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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 11 is supported by at least Figure 2D and previously presented Claim 15.
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.
Claims 13 and 23 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 11-13 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viaux (US20180354014A1) in view of Pohl (US20150028625A1), further in view of Park (US20170266711A1).
Claim 11
Viaux teaches motor vehicle component (Figure 2, Item 4), comprising: a hot formed and press hardened steel sheet plate (¶0045 / ¶0063); a reinforcement patch (26) which forms a double layer with the steel sheet plate (Figure 3 / ¶0065); the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch are welded together (¶0067), the reinforcement patch is applied locally to the motor vehicle component (Figure 3).
Viaux does not explicitly disclose an opening which extends through the reinforcement patch and the steel sheet plate. Viaux does disclose that the reinforcement (26) and pillar (2) each have openings.
However, Pohl teaches a method of reinforcing an automobile pillar (Figures 1a-1b) where the reinforcement (21) and pillar structure (10) have openings (41.1 and 14.1, for example).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known aligned openings technique of Pohl to the reinforcement and sheet of Viaux in order to provide holes that allow for positioning or alignment relative to one another of the two elements. (See Pohl ¶0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known c aligned openings technique of Pohl to the reinforcement and sheet of Viaux because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Viaux in view of Pohl does not disclose wherein an edge area surrounding the opening is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch, and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening.
However, Park teaches an edge area surrounding the cut area is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch (Figures 5 and 8 show a process and result of cutting a portion of a high strength steel sheet (¶0010) for a vehicle (¶0034) where an embossment is created at the edge of the cut point (See Item 107 which forms a corresponding shape in the material of the sheet).) and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening. (Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Based on this, ¶0040 and Figures 6-7 of Park teach that the method of using the embossment/coining prior to cutting results in a cut end that does not include burrs. This is interpreted as a smooth cut proportion of 100%, or greater than 25%.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known coining prior to cutting technique of Park to the hole forming method of Viaux in view of Pohl in order to reduce production costs, improve production efficiency, prevent corrosion, and prevent the steel sheet from being softened (See Park ¶0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known coining prior to cutting technique of Park to the hole forming method of Viaux in view of Pohl because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 12
Viaux in view of Pohl and Park teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein the edge area comprises an indentation which is recessed, relative to the surface by 4% to 40% of a wall thickness of the steel sheet plate or of the reinforcement patch having the indentation. (Park, ¶0018 teaches the coining bushing protrudes 30% of the thickness of the sheet. This translates to the depth of the indentation being 30% of the thickness.)
Claim 13
Viaux in view of Pohl and Park teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein an indentation of the edge area extends radially circumferentially from the opening in a transverse direction by at least 0.5 mm. (The thickness of the material in Viaux is disclosed as 1.5mm (¶0050). When using the method of Park, which teaches the embossment is a half circle and the radius (the height of the coining bushing) is 30% of the thickness of the sheet, the coining bushing will have a diameter of around 0.9mm (1.5mm * 30% = 0.45mm, which is the radius). This 0.9 mm is located at the edge of the cut area based on the teachings in Park, and so represents the distance from the opening in the transverse direction and is at least 0.5mm.)
Claim 21
Viaux in view of Pohl and Park teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein the edge area comprises an indentation which is recessed, relative to the surface, by 8% to 35% of a wall thickness of the steel sheet plate or of the reinforcement patch having the indentation. (Park, ¶0018 teaches the coining bushing protrudes 30% of the thickness of the sheet. This translates to the depth of the indentation being 30% of the thickness.)
Claim 22
Viaux in view of Pohl and Park teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein the edge area comprises an indentation which is recessed, relative to the surface, by 12% to 30% of a wall thickness of the steel sheet plate or of the reinforcement patch having the indentation. (Park, ¶0018 teaches the coining bushing protrudes 30% of the thickness of the sheet. This translates to the depth of the indentation being 30% of the thickness.)
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watzdorf (US20180029645A1) in view of Pohl (US20150028625A1), further in view of Park (US20170266711A1).
Claim 11
Watzdorf teaches motor vehicle component (Figure 1A), comprising: a hot formed and press hardened steel sheet plate (Item 2, ¶0047 / ¶0049); a reinforcement patch which forms a double layer with the steel sheet plate (Item 8, ¶0048); the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch are welded together (¶0048(, the reinforcement patch is applied locally to the motor vehicle component (Figure 1B)
Watzdorf does not explicitly disclose an opening which extends through the reinforcement patch and the steel sheet plate.
However, Pohl teaches a method of reinforcing an automobile pillar (Figures 1a-1b) where the reinforcement (21) and pillar structure (10) have openings (41.1 and 14.1, for example).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known aligned openings technique of Pohl to the reinforcement and sheet of Viaux in order to provide holes that allow for positioning or alignment relative to one another of the two elements. (See Pohl ¶0045)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known c aligned openings technique of Pohl to the reinforcement and sheet of Watzdorf because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Watzdorf in view of Pohl does not disclose wherein an edge area surrounding the opening is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch, and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening.
However, Park teaches an edge area surrounding the cut area is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch (Figures 5 and 8 show a process and result of cutting a portion of a high strength steel sheet (¶0010) for a vehicle (¶0034) where an embossment is created at the edge of the cut point (See Item 107 which forms a corresponding shape in the material of the sheet).) and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening. (Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Based on this, ¶0040 and Figures 6-7 of Park teach that the method of using the embossment/coining prior to cutting results in a cut end that does not include burrs. This is interpreted as a smooth cut proportion of 100%, or greater than 25%.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known coining prior to cutting technique of Park to the hole forming method of Watzdorf in view of Pohl in order to reduce production costs, improve production efficiency, prevent corrosion, and prevent the steel sheet from being softened (See Park ¶0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known coining prior to cutting technique of Park to the hole forming method of Watzdorf in view of Pohl because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 23
Watzdorf in view of Pohl and Park teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein an indentation of the edge area extends radially circumferentially from the opening in a transverse direction by more than 1 mm. (The thickness of the material in Watzdorf is disclosed as including 3mm. When using the method of Park, which teaches the embossment is a half circle and the radius (the height of the coining bushing) is 30% of the thickness of the sheet, the coining bushing will have a diameter of around 1.8mm (3mm * 30% = 0.9mm, which is the radius). This 1.8 mm is located at the edge of the cut area based on the teachings in Park, and so represents the distance from the opening in the transverse direction and is at least 1mm.)
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handing (DE102011001849A1) in view of Bold (DE102016013466A1), further in view of Kojima (US20240288023A1).
Claim 11
Handing teaches a motor vehicle component (¶0001), comprising: a hot formed and press hardened steel sheet plate (¶0012 teaches patchwork blanks include the use of high strength and hot formed steels. ¶0030 teaches a high strength steel is used for the sheet metal blank.); a reinforcement patch which forms a double layer with the steel sheet plate (Figure 7 shows a reinforcement patch (17) that is used with the main body of the component (15). The reinforcement patch is made from aluminum (¶0030).); and an opening which extends through the reinforcement patch and the steel sheet plate (¶0025 teaches connection techniques for securing the reinforcing blank and the sheet metal blank to one another includes riveting or screwing, which both require a hole through the two pieces.) the reinforcement patch is applied locally to the motor vehicle component.
Handing does not explicitly disclose the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch are welded together.
However, Bold teaches a motor vehicle component where the plate and reinforcement patch are welded together. (See Machine Translation Lines 48-51.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the known pre-welding technique from Bold for the pre-adhesive technique in Handing in order to use a simple and convenient way to connect the base plate with the reinforcing plate (See Bold Machine Translation Lines 48-51). Both connection methods result in the reinforcement plate and base plate being connected prior to the hot forming.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the known pre-welding technique from Bold for the pre-adhesive technique in Handing because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Handing in view of Bold does not explicitly disclose wherein an edge area surrounding the opening is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening.
However, Kojima teaches an edge area surrounding the opening is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch. (Figure 3(a)-3(d) teaches a method of joining two plate workpieces (W1, W2) where an opening is formed through both workpieces. The method includes forming an embossed region surrounding the opening in the first workpiece (W1), as shown in Figure 3(c) specifically. The embossed region is indicated as either Item W1f or 4 in Figure 3(c).) and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening. (Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Kojima does not indicate any burrs formed in the opening using the technique. ¶0035 teaches the method causes the peripheral areas of the pierced area extend smoothly without being broken. These teachings from Kojima arrive at a “smooth cut proportion” of 100%.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known piercing nut technique of Kojima to the connection method of Handing in order to strongly fasten the stacked first plate shaped workpiece and second plate shaped workpiece. (See Kojima ¶0013)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known piercing nut technique of Kojima to the connection method of Handing in view of Bold because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the riveting or screwing method from Handing will be replaced by the piercing nut method in Kojima to secure the two plates together.
Claim 16
Handing in view of Bold and Kojima teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, further comprising a collar (It is noted that the collar is not shown in Applicant’s drawings or mentioned in the specification. The term is interpreted based on a general understanding of what a collar could be. See Kojima, Figure 3, Item 11) on a rear side (The front side is not established yet, so the collar (11) is interpreted as being on the “rear side” of the workpiece (W1).) of one of the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch that has the embossed edge area (W1), wherein the collar projects into a wall of the other of the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch. (Kojima, Figures 3(c) through 3(d) teaches that the collar (11) projects into the wall material of the other workpiece (W2) and causes it to deform.)
Claims 11, 14, 17, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bold (DE102016013466A1) in view of Bodin (US20220315119A1), further in view of Matsuno (JP2013094815A).
Claim 11
Bold teaches motor vehicle component (1), comprising: a hot formed and press hardened steel sheet plate (See Lines 97-99 for the composition of the base plate. See Lines 164-165 for forming and hardening.); a reinforcement patch which forms a double layer with the steel sheet plate (7); and an opening (Figures 1a-1d show an opening forming on the components. Lines 119-121 teach a cutout being formed.), the steel sheet plate and the reinforcement patch are welded together (Lines 152-153), the reinforcement patch is applied locally to the motor vehicle component. (Figure 1)
Bold does not explicitly disclose and an opening which extends through the reinforcement patch and the steel sheet plate.
However, Bodin teaches an opening which extends through the reinforcement patch and the steel sheet plate. (Figures 1-2 teach a reinforcement (30) and a base plate (10). There are holes (26, 40, 42) that are aligned between the two components.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known aligned hole through the reinforcement and base plate technique from Bodin to the pillar manufacturing method of Bold in order to provide holes for the attachment of hinges for the doors (Bodin ¶0032) and allow for additional reinforcement of the hinge area. (Since the reinforcement is located at the hinge attachment location.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known aligned hole through the reinforcement and base plate technique from Bodin to the pillar manufacturing method of Bold because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Bold in view of Bodin does not disclose wherein an edge area surrounding the opening is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening.
However, Matsuno teaches an edge area surrounding the cut area is embossed on the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch so as to be set back from a surface of the steel sheet plate or the reinforcement patch (Figures 3 and 4 teach a process of forming a hole in a sheet (1) using a piercing tool (10). The area of the hole has a portion on the top surface that is set back from the surface.) and a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the wall of the entire opening. (Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Based on this, Figures 3-4 of Matsuno teach that the cut opening only has a burr at the bottom, which is clearly greater than 25% of the surface of the entire opening.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known hot cutting technique of Matsuno to the hole forming method of Bold in view of Bodin in order to use a method that shears the material when the strength has been reduced by heating resulting in the shearing resistance being low. This contributes to an extension of the mold life and suppression of wrinkles generated in the shearing surface. (See Matsuno Lines 222-225 of the machine translation. Lines 47-49 teach the advantages of this method over laser cutting.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known hot cutting technique of Matsuno to the hole forming method of Bold in view of Bodin because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 14
Bold in view of Bodin and Matsuno teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein a hole edge of the opening has a burr after press hardening, and a length of the burr is less than 0.3 mm. (Matsuno, Figures 1, 3 and 4 teach a burr on the bottom area of the opening after cutting. Figure 2A provides relative dimensions which show this burr is less than 0.08mm (the closest relative dimension), which is less than 0.3mm.)
Claim 16
Bold in view of Bodin and Matsuno teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein a piercing nut is inserted into the opening, and hot cutting of the opening is performed by the piercing nut. (Applicant does not show the piercing nut in the drawings, and only mentions it in ¶0022 of the published specification. There is no specific structure required in the claim, drawings, or specification of this “piercing nut”. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a piercing nut. Matsuno, Figures 3-4 teach a piercing nut (10) that is inserted into the opening during the cutting.
Claim 24
Bold in view of Bodin and Matsuno teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein a hole edge of the opening has a burr after press hardening, and a length of the burr is less than 0.2 mm. (Matsuno, Figures 1, 3 and 4 teach a burr on the bottom area of the opening after cutting. Figure 2A provides relative dimensions which show this burr is less than 0.08mm (the closest relative dimension), which is less than 0.2mm.)
Claim 25
Bold in view of Bodin and Matsuno teaches the motor vehicle component according to claim 11, wherein the smooth cut proportion is greater than 40% of the wall of the entire opening. (Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Based on this, Figures 3-4 of Matsuno teach that the cut opening only has a burr at the bottom, which is clearly greater than 40% of the surface of the entire opening. Lines 222-225 teach the shearing is done while the workpiece is hot.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 11 using Frehn have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 11 using Frehn has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 3 of the remarks applicant argues that Park does not teach “a wall of the opening has a smooth cut proportion greater than 25%”.
It is respectfully asserted that the application does not provide information on what the “smooth cut proportion” is indicating or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Based on this, ¶0040 and Figures 6-7 of Park teach that the method of using the embossment/coining prior to cutting results in a cut end that does not include burrs. This is interpreted as a smooth cut proportion of 100%, or greater than 25%). It is noted that applicant provides additional arguments relating to hot or warm cutting. These limitations are not present in Claim 11 and therefore the arguments are not in line with what is currently claimed.
On Page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Handing does not teach local application of the reinforcement patch.
Handing, Figure 7 shows a patch (17) applied to a specific location on the component (16).
On Pages 9-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Kojima does not teach “a smooth cut proportion greater than 25% of the opening wall”.
Applicant does not define what a smooth cut proportion is or how it is measured. This feature appears to be supported by ¶0021 of the published specification and related to the lack of burrs on the opening. Kojima does not indicate any burrs formed in the opening using the technique. ¶0035 teaches the method causes the peripheral areas of the pierced area extend smoothly without being broken. These teachings from Kojima arrive at a “smooth cut proportion” of 100%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20140239672A1
2014-02-21
Figure 4 teaches a component (7) made from a base sheet (3a) and a reinforcement (3b) applied locally (Figure 4). There are holes formed in the base sheet and reinforcement (Figure 4). ¶0008 teaches the upper member is made from hot formed press hardened steel. The reinforcement is welded to the base sheet (¶0030).
US20160215356A1
2015-12-18
Figures 1-6 teach a method of piercing a sheet of material (w) using a hot piercing nut (25). Figure 9 shows the after effect of the cutting where an embossed area is located on one side. There is also a small burr on the opposite side.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726