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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already claims square shape in a plan view, and a rectangular shape is broader than a square shape. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (US 5829219 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sugawara discloses an elongated vehicle body panel (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) formed by press working (Sugawara, Col. 4 line 9, bulging forming, which is type of press working), the elongated vehicle body panel comprising: a flat general portion (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) extending in a longitudinal direction (Sugawara, Fig. 7B, length direction or vertical direction as shown); a pair of ridgeline forming portions (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) formed by bending (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, substantially 90 degree bends) two ends of the general portion in a width direction (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) and forming a pair of ridgelines (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, edges between ridgeline forming portions and the flat general portion) together with the general portion; and seat surface portions (Sugawara, 34 in Fig. 7B) disposed at an interval (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) in the longitudinal direction on the general portion, each of the seat surface portions protruding in a thickness direction (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B), wherein the each of the seat surface portions has a pair of outer edge portions (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, the two edges close to the ridgelines) in the width direction that extend along the ridgelines in a vicinity of the ridgelines and a pair of outer edge portions (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, the remaining two edges) in the longitudinal direction that respectively couple corresponding two ends of the outer edge portions in the width direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 7B from Sugawara
Sugawara discloses the claimed invention except for square shape in a plan view. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the seat surface portions 34 into a square shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Additionally, a change in size/proportion is also generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 2, Sugawara teaches the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 1, wherein compressive stress is applied in parts where the square seat surface portions are provided (Sugawara, Col. 4 line 9, bulging forming, which would have compressive stress applied) adjacent to the ridgelines respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Sugawara discloses an elongated vehicle body panel (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) comprising: a flat general portion (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) extending in a longitudinal direction (Sugawara, Fig. 7B, length direction or vertical direction as shown); a first flange portion (Sugawara, one of the ridgeline forming portions in annotated Fig. 7B) provided in a first side of the flat general portion in a width direction (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, can a left side in the width direction) intersecting the longitudinal direction; a first ridgeline (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, left side edge between the ridgeline forming portion and the flat general portion) between the flat general portion and the first flange portion; a wall portion (Sugawara, the other one of the ridgeline forming portions in annotated Fig. 7B on the right side) provided in a second side (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, right side) of the flat general portion in the width direction; a second ridgeline (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, right side edge between the ridgeline forming portion and the flat general portion) between the flat general portion and the wall portion; and protrusions (Sugawara, 34 in Fig. 7B) disposed at an interval (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) in the longitudinal direction on the flat general portion, each of the protrusions protruding in a thickness direction (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B), wherein the each of the protrusions has a first outer edge, a second outer edge, and a pair of third and fourth outer edges (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B), wherein the first outer edge extends along the first ridgeline in a vicinity of the first ridgeline, and the second outer edge extends along the second ridgeline in a vicinity of the second ridgeline (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B), and wherein the pair of third and fourth outer edges couple corresponding two ends of the first outer edge and second outer edge (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, the remaining two outer edge portions).
Sugawara discloses the claimed invention except for square shape in a plan view. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the protrusions 34 into a square shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Additionally, a change in size/proportion is also generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wada et al. (US 8820813 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Sugawara teaches the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 2, wherein the each of the square seat surface portions comprises a flat seat surface body (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) at a center in a plan view, and an inclining portion (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B) that is provided around the seat surface body and couples the seat surface body and the general portion, and wherein the seat surface body has a protruding height (Sugawara, see annotated Fig. 7B, distance between flat general portion and the flat seat surface body) from the general portion.
Sugawara fails to teach the height is greater than a plate thickness of the elongated vehicle body panel.
Wada teaches the height is greater than a plate thickness of the elongated vehicle body panel (Wada, Fig. 1 and Col. 7 line 48 and Col. 6 lines 40-42, height is at least 0.3D or 0.3 * 114.3 mm, which is greater than the thickness of 2.3 mm).
Wada is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle frame structural members with junctions as Sugawara.
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 panel as taught by Sugawara to incorporate the teachings of Wada with a reasonable expectation of success have the height greater than a plate thickness. Doing so allows the seat surface portion to be used as joints to connect to other vehicle parts (Wada, Col. 7 lines 50-54).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sugawara in view of Wada teaches elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 3, wherein the each of the square seat surface portions has a rectangular shape (square shape, as taught in claim 1 rejection above, is rectangular) in a plan view.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 5671968 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sugawara teaches a vehicle body structure (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) comprising: the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 1.
Sugawara fails to teach a second panel providing a closed section together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda teaches a second panel (Masuda, 13b in Fig. 5d) providing a closed section (after combination since the second panel 13b will join to the panel of Sugawara and therefore forming a closed section) together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle frame structural members with closed section as Sugawara.
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 panel as taught by Sugawara to incorporate the teachings of Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success have a second panel. Doing so increases the structural integrity of the vehicle panel part.
Regarding claim 6, Sugawara teaches a vehicle body structure (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) comprising: the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 2.
Sugawara fails to teach a second panel providing a closed section together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda teaches a second panel (Masuda, 13b in Fig. 5d) providing a closed section (after combination since the second panel 13b will join to the panel of Sugawara and therefore forming a closed section) together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle frame structural members with closed section as Sugawara.
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 panel as taught by Sugawara to incorporate the teachings of Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success have a second panel. Doing so increases the structural integrity of the vehicle panel part.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sugawara in view of Wada as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 5671968 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sugawara in view of Wada teaches a vehicle body structure (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) comprising: the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 3.
The combination of Sugawara in view of Wada fails to teach a second panel providing a closed section together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda teaches a second panel (Masuda, 13b in Fig. 5d) providing a closed section (after combination since the second panel 13b will join to the panel of Sugawara and therefore forming a closed section) together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle frame structural members with closed section as Sugawara in view of Wada.
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 panel as taught by Sugawara in view of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success have a second panel. Doing so increases the structural integrity of the vehicle panel part.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sugawara in view of Wada teaches a vehicle body structure (Sugawara, Fig. 7B) comprising: the elongated vehicle body panel according to claim 4.
The combination of Sugawara in view of Wada fails to teach a second panel providing a closed section together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda teaches a second panel (Masuda, 13b in Fig. 5d) providing a closed section (after combination since the second panel 13b will join to the panel of Sugawara and therefore forming a closed section) together with the elongated vehicle body panel.
Masuda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle frame structural members with closed section as Sugawara in view of Wada.
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 panel as taught by Sugawara in view of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success have a second panel. Doing so increases the structural integrity of the vehicle panel part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle longitudinal frame members with protrusions or seat surface portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights