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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein an upper section of the A-pillar reinforcing plate is provided with an A-pillar upper reinforcing plate fixedly connected to a side of the first reinforcing tube, the A-pillar upper reinforcing plate extends along the A-pillar reinforcing plate, and a rear end of the A-pillar upper reinforcing plate extends into the roof side rail reinforcing plate and is connected to the roof side rail reinforcing plate; and an upper section of the B-pillar reinforcing plate is provided with a B-pillar upper reinforcing plate fixedly connected to a side of the second reinforcing tube” is unclear. The Examiner does not understand the claims.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN 110962938 A (cited on IDS dated 04/02/2025) in view of Helmuth US 2,389,907 (cited on IDS dated 12/08/2025).
Regarding claim 1, CN 110962938 A (shown in Figure 14) discloses a vehicle body side reinforcing structure, comprising: an A-pillar reinforcing plate (6) in an A-pillar, a B-pillar reinforcing plate (11) in a B-pillar, a roof side rail reinforcing plate (5 and 12) in a roof side rail, a doorsill beam (7 and 8), a C-pillar (21), a D-pillar (9 and 10) and a C/D-pillar connecting cross member (15); wherein the A-pillar reinforcing plate (6), the roof side rail reinforcing plate
(5 and 12) and the D-pillar (9 and 10) are sequentially connected in a length direction of a vehicle body {The A post reinforcing component comprises upper
A-pole reinforcing plate 5 and A-pillar lower reinforcing plate 6. the A-pillar upper reinforcement front end plate 5 and the A-pillar reinforcing end plate 6 is fixedly connected with the A column reinforcing plate 5 the back end part and the side wall upper edge beam reinforcing front end assembly 12 fixedly connected with the A bar lower enhancing board 6 lower end and front end of the doorsill reinforced component are fixedly connected} shown in Figure 14, and the B-pillar reinforcing plate (11) is connected between a middle of the roof side rail reinforcing plate (5) and a middle of the doorsill beam (7 and 8) shown in Figure 14, and the C/D-pillar connecting cross member (15) extends in the length direction of the vehicle body and is connected between the C-pillar (21) and the D-pillar (9 and 10) shown in Figure 14.
However, CN 110962938 A does not show the doorsill beam is connected between a bottom end of the A-pillar reinforcing plate and a front end of a rear floor longitudinal beam, and a rear end of the D-pillar is connected to a rear end of the rear floor longitudinal beam, the C-pillar is connected between a front end of the D-pillar and a front end of the rear floor longitudinal beam.
Helmuth US 2,389,907 (shown in Figure 3) teaches show the doorsill beam (side rail 1) is connected between a bottom end of the A-pillar (63) and a front end of a rear floor longitudinal beam (22), and a rear end of the D-pillar (52) is connected to a rear end of the rear floor longitudinal beam (22), the C-pillar (55) is connected between a front end of the D-pillar (52) and a front end of the rear floor longitudinal beam (22).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vehicle body side structure of CN 110962938 A with the doorsill beam is connected between a bottom end of the A-pillar reinforcing plate and a front end of a rear floor longitudinal beam, and a rear end of the D-pillar is connected to a rear end of the rear floor longitudinal beam, the C-pillar is connected between a front end of the D-pillar and a front end of the rear floor longitudinal beam, as taught by Helmuth US 2,389,907, with a reasonable expectation of whereby a body or passenger compartment is, so rigidly and intimately connected with the underframe, as to provide a unitary passenger compartment shell and chassis of unusual strength.
Regarding claim 10, CN 110962938 A (shown in Figure 14), as modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1, wherein the C-pillar (21 of CN 110962938 A) comprises a C-Pillar upper section (21 connected to 12 of CN 110962938 A) and a C-Pillar lower section
(21 connected to 13 of CN 110962938 A) that are connected; and the C-Pillar upper section (21 connected to 12 of CN 110962938 A) is located above the C/D-pillar connecting cross member (15 of CN 110962938 A) and is connected to the D-pillar (10 of CN 110962938 A), and the C-Pillar lower section
(21 connected 13 of CN 110962938 A) is located below the C/D-pillar connecting cross member (15 of CN 110962938 A) and is connected to the rear floor longitudinal beam (1 at location 5 and 17 of Figure 3 of Helmuth).
Regarding claim 19, CN 110962938 A, as modified, discloses a vehicle
(1 of CN 110962938 A), wherein a body of the vehicle is provided with the vehicle body side reinforcing structure (5, 6, 12, 21, 9, 10 of CN 110962938 A) according to claim 1 shown in Figure 14.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110962938 A (cited on IDS dated 04/02/2025) in view of Helmuth US 2,389,907 (cited on IDS dated 12/08/2025) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2.
Regarding claim 2, CN 110962938 A, as modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1 but does not show wherein a first reinforcing tube is connected to an inner side of the A-pillar reinforcing plate, and the first reinforcing tube extends to an inner side of the roof side rail reinforcing plate and is connected to the roof side rail reinforcing plate.
Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2 teaches reinforcing pipe (55) is attached to the frame portion (57) through a reinforcing plate (56) shown in Figure 7 in column 5, lines 30-45.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner side of the A-pillar reinforcing plate and an inner side of the roof side rail reinforcing plate of CN 110962938 A, as modified, with a reinforcing pipe, as taught by Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to functions as a core member of inner frame.
Regarding claim 3, CN 110962938 A, as modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 2 but does not show wherein a second reinforcing tube is connected to an inner side of the B-pillar reinforcing plate, and the second reinforcing tube extends in a height direction of the B-pillar reinforcing plate.
Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2 teaches reinforcing pipe (55) is attached to the frame portion (57) through a reinforcing plate (56) shown in Figure 7 in column 5, lines 30-45.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inner side of the B-pillar reinforcing plate of CN 110962938 A, as twice modified, with a reinforcing pipe, as taught by Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2, with a reasonable expectation with a reasonable expectation of success in order to functions as a core member of inner frame.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7 and 9, CN 110962938 A, as twice modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 3 but does not show wherein a bottom end of the first reinforcing tube is arranged close to a bottom end of the A-pillar reinforcing plate, and a top end of the first reinforcing tube is arranged close to the C-pillar (claim 4); wherein the second reinforcing tube is arranged close to a top end of the B-pillar reinforcing plate (claim 5); and wherein a cross-section at each position of the first reinforcing tube is the same (claim 7). Examiner does not understand claim 9. Since claim 9 depends on claim 4, claim 9 is grouped with claim 4.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, and 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vehicle side reinforcing structure of CN 110962938 A, as twice modified, with wherein a bottom end of the first reinforcing tube is arranged close to a bottom end of the A-pillar reinforcing plate, and a top end of the first reinforcing tube is arranged close to the C-pillar; the second reinforcing tube is arranged close to a top end of the B-pillar reinforcing plate; and wherein a cross-section at each position of the first reinforcing tube is the same where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110962938 A (cited on IDS dated 04/02/2025) in view of Helmuth US 2,389,907 (cited on IDS dated 12/08/2025) and Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of JP 3498614 B2.
Regarding claim 6, CN 110962938 A, as thrice modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 3 but does not show wherein the first reinforcing tube and the second reinforcing tube are both made of one of hot-formed steel, aluminum alloy and fiber-reinforced composite material.
JP 3498614 B2 teaches Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 9-150752,
a round pipe made of an aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reinforcing tubes of CN 110962938 A, as thrice modified, made of aluminum ally, as taught by JP 3498614 B2, with a reasonable expectation of success for lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistance, and formability.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110962938 A (cited on IDS dated 04/02/2025) in view of Helmuth US 2,389,907 (cited on IDS dated 12/08/2025), Yoshida US 6,722,729 B2 and
JP 3498614 B2 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Shuto et al. US 2003/0085593 A1.
Regarding claim 8, CN 110962938 A, as modified four times, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 3 but does not show wherein the first reinforcing tube is divided into a plurality of sections, and a cross-section of at least one section is different from that of other sections.
Shuto et al. US 2003/0085593 A1 teaches pipe-shaped reinforcing member (18) is set within the roof side rail, and has a reduced-diameter portion (14c) set near the rail member shown in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first reinforcing tube of CN 110962938 A, as modified four times, with a cross-section of at least one section is different from that of other sections, as taught by Shuto et al. US 2003/0085593 A1, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have reduced-diameter portion along the reinforcing tube.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first reinforcing tube of CN 110962938 A, as modified five times, divided into a plurality of sections, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110962938 A (cited on IDS dated 04/02/2025) in view of Helmuth
US 2,389,907 (cited on IDS dated 12/08/2025) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bi et al. US 2022/0023929 A1 and Kavik et al.
US 10,875,068 B2.
Regarding claim 18, CN 110962938 A, as modified, discloses the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1 but does not wherein the
A-pillar reinforcing plate, the B-pillar reinforcing plate and the roof side rail reinforcing plate are made of hot-formed steel plates, the C-pillar, the doorsill beam, the D-pillar and the C/D-pillar connecting cross member are made of extruded aluminum profiles.
Bi et al. US 2022/0023929 A1 teaches hot-formed steel plate in paragraph [0028] shown in Figure 1.
Kavik et al. US 10,875,068 B2 teaches method for producing a motor vehicle component from an extruded aluminum profile.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the reinforcing plates of CN 110962938 A, as modified, made of extruded aluminum profiles, as taught by Kavik et al. US 10,875,068 B2, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to yield plates with good strength, formability and cost efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pillars and doorsill beam of CN 110962938 A, as twice modified, made of extruded aluminum profiles, as taught by Kavik et al. US 10,875,068 B2, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide superior strength-to-weight ratio, advanced crash management and energy absorption, unmatched geometrical design flexiblity, and inherent environmental resilience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, CN 110962938 A and Helmuth US 2,389,907 disclose the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1, but does not show further comprising: a C/D-pillar connecting longitudinal beam made of extruded aluminum profiles; wherein the C/D-pillar connecting longitudinal beam is arranged in a height direction of the vehicle body and is connected between the D-pillar and the C/D-pillar connecting cross member.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, CN 110962938 A and Helmuth US 2,389,907 disclose the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1 but does not show wherein an outer contour of a cross-section of the D-pillar is a closed ring; a bulkhead is integrally formed inside the D-pillar, and the bulkhead extends from a bottom end of the D-pillar to a top end of the D-pillar.
Regarding claim 14, CN 110962938 A and Helmuth US 2,389,907 disclose the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1 but does not show wherein both ends of the D-pillar are sealed with foam glue or structural glue.
Regarding claim 15, CN 110962938 A and Helmuth US 2,389,907 disclose the vehicle body side reinforcing structure according to claim 1 but does now wherein a bottom end of the D-pillar body is connected to the rear floor longitudinal beam through a connecting piece, and the connecting piece is made of extruded aluminum profile.
Claims 16 and 17 depend on claim 15.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Redmer et al. US 9,187,135 B1 discloses a vehicle body structure (12) comprises a pillar structure (14) having a box section defining a pillar cavity. A roof rail structure has a box section that defines a roof rail cavity in communication with the pillar cavity. A reinforcement element is positioned in and extends through the pillar cavity and the roof rail cavity. A reinforcement bracket (56) has a primary attachment portion that is attached to the pillar structure at a primary location.
DE 102015205402 A1 discloses body structure (100) comprises B-pillar reinforcements (150) that are formed as hollow steel sections. An upper connection portion is provided for connection to a roof area (110,120). A lower connection portion is provided for connection to a floor assembly (130) or a side sill (140). The B-pillar reinforcements are formed as one-piece tubes of a high strength steel material. A curved course having a substantially constant radius of curvature is provided between the lower and upper connection portions.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights