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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All drawings have poor line quality, and thus do not meet the reproducibility requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem. See example below. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, and are raster images, rather than vector-based images. Grayscale raster images cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Images should be entirely bi-tonal, vector-based images containing only black and white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference numerals are too small, per 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). It is suggested that at least some of the drawings could be enlarged if placed in the landscape orientation.
Section view identifiers in Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 10A should be changed to Roman or Arabic numerals that correspond with the figure numbers in which the section view is provided, per 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). For example, Arrow “A-A” in Fig. 1 should be changed to “II-II” and “B-B” in Fig. 2 should be changed to “III-III”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
LOWER VEHICLE-BODY STRUCTURE WITH DEFORMATION SUPPRESSION OF SUSPENSION HOUSING
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Cross-sectional identifiers listed in Paragraph 0027 must be corrected when addressing the drawing objection above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “including” in line 3 should be changed to --includes--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akio (US 5,110,177).
With regard to claim 1, Akio discloses a lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, the lower vehicle-body structure comprising:
a frame (10) that includes a closed cross-section portion (proximate numeral 40 in Fig. 5) extending in a front-rear direction on a vehicle-width-direction outer side of a floor panel (4); and
a suspension housing (see annotated Fig. 5 provided below) provided on the frame and supporting a suspension (36), wherein the suspension housing includes a damper mounting surface portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below) extending along an upper surface of the frame, and a peripheral wall (see annotated Fig. 5 below) extending downward from a peripheral edge of the damper mounting surface portion,
at a part of the frame adjacent to a vehicle-width-direction inner side of the suspension housing, the frame includes a narrow width portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below) in which a dimension in a vehicle width direction of the closed cross-section portion is reduced compared with a part of the frame adjacent to the suspension housing in the front-rear direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
the lower vehicle-body structure comprises a cross member (15) provided inward of the frame in the vehicle width direction, the cross member extending in the vehicle width direction and being disposed at a same front-rear position as the suspension housing (see Fig. 5, which shows the unlabeled suspension housing and the cross-member 15 being located at the same front-rear position), and
a load transmission portion (Fig. 5, elements 31, 34, 38, and 16) is provided to the narrow width portion, the load transmission portion connecting the suspension housing with the cross member in such a way as to allow transmission of an input load from the suspension housing to the cross member, the input load being input from the suspension (this connection and functionality is visible in Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
215
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Akio teaches that the cross member (15) includes a lower wall extending in the front-rear direction, and front and rear side walls extending upward from front and rear end portions of the lower wall, respectively (column 3, lines 7-9; “the medial cross member 15 has a substantially U-shaped cross section which is preferably orientated with its open end upward as shown in FIG. 1”), and
at least one of a front ridge (i.e. the front corner of the “U-shaped cross section” discussed in column 3, lines 7-9, and visible in Fig. 1) and a rear ridge (i.e. the rear corner of the “U-shaped cross section” discussed in column 3, lines 7-9, and visible in Fig. 1) is positioned within a front-rear dimension of the load transmission portion in the front-rear direction, the front ridge being formed in the vehicle width direction by a corner portion between the lower wall and the front side wall (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 7-9), the rear ridge being formed in the vehicle width direction by a corner portion between the lower wall and the rear side wall (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 7-9).
With regard to claim 5, Akio discloses that the front-rear position of the at least one of the front ridge and the rear ridge of the cross member (15) is positioned at a substantially same position as a ridge formed on the load transmission portion in the vehicle width direction (this is visible in the annotated Fig. provided below, which shows the ridges on the cross member 15 at “substantially” the same position as the ridges on the load transmission portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
394
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8, Akio teaches that the cross member (15) is fixed to a lower wall of the frame (Fig. 5, proximate numeral 16) from below at a lower fixation portion (proximate numerals 16, 34, etc.),
the lower fixation portion is positioned within a front-rear dimension of the load transmission portion in the front-rear direction (Fig. 3, annotated above, shows that the lower fixation portion and the load transmission portion 31 are located at the same front-rear dimension).
With regard to claim 9, Akio teaches that the frame includes a frame front portion (11) and a frame rear portion (40), and the load transmission portion is fixed to a coupled part at which the frame front portion and the frame rear portion are superimposed on each other (see annotated Fig. provided below).
PNG
media_image5.png
304
486
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akio in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2019/0291788, hereinafter Tsukamoto).
With regard to claim 2, Akio fails to teach that an opening portion is formed in the damper mounting surface portion and having a front-rear dimension, and the load transmission portion is positioned within the front-rear dimension of the opening portion in the front-rear direction. Akio shows a schematic view of the damper (36, Fig. 5), but is silent as to how the damper actually attaches to the suspension housing. Thus, one of ordinary skill is forced to look elsewhere for a specific means of attachment.
Tsukamoto teaches a rear lower structure of a vehicle, similar to that of Akio. Tsukamoto teaches a rear suspension housing (Fig. 7) in which an opening portion (65b) is formed in a damper mounting surface (65a).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Akio to have the opening portion of Tsukamoto within the damper mounting surface portion, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Tsukamoto teaches that such an opening can be used successfully for insertion and attachment of the damper to a suspension housing. Furthermore, in modifying Akio to have such an opening, the opening would be positioned at the same front-rear dimension as the load transmission portion (31, 38, etc.—note that the damper element 36 is positioned at the same front-rear location as load transmission elements 38, 31, and 16 shown in the section view of Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akio in view of Schilling et al. (US 2022/0080797, hereinafter Schilling).
With regard to claim 10, Akio fails to teach that the suspension housing is made of sheet metal. Akio is simply silent as to the specific materials used for the suspension housing, forcing one of ordinary skill to look elsewhere for instruction on material selection.
Schilling teaches a suspension housing (see Fig. 1, which shows damper 1 and damper receptacle 5) that is constructed of sheet metal (see metal sheets 9, 11, etc.).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Akio to utilize the sheet metal construction of Schilling, with a reasonable expectation of success given that Schilling teaches that sheet metal construction can be successfully used for suspension housings in vehicles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of rear suspension systems similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
