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 .
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 2019/0161041) in view of Tanabe et al. (US 2020/0094759).
With respect to claim 1, Fernandez et al. disclose the claimed vehicle body front construction except that he is silent on whether an air guide member is included. Fernandez et l. disclose a vehicle body front construction comprising:
a front bumper14 including an opening as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Fernandez et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sensor 42 attached to the front bumper 14 (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 of Fernandez et al.); and
a sensor protection member 40, the sensor protection member 40 comprising:
a protection wall extending in a width direction of a vehicle as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Fernandez et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (protection wall)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
205
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a side wall 52/54/56 extending forward of the vehicle from an end of the protection wall close to the opening (close is a relative term with no basis of comparison in the claims, thus the side wall 52/54/56 can be considered close to the opening), the side wall 52/54/56 including a front end 54/56 positioned close to a back surface of the front bumper 14 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Fernandez et al., again close is a relative term).
Tanabe et al. teach a similar vehicle body front construction including a front bumper 14 including an opening 28 and a sensor 70. Tanabe et al. further teach an air guide member 66 disposed behind the front bumper 50 and configured to guide rearward outside air taken from the opening (Tanabe et al., paragraph [0062]; Fig. 4).
In the combination of Fernandez et al. and Tanabe et al., the sensor protection member 40 of Taneda would be disposed between the sensor 40 and the air guide member 66 (as can be determined from Fig. 2 of Fernandez et al. and Fig. 4 of Tanabe et al.). Additionally, in the combination there is a clearance between the sensor protection member 40 (as disclosed by Fernando et al.) and the air guide member 66 (as taught by Tanabe et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tanabe et al. with the vehicle body front construction disclosed by Fernandez et al. for the advantage of guiding air to the heat exchangers thereby improving the cooling process of the engine (Taneda, paragraphs [0061]-[0062]).
With respect to claim 4, Fernandez et al. in view of Tanabe et al. disclose the claimed invention except that they are silent on whether the sensor protection member is thicker than the air guide member. However, it has been held that a simple change in shape is an alteration that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art {the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneda (US 2016/0137230) in view of Tanabe et al. (US 2020/0094759), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2014/0355382).
With respect to claim 6, Taneda in view of Tanabe et al. disclose the claimed vehicle body front construction except for the attachment bases above and below the sensor. However, Tsuji et al. teach a similar vehicle body front construction including a bumper 1, a sensor 3 and a sensor protection member 2 wherein the sensor protection member is fixed on attachment bases 12,12 extending rearward from a back surface of the front bumper 1 (as shown in Fig. 6B of above Tsuji et al.) and wherein the attachment bases 12,12 are disposed above and below the sensor 3 respectively (as shown in Fig. 6B of Tsuji et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the mounting system used by Taneda in view of Tanabe et al. with the teaching of Tsuji et al. for the reduction in parts and ease of assembly (Tsuji et al., paragraph [0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: .
Claims 2-3 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the rear wall and the sensor having a distance therebetween larger than a distance between the front wall and the front bumper.
Claim 5 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the grill shutter including a frame body having a recess configured to receive the sensor protection member moved rearward upon a collision.
Claim 7 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the width-direction extension rib extending from the attachment base inward and outward of a main body of the sensor in the width direction of the vehicle.
Claim 8 has been indicated as allowed primarily for the protection wall extending in a width direction of the vehicle with a clearance between the sensor protection member and the air guide member, the protection wall including a left end and a right end in the width direction with the right end closer to the opening than the left end; and a side wall extending forward of the vehicle from the right end of the protection wall, the side wall including a proximal rear end and a distal front end positioned closer to a back surface the front bumper than the proximal rear end.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see top of page 7 of remarks filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under Taneda in view of Tanabe et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under Fernandez et al. in view of Tanabe et al.
At the bottom of pg. 6 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argue that there is no reason or suggestion for a substation to further include the relative placement of the sensor, protection member, and air guide member required by claim 1. It is noted that Fernandez et al. disclose all the claimed features except for the sensor protection member being disposed between the sensor and the air guide member. Specifically Fernandez et al. disclose structure 40 which supports and protects sensor 42 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Fernandez et al.). Similarly, Tanabe et al. teach a sensor 70 supported, and at least somewhat protected by a support member that is attached to member 68and cross member 53 (Tanabe et al, paragraph [0063]; Fig. 4) as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Tanabe et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (air guide member)][AltContent: textbox (bumper)][AltContent: textbox (protection member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
342
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above Tanabe et al. further teach that the air guide member 66 is disposed behind the front bumper 50 and configured to guide rearward outside air taken from the opening (Tanabe et al., paragraph [0062]; Fig. 4) wherein the sensor protection member is disposed between the sensor 70 and the air guide member. Thus, the combination discloses all of the claimed features.
Regarding the phrase, “close to a back surface of the front bumper,” as previously noted the term “close” is a relative term with no basis of comparison defined within the claims. Since the structure recited is all located in the front end of a vehicle, all the recited structure can be considered “close” to one another.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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 J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612