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 figures have poor line quality and thus do not meet the reproducibility requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). See example below. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO filing system. Drawings much be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “is provided” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Examiner suggests the following change:
A lower vehicle-body structure
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. Currently, the title contains redundancies and does not reflect any of the inventive features.
The following title is suggested:
LOWER VEHICLE-BODY STRUCTURE HAVING SIDE SILL WITH INCREASED ENERGY ABSORPTION
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19/038,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is broader than the claim in the reference application, as the instant claim does not contain any reference to a ”deformation promoting portion” (see final clause of claim 1 in the reference application). Furthermore, the instant claim and the reference claim are directed to the same structure, but merely using different terminology. Specifically, the instant claim uses the terminology “first reinforcement, “second reinforcement,” and “third reinforcement,” while the reference claim uses the terms “main reinforcement,” “sub-reinforcement,” and “another reinforcement.” Despite these differences in terminology, the instant claim is fully encompassed by the narrower reference claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuipers et al. (US 2023/0347986, hereinafter Kuipers).
With regard to claim 1, Kuipers discloses a lower vehicle-body structure (see Fig. 3) of a vehicle, the lower vehicle-body structure comprising:
a pair of left and right side sills (10) each of which has a closed cross-section (16, enclosed by sill panels 12, 14) extending in a vehicle front-rear direction on a vehicle-width-direction outer side of a vehicle body; and
a first reinforcement (441, Figs. 19-21), a second reinforcement (upper reinforcement rib 470 in Figs. 19-21) and a third reinforcement (lower reinforcement rib 470 in Figs. 19-21) which are disposed in the closed cross-section (Figs. 3 and 19-21), wherein the first reinforcement includes an upper wall (480) and a lower wall (482), both of which are fixed to a wall of an associated one of the pair of side sills on a vehicle-width-direction inner side (via flanges 88) and extending in a vehicle width direction and a front-rear direction (Figs. 3 and 19-21), and a vertical wall (484) extending in an up-down direction from an end portion of the upper wall on a vehicle-width-direction outer side to an end portion of the lower wall on the vehicle-width-direction outer side (Fig. 3), the first reinforcement having a hat shape that projects toward the vehicle-width-direction outer side and that is open toward the vehicle-width-direction inner side (Fig. 3),
the second reinforcement and the upper wall together form a plurality of first closed cross-sections arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction when viewed in a side view of the vehicle (Figs. 19-21), and
the third reinforcement and the lower wall together form a plurality of second closed cross-sections arranged in the vehicle front-rear direction when viewed in the side view of the vehicle (Figs. 19-21).
With regard to claim 8, Kuipers teaches that the side sills each include a side sill outer portion (12) and a side sill inner portion (14), the side sill inner portion being disposed on the vehicle-width-direction inner side relative to the side sill outer portion (Fig. 3), and being joined to the side sill outer portion (via flanges 18, 20, 22, 24), and the vertical wall is disposed on the vehicle-width-direction outer side relative to a joined portion between the side sill outer portion and the side sill inner portion (vertical wall 84 is positioned outside of the flanges 18, 20, 22, and 24).
With regard to claim 9, Kuipers teaches that the first closed cross-sections each have a polygonal structure having a plurality of ridges extending in the vehicle width direction (Figs. 19-21).
With regard to claim 10, Kuipers teaches that the second closed cross-sections each have a polygonal structure having a plurality of ridges extending in the vehicle width direction (Figs. 19-21).
With regard to claim 11, Kuipers discloses that the second reinforcement and the third reinforcement have different rigidities (this is evident from Fig. 20, which shows that the second and third reinforcement members have slightly different cross-sectional shapes—note the differences in width at positions 464 and 462 in Fig. 20—which will necessarily impart different mechanical properties).
With regard to claim 12, Kuipers discloses a cross member (106) that extends in the vehicle width direction to connect the pair of left and right side sills to each other (Fig. 3), and
the first closed cross-sections are each disposed at a position that overlaps with the cross member, when viewed in the side view of the vehicle (the closed cross-sections extend along the entire length of the side sill, and thus necessarily overlap with the cross member 106).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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
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
Prosecution Insights