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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuyuzaki (US 2019/0359260).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuyuzaki vehicle lower body structure comprising: a pair of left and right side sills (14), each of which has a closed cross-sectional structure (Fig. 3) extending in a vehicle front-rear direction; a floor panel (16) fixed to the side sills and constituting a floor surface of a cabin; a battery (28) disposed below the floor panel; a cross member (34/35) that extends in a vehicle width direction, and each end portion of which in the vehicle width direction is fixed to a respective one of the side sills at a position above the floor panel (Fig.3), wherein each of the side sills has: an outer wall portion (see annotate Fig. below) that is a wall surface located on an outer side in the vehicle width direction and extending in an up-down direction and the vehicle front-rear direction; an inner wall portion (see annotated Fig. below) that is a wall surface located on an inner side in the vehicle width direction and extending in the up-down direction and the vehicle front-rear direction; an upper wall portion (see annotated Fig. below) extending in the vehicle width direction from an upper end portion of the outer wall portion and an upper end portion of the inner wall portion; a lower wall portion (see annotated Fig. below) extending in the vehicle width direction from a lower end portion of the outer wall portion and a lower end portion of the inner wall portion; an outer reinforcement (see annotated Fig. below) fixed to the outer wall portion in the closed cross-sectional structure; and an inner reinforcement (see annotated Fig. below) fixed to the upper wall portion and the inner wall portion in the closed cross-sectional structure, the cross member (34/35) is fixed to the upper wall portion (see Fig. 3), the outer reinforcement has an overlapping portion (see annotated Fig. below) that is located on an inner side of other portions of the outer reinforcement in the vehicle width direction, and a position of which overlaps a position of the inner reinforcement in the up-down direction (see Fig. 3), the inner reinforcement has a vertical surface portion fixed to the upper wall portion and the inner wall portion and extending in the up-down direction and the vehicle width direction, and the vertical surface portion has a load transmission promoting portion, a position of which overlaps a position of the cross member in the vehicle front-rear direction, and which transmits a collision load applied via the overlapping portion during a side collision to the cross member (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tsuyuzaki discloses the vehicle lower body structure according to claim 1, wherein a position of an outer end portion of the load transmission promoting portion in the vehicle width direction overlaps the position of the overlapping portion in the up-down direction, and a position of an inner end portion of the load transmission promoting portion in the vehicle width direction overlaps a position of the cross member in the up-down direction (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuyuzaki discloses the vehicle lower body structure according to claim 2, wherein a center of the vertical surface portion in the up-down direction is located above a center of the overlapping portion in the up-down direction and below a center of the cross member in the up-down direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuyuzaki discloses the vehicle lower body structure according to claim 1, wherein the overlapping portion has a surface extending in the vehicle front-rear direction and the up-down direction, and a position thereof overlaps the position of the cross member in the vehicle front-rear direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuyuzaki discloses the vehicle lower body structure according to claim 6, wherein the outer reinforcement has: an upper surface portion extending outward in the vehicle width direction from an upper end of the overlapping portion toward the outer wall portion; and a lower surface portion extending outward in the vehicle width direction from a lower end of the overlapping portion toward the outer wall portion (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
676
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tsuyuzaki discloses vehicle lower body structure according to claim 1, wherein a center of the vertical surface portion in the up-down direction is located above a center of the overlapping portion in the up-down direction and below a center of the cross member in the up-down direction (Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuyuzaki.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11 and 12, Tsuyuzaki discloses the vehicle lower body structure according to claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 11.
Tsuyuzaki does not disclose the details of the load transmission promoting portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to make the load transmission promoting portion as a portion having higher rigidity than other portions of the vertical surface portion formed of a bead portion extending continuously from an outer end portion in the vehicle width direction to an inner end portion in the vehicle width direction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/005,298 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference application include the same limitations in different combinations For example, claim 1 of the reference patent includes the limitation that the battery is supported by the lower wall portion. Whereas that limitation is in claim 8 of the instant application.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/999,440 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference application include the same limitations in different combinations For example, claim 1 of the reference patent includes the limitation that the battery is supported by the lower wall portion. Whereas that limitation is in claim 8 of the instant application.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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 and if the non-statutory double patenting rejection is overcome.
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 PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 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, Fenn Matthew can be reached at 571-272-4978. 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.
/PATRICIA L ENGLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights