DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 10/23/2025, claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 22-23 are amended, and new claims 27-29 are added. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, and 27-29 are currently pending, with claims 22, 23, and 25 withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
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 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27-29 are 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite: “the wheel arch is configured such that, in use and when a vehicle component is received by one of the at least two vehicle component mounting points, the wheel arch is in a force path defined between the vehicle component and the at least one wheel housed in the wheel arch.”
The recitation yields indefiniteness because “a force path” is not understood. What is the force path? Unspecified forces acting on the vehicle prevent the force path from being understandable with reasonable definiteness. The force path is only vaguely discussed in the specification, and the force path is not indicated in the figures. The force path is only mentioned in paragraphs [0030] and [0173] of the disclosure:
[0030]: “The wheel arch may be configured to be, in use, in the force path from the vehicle component to a wheel housed in the wheel arch.”
[0173]: “the wheel arch is configured to be, in use, in the force path from the vehicle component to the at least one wheel.”
Where is the force path located? Applicant’s disclosure reveals the vehicle component can be one of a variety components, as expressed in new claim 27. Does the force path extend between the wheel and each of these components?
Upon review of Applicant’s disclosure, those having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to definitively understand the claimed force path. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are indeterminable and indefinite.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27-29 are indefinite at least because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 28 recites: “wherein the vehicle panel is a composite panel.” Claim 28 depends from claim 27. Claim 27 introduces a vehicle panel as one of a list of alternative elements, and thus does not explicitly require the vehicle panel. Because the vehicle panel is claimed as an alternative component, it is unclear whether claim 28 requires a vehicle panel.
Similarly, claim 29 recites: “wherein the vehicle body attachment is a rib of a ribcage or an attachment to a rib of a ribcage.” Claim 27 introduces a vehicle body attachment as one of a list of alternative elements, and thus does not explicitly require the vehicle body attachment. Because the vehicle panel is claimed as an alternative component, it is unclear whether claim 29 requires a vehicle body attachment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Amato (US 1,613,443).
Regarding claim 1, D’Amato teaches: a wheel arch (including elements 15, 18) for housing at least one wheel of a vehicle and for attachment to a chassis of the vehicle, the wheel arch being configured to be used on either side of the vehicle. See Figs. 1-2. The wheel arch is configured to the used on either side of the vehicle at least due to the symmetric nature of the wheel arch, and the wheel arch includes no structure which would inhibit installation on an opposite side. The wheel arch is best shown attached to a vehicle chassis in Fig. 1. The wheel is best shown in Fig. 2.
D’Amato further teaches: at least a portion of the wheel arch is substantially symmetrical about a plane of symmetry (see line 4-4 in Fig. 3) transverse to the wheel arch such that the wheel arch may be used on both sides of the vehicle;
the at least a portion of the wheel arch comprises one or more vehicle component mounting points (19; see Fig. 2), the at least two vehicle component mounting points being:
located in opposing halves of the wheel arch relative to the plane of symmetry; and
each configured to individually receive a same vehicle component (see the connection between elements 12, 19-21 in Fig. 2); and
the wheel arch is configured such that, in use and when a vehicle component is received by one of the at least two vehicle component mounting points, the wheel arch is in a force path defined between the vehicle component and the at least one wheel housed in the wheel arch. See Figs. 1-3, which indicates the wheel arch is located between a vehicle component and the wheel, and would thus be in the force path for a force path which extends laterally of the vehicle. The force path is not understood for the reasons expressed above, and the claim has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 3, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the wheel arch is substantially symmetrical about the plane of symmetry. See Figs. 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 6, D’Amato further teaches: wherein a first vehicle component mounting point of the at least two vehicle component mounting points and a second vehicle component mounting point of the at least two vehicle component mounting points are configured to couple to the same vehicle component such that, in use, the vehicle component is mounted to the first vehicle component mounting point if the wheel arch is attached to one side of the vehicle, and to the second vehicle component mounting point if the wheel arch is attached to the other side of the vehicle. See Fig. 2. If the wheel arch was installed on the opposite side, the disposition of the mounting points would be swapped in a front-rear direction.
Regarding claim 7, D’Amato further teaches: a first vehicle component mounting point of the at least two vehicle component mounting points and second vehicle component mounting point of the at least two vehicle component mounting points are configured to couple to the same vehicle component such that, in use, the vehicle component is mounted to the first vehicle component mounting point if the wheel arch is attached to one side of the vehicle, and to the second vehicle component mounting point if the wheel arch is attached to the other side of the vehicle such that the wheel arch is configured to be used in a different way on each side of the vehicle (if the wheel arch was installed on the opposite side, the disposition of the mounting points would be swapped in a front-rear direction).
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 9, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the portion of the wheel arch comprises an attachment point (21) for attaching the wheel arch to the chassis of the vehicle. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the attachment point comprises a landing pad for a bolt. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the wheel arch is configured to be secured to the chassis of the vehicle by one or more of, or any combination of, rivets, bolts, screws and adhesive. See Figs. 2, 4.
Regarding claim 13, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the wheel arch is configured to be arranged at generally directly opposed positions on the chassis of the vehicle. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 14, D’Amato further teaches: wherein a subframe (5, which includes elements 7, 9, and 25) is coupled to the wheel arch, the subframe being asymmetric about the plane of symmetry. See Figs. 1, 2, and 4.
Regarding claim 17, D’Amato further teaches: wherein a subframe (5, which includes elements 7, 9, and 25) is removably coupled to the wheel arch (via the removal of fasteners). See Figs. 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 18, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the wheel arch is formed by casting such that the wheel arch is configured to be used on either side of the vehicle, followed by machining the wheel arch to be used on a selected side of the vehicle. Casting and machining are processes for manufacturing the wheel arch. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 20, D’Amato further teaches: the wheel arch being adapted for robotic assembly techniques to form a wheel arch assembly. The device from D’Amato would be capable of being assembled robotically.
Regarding claim 21, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the robotic assembly techniques are partly, substantially or fully autonomous. The device from D’Amato would be capable of being assembled robotically via autonomous techniques.
Regarding claim 27, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the same vehicle component that the at least two vehicle component mounting points are each configured to individually receive is one of the following: a suspension strut; a drive unit; a vehicle seat mounting; a seat belt anchorage; a vehicle body attachment; a vehicle panel; a control arm; a drive shaft member; a brake unit; or a steering arm. See Figs. 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 28, D’Amato further teaches: the wheel arch of claim 27, wherein the vehicle panel is a composite panel.
Regarding claim 29, D’Amato further teaches: wherein the vehicle body attachment is a rib of a ribcage or an attachment to a rib of a ribcage.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “configured to” is used throughout the claims. This phrase is interpreted as an expression of an intended use, or an intended installation of the wheel arch. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts D’Amato (US 1,613,443) does not anticipate the claims. The claims have been amended, and an explanation of how D’Amato reads on the claims is discussed above.
Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to include: “the wheel arch is configured such that, in use and when a vehicle component is received by one of the at least two vehicle component mounting points, the wheel arch is in a force path defined between the vehicle component and the at least one wheel housed in the wheel arch.”
Please see the discussion above regarding the indefiniteness of claim 1, and reasoning of how D’Amato reads on the limitation.
Applicant states: “The above novel feature has a technical effect that the wheel arch can be used to support other components of a vehicle, and dissipate forces received therefrom into the ground via the wheel. In contrast, as described above, the mudguard of D'Amato is merely "to prevent splash from the wheel being thrown into the motor vehicle", and there is no teaching that the mudguard could support other vehicle components in the claimed manner.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The wheel arch from D’Amato can support other vehicle components in the claimed manner. Force dissipation is not required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached on (303) 297-4337. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613