DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed 6/6/2025, has been entered. Claims 8-15 are pending with claims 1-7 being currently cancelled (Preliminary Amendment) and claims 8-15 being currently added (Preliminary Amendment).
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 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.
Claims 8-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 109484492 – see IDS).
The citations below to Zhang are from the English translation also found in the IDS.
Regarding claim 8: Zhang discloses a dashboard support for a motor vehicle (title; abstr.; [0002]). Zhang discloses that an x-direction corresponds to a longitudinal extension of the motor vehicle (Fig. 1; [0010], [0045]). Zhang discloses a support structure 1, 2 configured to extend between two connection points (Fig. 1). Zhang discloses that the support structure comprises an open half-shell structure with two flanges following a longitudinal extension thereof (Figs. 1, 2). Zhang discloses the two flanges spaced apart from one another by a web and connected to one another via the web, which connects a longitudinal side edge of one flange to a longitudinal side edge of the other flange (Figs. 1, 2). Zhang discloses that the cross-section of the support structure in sections of the support structure for which a design specification is set is differentiated from other sections of the support structure with another design specification by a web height of the web, a web profiling of the web, a flange width of at least one flange, a flange profiling of at least one flange, a spatial positioning of the flanges relative to one another, a geometrical design of the transition between the web and the flange, and/or material strength (Figs. 1, 2). Zhang discloses that the web height of the support structure in a support structure section (B, I), which is arranged between a connection section (A, J) and a neighboring support structure section (C, H) of the support structure, decreases in transitioning to the neighboring support structure section (C, H) (Figs. 1, 2 – the figures illustrate several support structures and connection structures wherein the web height increases and decreases). Zhang discloses that central support structure section (F) of the support structure is offset relative to the neighboring support structure section (H) in the x-direction (Figs. 1, 2 –illustrate the recited offset of the central structure from neighboring structures). Zhang discloses an S-shaped curved transition section (G) is provided between the central support structure section (F) and the neighboring support structure section (H) (Figs. 1, 2 –illustrate the recited S-shaped curved structure). Zhang discloses at least one flange in the S-shaped curved transition section (G) has a limb bent on a longitudinal side of the at least one flange opposite the web (Figs. 1, 2 –illustrate the recited limb).
Regarding claim 9: Zhang discloses that the flange width of at least one of the two flanges of the support structure in the support structure section (B, I) increases between the connection section (A, J) and the neighboring support structure section (C, H) (Figs. 1, 2 – the figures illustrate several structural points wherein the flange width increases and decreases).
Regarding claim 10: Zhang discloses that the web connecting the flanges is profiled in the neighboring support structure section (C) associated with a driver's side of the motor vehicle (Figs. 1, 2 –illustrate the recited web profiling in the driver’s section).
Regarding claim 11: Zhang discloses that the web is profiled to form a ?-shaped profiling of the support structure (Fig. 2 –illustrate structures having a question mark shape ).
Regarding claim 14: Zhang discloses at least one mounting component 5 arranged in the open half-shell structure of the support structure, reaching at least as far as the web, and joined to an inner side of at least one of the two flanges (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15: Zhang discloses that the mounting component is a holder, support, or strut (Fig. 2; [0051], [0053]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109484492 – see IDS) in view of Kline et al. (US 20030095383).
The citations below to Zhang are from the English translation also found in the IDS.
Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Zhang discloses several bent limbs but does not explicitly disclose that the limb of the at least one flange in the S-shaped curved transition section (G) is bent in a direction away from the other flange. Kline discloses that a limb of at least one flange in a S-shaped curved transition section (G) is bent in a direction away from the other flange (Fig. 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Zhang so that that the limb of the at least one flange in the S-shaped curved transition section (G) is bent in a direction away from the other flange as taught by Kline. As both Zhang and Kline are directed to a dashboard support of a vehicle, as Zhang illustrates several bent limbs but is silent regarding the limb of the at least one flange in the S-shaped curved transition section, and as Kline explicitly discloses that a limb of at least one flange in a S-shaped curved transition section (G) is bent in a direction away from the other flange, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific dashboard support configuration from a finite selection of dashboard support configurations (i.e. specific position of limbs and specific bending directions as desired for a specific design). Such a simple substitution/addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13: Zhang, as modified by Kline, discloses that at least sections of both flanges along the longitudinal extent of the support structure comprise a respective limb bent therefrom such that the support structure has a hat-shaped profile (Zhang – Figs. 1, 2; Kline – Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/21/2026
