear direction in the closed cross-sectional structure of the side sill (Paragraphs [0148] and [0152]; as can be seen in Figs. 2-3 where the inner reinforcement also extends in the longitudinal direction, and the transversal beam only takes up some of the longitudinal space, not shown, but these two elements would also overlap since the cross members lay across the side sills),
wherein the outer reinforcement (first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) includes an overlapping portion (inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) that is located on an inner side of another portion of the outer reinforcement in the vehicle width direction and overlaps the inner reinforcement in an up-down direction (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above),
and the inner reinforcement (as circled in green in annotated Fig. 2 above) includes:
a first inner reinforcement (as circled in blue in annotated Fig. 2 above) that has a horizontal surface portion (joining wall 94, 100, Fig. 2) extending in the vehicle front-rear direction and the vehicle width direction (as can be seen in Figs. 2-3), and an inner end portion (inner contact portion 92, 98, Fig. 2) of which in the vehicle width direction is fixed to the inner wall portion (Paragraph [0148]; as can be seen in Fig. 2 where it contacts the external profile part 68 at inner contact surface 70);
and a second inner reinforcement (inner sill member 12, Fig. 2) that has a vertical surface portion (inner contact surface 30 and upper outer contact surface 32, Fig. 2) fixed to the horizontal surface portion, an upper wall portion of the side sill, and the inner wall portion and extending in the up-down direction and the vehicle width direction (Paragraphs [0131], [0110], [0143], as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above in yellow).
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 lower body structure of Tsuyuzaki to incorporate the side sill structure of Gibeau 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 improve the energy absorption by having more profile parts in the inner volume of the side sill (Gibeau; Paragraph [0007]).
PNG
media_image4.png
495
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Gibeau
Regarding claim 3, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the overlapping portion (Gibeau; inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) has a surface extending in the vehicle front-rear direction and the up-down direction and overlaps the vertical surface portion (Gibeau; inner contact surface 30 and upper outer contact surface 32, Fig. 2) in the vehicle front-rear direction (Gibeau; as shown in annotated Fig. 3 above).
PNG
media_image5.png
504
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Tsuyuzaki
Regarding claim 4, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the vertical surface portion (Gibeau; inner contact surface 30 and upper outer contact surface 32, Fig. 2) overlaps the cross member (Tsuyuzaki; cross members 34, 35, 36, Fig. 2) in the vehicle front-rear direction (Tsuyuzaki; as described in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the second inner reinforcement (Gibeau; inner sill member 12, Fig. 2) has a lateral surface portion (Gibeau; central inner contact surface 38, Fig. 2) extending in the vehicle front-rear direction and the up-down direction from an outer end portion of the vertical surface portion (Gibeau; inner contact surface 30 and upper outer contact surface 32, Fig. 2) in the vehicle width direction (Gibeau; as can be seen in Fig. 2, where 38 extends from the upper outer contact surface 32 section of the vertical surface portion, which is the outer end portion of the part),
and the lateral surface portion (Gibeau; central inner contact surface 38, Fig. 2) overlaps the overlapping portion (Gibeau; inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) in the up-down direction (Gibeau; as can be seen in Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the overlapping portion (Gibeau; inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) is a surface portion extending in the up-down direction (Gibeau; as can be seen in Fig. 2 above),
and the outer reinforcement (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) further includes:
an upper surface portion (Gibeau; upper joining wall 58, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; outer sill member 10, Fig. 2) from an upper end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2);
and a lower surface portion (Gibeau; lower joining wall 62, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) from a lower end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein material strength of the outer reinforcement (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) is lower than that of the cross member (Tsuyuzaki; cross members 34, 35, 36, Fig. 2), and material strength of the second inner reinforcement (Gibeau; inner sill member 12, Fig. 2) is lower than that of the outer reinforcement (Gibeau; Paragraphs [0053]-[0068], where it is discussed that different parts may have different thicknesses and a given range of tensile strength of material chosen for the parts).
While not explicitly taught by Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the cross member stronger than the outer reinforcement, and the outer reinforcement stronger than the second inner reinforcement, by changing the thickness of the parts, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to optimize crushability and deformation of the different parts (Gibeau; Paragraphs [0106]-[0107] defines where two parts may have different thicknesses to optimize crushability).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the overlapping portion (Gibeau; inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) is a surface portion extending in the up-down direction (Gibeau; as can be seen in Fig. 2 above),
and the outer reinforcement (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) further includes:
an upper surface portion (Gibeau; upper joining wall 58, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; outer sill member 10, Fig. 2) from an upper end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2);
and a lower surface portion (Gibeau; lower joining wall 62, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) from a lower end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the overlapping portion (Gibeau; inner contact portion 52, Fig. 2) is a surface portion extending in the up-down direction (Gibeau; as can be seen in Fig. 2 above),
and the outer reinforcement (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) further includes:
an upper surface portion (Gibeau; upper joining wall 58, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; outer sill member 10, Fig. 2) from an upper end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2);
and a lower surface portion (Gibeau; lower joining wall 62, Fig. 2) extending outward in the vehicle width direction toward the outer wall portion (Gibeau; first profile part 48, as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above) from a lower end of the overlapping portion (Gibeau; Paragraph [0125]; as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 9 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 2 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of a center of the inner reinforcement in the up-down direction is located above a center of the overlapping portion in the up-down direction. 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 Tsuyuzaki et al. (US Patent Application 20190359260 A1), henceforth Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau et al. (US Patent Application 20220281304 A1), henceforth Gibeau, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach the inner reinforcement and the overlapping portion having different height centers, but rather they are the same height center in the up-down direction in Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau. These deficiencies in Tsuyuzaki, as modified by Gibeau, 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 vertical surface portion has a bead. 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 Tsuyuzaki et al. (US Patent Application 20190359260 A1), henceforth Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau et al. (US Patent Application 20220281304 A1), henceforth Gibeau, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach a bead as part of the vertical surface portion. These deficiencies in Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau, 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 upper surface portion is located at the same position as the floor panel in the up-down direction. 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 Tsuyuzaki et al. (US Patent Application 20190359260 A1), henceforth Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau et al. (US Patent Application 20220281304 A1), henceforth Gibeau, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach that the upper surface portion of the outer reinforcement is at the same level in the up-down direction as the floor panel, instead the floor panel from Tsuyuzaki is higher than the upper surface portion. These deficiencies in Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 9 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of a corner portion between the lower surface portion and the lower flange has a deformation promoting portion, and a corner portion between the upper surface portion and the upper flange does not have a deformation promoting portion. 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 Tsuyuzaki et al. (US Patent Application 20190359260 A1), henceforth Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau et al. (US Patent Application 20220281304 A1), henceforth Gibeau, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the upper and lower flanges, but does not teach the one corner portion that has a deformation promoting portion and the other corner portion that does not have a deformation promoting portion. These deficiencies in Tsuyuzaki, in view of Gibeau, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
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 teach similar lower body structures as Tsuyuzaki and Gibeau, and thus the instant invention.
- US 20190359265 A1 is a similar application to US 20190359260 A1 and teaches a similar underbody structure as Tsuyuzaki.
- WO 2020070935 A1 discloses a similar reinforcement structure of the side sill, but is missing the inner reinforcement of the instant invention.
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
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights