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 the greyscale used in Figure 1 makes it difficult to determine the features being pointed out in the exploded side sill view 22. The drawings are also objected to because the lengths pointed out in Figure 8 appear to be widths of tubular reinforcement elements, rather than lengths. The drawings are also objected to because reference character “150” appears to be pointing at a pillar rather than at the side sill in Figure 10A. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110A" and "111" have both been used to designate the same tubular element in Figure 3, and reference characters "110B" and "112" have both been used to designate the same tubular element in Figure 3. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “140”, “141”, “141A” (figure 5), “142” (figure 6), “143” (figure 7), “75” (figure 8). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the changes below:
“system 70” be changed to --system 100-- (paragraph 0059);
“11” be changed to --111-- (paragraph 0059);
“140” be changed to --130-- (paragraph 0059);
“tubular elements 130” be changed to --tubular element 130-- (paragraph 0059);
“are preferred tubular elements” be changed to --of preferred tubular elements-- (paragraph 0061);
“75” be changed to --73-- (paragraph 0062);
“6B” be changed to --10B-- (paragraph 0064).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10, 15, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the changes below:
“The system” be changed to --The reinforcement system-- (claims 2-10, line 1), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the outer support member” be changed to --the outer zone support member-- (claim 7, line 1), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the middle support member” be changed to --the intermediate zone support member-- (claim 7, line 2), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the inner support member” be changed to --the inner zone support member-- (claim 7, lines 2-3), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the first zone” be changed to --the first outer zone-- (claim 8, line 1), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“wherein the system comprises 11 wherein the system comprises” be changed to --wherein the reinforcement system comprises-- (claim 15, line 1);
“the outer support member” be changed to --the outer zone support member-- (claim 17, line 1), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the middle support member” be changed to --the intermediate zone support member-- (claim 17, line 2), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the inner support member” be changed to --the inner zone support member-- (claim 17, lines 2-3), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature;
“the first zone” be changed to --the first outer zone-- (claim 18, line 1), so as to maintain the same claim language for the same feature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kecalevic et al. (US 12172508 B2). Kecalevic et al. discloses a reinforcement system for a vehicle (figure 1), comprising:
(claims 1, 11) a plurality of support members (including side rocker panels #4, 5, supporting element #40, energy absorption devices #26, 41) configured to absorb energy from an impact on a side of the vehicle (column 7, line 44-column 9);
wherein at least two of the support members are substantially composed of steel (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37 of energy absorption devices #26 are composed of steel; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2);
(claims 2, 12) wherein at least two of the support members have a tubular configuration (side rocker panels #4, 5, supporting element #40, and energy absorption devices #26, 41 have a tubular configuration; figures 2, 3, 5, 6);
(claims 3, 13) wherein at least three of the support members are substantially composed of steel (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37 of energy absorption devices #26 are composed of steel; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2);
(claims 4, 14) wherein multiple support members are substantially composed of steel and each of the multiple support members is composed of steel that differs in composition, strength, ductility and/or hardness with respect to other support members (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37 of energy absorption devices #26 are composed of steel, and “respective rolled steel profiles have respective smaller wall thicknesses from inside to outside so as thereby to set the deformation behavior”; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2);
(claims 5, 15) wherein the system comprises a first outer zone that comprises at least one steel outer zone support member (such as, outer profile part #37), a second intermediate zone that comprises at least one steel intermediate zone support member (such as, intermediate profile part #36), and a third inner zone that comprises at least one steel inner zone support member (such as, inner profile part #35), and the steel compositions of at least two of the outer zone support member, intermediate zone support member and inner zone support member are different (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37 of energy absorption devices #26 are composed of steel, and “respective rolled steel profiles have respective smaller wall thicknesses from inside to outside so as thereby to set the deformation behavior”; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2);
(claim 9) wherein at least two support members are affixed to at least one adjacent support member (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44 of energy absorption devices #26 are affixed to each other and to inner and outer rocker panel parts 30, 33; figures 3, 5, 6);
(claim 10) a vehicle battery (#16; figures 2, 3; column 5, lines 30-33);
(claim 19) wherein each support member is affixed to at least one adjacent support member (at least profile parts #35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44 of energy absorption devices #26 are affixed to each other and to inner and outer rocker panel parts 30, 33; figures 3, 5, 6);
(claim 20) wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (column 4, lines 49-57).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kecalevic et al. (US 12172508 B2). Regarding claims 1-5 and 11-15, Kecalevic et al. discloses a reinforcement system for a vehicle (figure 1), as set forth above. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kecalevic et al. discloses wherein a first outer zone comprises two vertically arranged tubular members (including energy absorption devices #26, 41), and a third inner zone comprises a single tubular support member (supporting element #40; figure 6; column 9). While Kecalevic et al. only discloses profile parts (#35, 36, 37) of energy absorption devices (#26) are composed of steel (column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement system of Kecalevic et al. to include the plurality of support members (including side rocker panels #4, 5, supporting element #40, energy absorption devices #26, 41) are composed of steel, since Kecalevic et al. teaches various components of the reinforcement system are made of sheet metal (column 7, line 60-column 8, line 5; column 9, lines 9-22) with some specifically including steel (column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2). In addition, Kecalevic et al. teaches “The rolled profile of the energy absorption device 26 can, for example, have a different material thickness over the extent thereof in order thereby to set the deformation behavior of the energy absorption device 26. The characteristics of the rolled profile, or of the energy absorption device 26, can also be set through suitable shaping or material selection” (column 8, lines 27-32). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kecalevic et al. (US 12172508 B2) in view of Gibeau et al. (US 12097755 B2) and Sabino Urbieta et al. (US 2025/0121887 A1). Kecalevic et al. discloses different material thickness and material selection providing preferred deformation behavior (column 8, lines 27-32; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2), but does not specifically disclose tensile strength or elongation values. Gibeau et al. teaches a reinforcement system for a vehicle, comprising wherein outer, intermediate, and inner zone support members (including outer and inner sill members #10, 12, first, second and external profile parts #48, 88 68) have tensile strengths of at least 1000 MPa, at least 900 MPa, and at least 1400 MPa (column 4, lines 22-24, 49-53; column 7, lines 12-21; column 13, lines 39-55; claims 12, 16). Additionally, Sabino Urbieta et al. teaches Ultra-High Strength Steels (UHSS), which may be regarded as a steel with a maximum tensile strength of at least 1000 MPa, preferably up to about 1500 MPa or up to 2000 MPa or more, can be used in reinforcement systems for a vehicle (including rocker reinforcement #30; paragraphs 0005, 0049), and generally exhibit relatively low maximum elongation (paragraph 0006). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement system of Kecalevic et al. to include the claimed range of tensile strengths and elongation values, as taught by Gibeau et al. and Sabino Urbieta et al., so as to provide a sequence of deformation that optimizes energy absorption, thus absorbing a higher amount of energy during a side impact (Gibeau et al.: column 2, lines 37-55), while utilizing support members with high hardness, high ultimate tensile strength, and high yield strength that keep maximum elongation (elongation at break) relatively low (Sabino Urbieta et al.: paragraph 0006). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kecalevic et al. (US 12172508 B2) in view of Gibeau et al. (US 12097755 B2). Kecalevic et al. discloses different material thickness and material selection providing preferred deformation behavior (column 8, lines 27-32; column 8, line 55-column 9, line 2), but does not specifically disclose tensile strength. Gibeau et al. teaches a reinforcement system for a vehicle, comprising wherein outer, intermediate, and inner zone support members (including outer and inner sill members #10, 12, first, second and external profile parts #48, 88 68) have tensile strengths of at least 1200 MPa, at least 1000 MPa, and at least 1500 MPa (column 4, lines 22-24, 49-53; column 7, lines 12-21; column 13, lines 39-55; claims 12, 16). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement system of Kecalevic et al. to include the claimed range of tensile strengths, as taught by Gibeau et al., so as to provide a sequence of deformation that optimizes energy absorption, thus absorbing a higher amount of energy during a side impact (Gibeau et al.: column 2, lines 37-55). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Balur et al. (US 9630652 B2), Singh (US 11148725 B2), and Limousin et al. (US 12344310 B2) disclose vehicle reinforcement systems with steel of specific tensile strength and associated elongation values. The remaining cited prior art discloses vehicle reinforcement systems for side sills/rockers and pillars that include support members, some support members are of tubular configuration and include steel of specific tensile strength, and some of the vehicles are electric or hybrid vehicles with a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
