DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 09/16/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to GB 2413634, filed on 09/17/2024. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2025, and 03/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that support beam of Dole a) does not structurally support the suspension components and b) is not arranged to resist relative lateral movement of the first and second suspension component (because “there is no lateral movement” of the suspension components. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Fig. 3 of the present application shows a support beam {100} that is rigidly and laterally connected between two suspension components {302, 304} at the top end of the first and second suspension components {302, 304} via a first and second mounting member {102, 104}. Dole discloses this exactly: a support beam {1} that is rigidly and laterally connected {via 5, 6} between two suspension components {3 (37), 4 (38)} at the top end of the first and second suspension components {3 (37), 4 (38)} via a first and second mounting member {5, 6 (Figs. 1-2): “Each suspension system 3, 4 is housed under a suspension housing 37, 38 and is connected to a linking means 5, 6 fixed to the suspension housing 37, 38” [0049]; “Suspension systems 3, 4 include a helical suspension spring surrounding the suspension damper, the spring being compressed between a lower cup and the damper cup 5, 6” [0051]}.
Second, the suspension components of the present application appear to be rigid strut towers (this is never explicitly disclosed in the specification), but these appear {from Fig. 3 of the present application compared with Figs. 1-2 of Dole} to be identical to the suspension components {“suspension housings” 37, 38} that house the suspensions {3, 4}.
Third, due to the rigid connection between the support beam {1 (at 5, 6)} with the first and second suspension components {3 (37), 4 (38)}, in the event of a vehicle crash along the Y-axis {see Fig. 1 of Dole}, the support beam 1 would clearly offer significant structural support to the first and second suspension components, to help then resist deformation {“resist relative lateral movement”}. And during any other event, that does not involve a crash along the Y-axis, would allow the first and second suspension components to resist relative lateral movement just as much as the present application, since they appear to be identical configurations of the limitations of claim 1.
For at least these three reasons, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive, and Examiner maintains the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 in view of Dole.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dore (FR 3133045), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Dore discloses a support beam {1 (7)} for a vehicle, wherein the support beam {1 (7)} is configured to structurally support a first suspension component {3 (37)} and a second suspension component {4 (38)}, the support beam {1 (7)} comprising: a first mounting member {5 (of 45)} configured for connection to the first suspension component {3 (37)} at a first side {left side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20}; a second mounting member {6 (of 46)} configured for connection to the second suspension component {4 (38)} at a second side {right side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20}; and a housing portion {15 (18)} configured to mount therein high voltage electrical components {“junction box 15 includes a housing 18 which has a cavity 27… intended to house electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0078]}; wherein the housing portion {15 (18)} of the support beam {1 (7)} is located between the first mounting member {5 (of 45)} of the support beam {1 (7)} and the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} of the support beam {1 (7)}, and wherein the support beam {1} is arranged to resist relative lateral movement of the first suspension component {3 (37)} and the second suspension component {4 (38)}.
Regarding claim 2, Dore discloses the first mounting member {5 (of 45)}, the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} and the housing portion {15 (18)} are produced as an integral component {a solid unit (Figs. 1-6): “The first and second parts of the bar 45, 46 and the junction box 15 form a solid unit extending longitudinally along the transverse direction Y” [0088]}.
Regarding claim 3, Dore discloses the integral component {the “solid unit” [0088]} comprising the first mounting member {5 (of 45)}, the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} and the housing portion {15 (18)} is formed {Figs. 1-6: “The first and second parts of the bar 45, 46 and the junction box 15 form a solid unit extending longitudinally along the transverse direction Y” [0088]}.
Regarding claim 5, Dore discloses at least one of the first mounting member {5 (of 45)} of the support beam {1 (7)} and the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} of the support beam {1 (7)} comprises a first rib {21, 22, 23, 24: “The housing 18b is connected by two first ribs 21, 22 to a first part of a bar 45, to a first side face 25b of the junction box 15b, and by two second ribs 23, 24 connecting a second part of a bar 46, to a second side face 26b of the junction box 15b” [0110]}.
Regarding claim 6, Dore discloses a housing portion projection {16 (19): “The connection terminals 16 protrude from a connection face 19 (or front face) of the junction box 15” [0094]} configured to mount therein high voltage electrical components {“The junction box 15 includes connection terminals 16 intended to be connected to electrical cables to link electrical components of the vehicle together” [0094]}.
Regarding claim 7, Dore discloses the housing portion {15 (18)} comprises an aperture {27; 53} configured to receive an electrical connector {“junction box 15 includes a housing 18 which has a cavity 27… intended to house electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0078]; “Drawer 51 includes a cavity 53 intended to house electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0112]}.
Regarding claim 8, Dore discloses high voltage electrical components {“electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0078]}, wherein the high voltage electrical components are mounted within the housing portion {15 (18): “junction box 15 includes a housing 18 which has a cavity 27… intended to house electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0078]}}.
Regarding claim 11, Dore discloses a vehicle {20} comprising the support beam {1 (7)} of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dore discloses the support beam {1 (7)} is located forward of an A-pillar of the vehicle {20 (because the hood and the front block of the vehicle are inherently forward of the vehicle A-pillar): “This solution simplifies the architecture of the vehicle's front end and the manufacturing process. This means there are fewer part numbers to manage and the solution allows space to be recovered under the hood of the vehicle, in the front block” [0041]}.
Regarding claim 13, Dore discloses the first mounting member {5 (of 45)} of the support beam {1 (7)} is connected to the first suspension component {3 (37)} on the first side {left side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20}; and the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} of the support beam {1 (7)} is connected to the second suspension component {4 (38)} on the second side {right side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20 (Figs. 1-6)}.
Regarding claim 14, Dore discloses a method of manufacturing the support beam {1 (7)} according to claim 1, the method comprising: producing a support beam {1 (7)} comprising: the first mounting member {5} configured for connection to the first suspension component {3 (37)} at the first side {left side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20}; the second mounting member {6} configured for connection to the second suspension component {4 (38)} at the second side {right side (Figs. 1-2)} of the vehicle {20}; and the housing portion {15 (18)} between the first mounting member {5 (of 45)} of the support beam {1 (7)} and the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} of the support beam {1 (7)}; wherein the housing portion {15 (18)} is configured for housing the high voltage electrical components {“junction box 15 includes a housing 18 which has a cavity 27… intended to house electrical equipment such as fuses, for example” [0078]}.
Regarding claim 15, Dore discloses the first mounting member {5 (of 45)}, the second mounting member {6 (of 46)} and the housing portion {15 (18)} are produced as an integral component {a solid unit (Figs. 1-6): “The first and second parts of the bar 45, 46 and the junction box 15 form a solid unit extending longitudinally along the transverse direction Y” [0088]}.
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore in view of (DE 102013/210575), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Dore discloses all the aspects of claim 2. However, Dore does not explicitly disclose the integral component comprising the first mounting member, the second mounting member and the housing portion is cast.
Stenzenberger teaches an integral component {8} comprising a first {left portion of 8 (AA, AB [0035])} and second {right portion of 8 (AC, AD [0035])} mounting member and a housing portion {8a, 8b} is cast {“the rear axle support has a housing upper shell and a housing lower shell, wherein the rear axle support is preferably at least partially a cast housing, in particular an aluminum die-cast housing, that is to say preferably at least one housing shell is a cast component. In a particularly advantageous embodiment, the entire rear axle carrier is designed as a cast housing, i.e. in particular the upper housing shell and the lower housing shell” [0014]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support beam, as disclosed by Dore, such that the integral component comprising the first mounting member, the second mounting member and the housing portion is cast, as taught by Stenzenberger, so that “the internal volume of the rear axle support can be enlarged, with the result that more installation space is available for the components to be arranged in the rear axle support” [0016].
Regarding claim 9, Dore discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Dore does not explicitly disclose the support beam comprising aluminum or an alloy of aluminum.
Stenzenberger teaches a support beam {8} comprising aluminum {“the rear axle support 8 is an aluminum die casting housing having a housing upper shell 8a and a housing lower shell 8b” [0031]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support beam, as disclosed by Dore, such that the support beam comprises aluminum or an alloy of aluminum, as taught by Stenzenberger, so that “the internal volume of the rear axle support can be enlarged, with the result that more installation space is available for the components to be arranged in the rear axle support” [0016].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dore in view of Stenzenberger as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tashiro (US 2021/0114666).
Regarding claim 10, Dore and Stenzenberger disclose all the aspects of claim 9. However, Dore does not explicitly disclose the first suspension component and the second suspension component comprise aluminum or an alloy of aluminum.
Tashiro teaches a first suspension component {24 (left)} and a second suspension component {24 (right)} comprise aluminum {“a front suspension tower portion 24 (hereinafter simply abbreviated to a suspension tower portion 24) made by aluminum casting is mounted” [0047]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support beam, as disclosed by Dore and Stenzenberger, such that the first suspension component and the second suspension component comprise aluminum or an alloy of aluminum, as taught by Tashiro, so that “the displacement of the suspension tower portion 24 is suppressed and the steering stability and the ride quality are improved” [0051].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights