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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 2-3, “the fourth member has no proper antecedent basis in the claims.”
In claim 11, line 4, “a vehicle” appears to be a double recitation of “A vehicle” recited in line 1 of the claims.
In claim 13, line 5, it appears the word --the-- should be inserted before “vehicle” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, line 3, Applicant uses the term “stadium shape” which has no clear meaning. Stadiums are designed in various shapes throughout the world and there is no single shape that is conventionally known as “stadium shape.” For purposes of expediting examination, this term will be interpreted as --generally rectangular with rounded corners--. Replacing the term “stadium shape” with this language would also overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Claim 11 has a similar problem.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartung (US 2,699,964).
With respect to claim 1, Hartung discloses a grille guard apparatus, comprising:
a first member (including horizontal base member 16 and two vertical members) as shown isolated below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Hartung:
PNG
media_image1.png
77
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
a second member 30 forming a stadium shape, at least one of the first member or the second member coupled with a vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 6-10); Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 2, Hartung discloses that the first member 16 coupled with a frame 18 of the vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 6-10); and
the second member 30 coupled with the first member (as shown in Fig. 1 of Hartung).
With respect to claim 3, Hartung discloses that the first member coupled with a frame 18 of the vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 6-10); and
the second member 30 supported by the first member 16 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Hartung).
With respect to claim 4, Hartung discloses that the stadium shape of the second member 30 circumscribes a headlight of the vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 17-20), the headlight capable of being a stadium shape (while Hartung is silent on the headlight shape, it is noted that the headlight is not part of the positively claimed invention).
With respect to claim 5, Hartung discloses that the second member 30 supported by the first member (as shown in Fig. 1 of Hartung), the stadium shape of the second member surrounding a first headlight of the vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 17-20), the first headlight capable of being a stadium shape (while Hartung is silent on the first headlight shape, it is noted that the first headlight is not part of the positively claimed invention);and
a third member 30 supported by the first member, the third member 30 having a stadium shape surrounding a second headlight of vehicle (Hartung, col. 2, lines 17-20), the second headlight forming a stadium shape (while Hartung is silent on the second headlight shape, it is noted that the second headlight is not part of the positively claimed invention);and
With respect to claim 6, Hartung discloses the first member coupled with a curved portion of the stadium shape of the second member 30 to support the second member 30 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Hartung).
Claim 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulman (US 1,838,114).
With respect to claim 1, Schulman discloses a grille guard apparatus, comprising:
a first member 13 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Schulman);
a second member 16 forming a stadium shape, at least one of the first member or the second member coupled with a vehicle (“The portions 13 of the flange abut against the fenders 99, the shell thereby functioning as a spacer for the fenders and by securing the fenders to the flange of the shell by suitable means 24 . . . the shell is secured to the chassis 26 by bolts 27,” Schulman, pg. 2, lines 34-42; Figs. 1-2).
With respect to claim 7, Schulman discloses the second member 16, the stadium shape of the second member surrounding a first headlight 32’ of the vehicle (Schulman, pg. 2, lines 3-7) forming a stadium shape (as shown in Fig. 1 of Schulman);
a third member 16 forming a stadium shape, the stadium shape of the third member surrounding a second headlight 32’ of the vehicle forming a stadium shape (as shown in Fig. 1 of Schulman); and
a fourth member extending from a straight portion of the stadium shape of the second member 16 to a straight portion of the stadium shape of the third member 16 as shown below in the image isolated from Fig. 2 of Schulman:
[AltContent: textbox (fourth member)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
198
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eipper et al. (US6,224,120).
With respect to claim 1, Eipper et al. disclose a grille guard apparatus, comprising:
a first member 13 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Eipper et al.);
a second member 43 forming a generally stadium shape, at least one of the first member 13 or the second member coupled with a vehicle (first member 13 is coupled to a vehicle with rods 35,37).
With respect to claim 8, Eipper et al. disclose a fourth member 18 that extends from a curved portion of the stadium shape of the second member 43 to a curved portion of a stadium shape of a third member 44 of the grille guard apparatus (as shown in Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.).
With respect to claim 11, Eipper et al. disclose a vehicle 10 comprising:
a first member 13 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Eipper et al.);
a second member 43 forming a generally stadium shape, at least one of the first member 13 or the second member coupled with a vehicle (first member 13 is coupled with a vehicle with rods 35,37).
With respect to claim 12, Eipper et al. disclose that the stadium shape of the second member 43 circumscribes a headlight 19 of the vehicle, the headlight 19 forming a stadium shape.
With respect to claim 13, Eipper et al. disclose that the second member 43 supported by the first member 12 (as shown in Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.), the stadium shape of the second member 43 surrounding a first headlight 19 of vehicle, the first headlight forming a stadium shape (as shown in Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.); and
a third member 44 supported by the first member 13, the third member 44 having the stadium shape surrounding a second headlight 19 of vehicle, the second headlight 19 including a stadium shape (as shown in Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.).
With respect to claim 14, Eipper et al. disclose that the first member 13 coupled to a curved portion of the stadium shape of the second member to support the second member as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (first member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (curved portion of stadium shape)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
165
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eipper et al. (US6,224,120), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Storer (D572,180).
With respect to claim 9, Eipper et al. disclose the claimed grille guard apparatus except for the fourth member that curves around and end of the vehicle towards at least one of a passenger side of the vehicle or a driver side of the vehicle. Eipper et al. disclose a third member 18 that extends from a side of the stadium shape of the second member (as shown in Fig. 2 of Eipper et al.).
Storer teaches a similar grille guard apparatus including a third member and a fourth member that curves around and end of the vehicle towards the driver side as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Storer:
[AltContent: textbox (fourth member)][AltContent: textbox (third member)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
243
309
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Storer with the grille guard apparatus disclosed by Eipper et al. for the advantage of providing additional protection to the driver’s side front end of the vehicle.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Fretz et al. (US 2011/0006553) in view of Hartung (US 2,699,964).
With respect to claim 1, Fretz et al. disclose the claimed grille guard apparatus except for the second member forming a stadium shape. Fretz et al. disclose a grille guard apparatus, comprising:
a first member as shown in the dashed lines in the below image taken from Fig. 5 of Fretz et al.:
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image5.png
208
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a second member as shown below from the image taken from Fig. 5 of Fretz et al.:
PNG
media_image6.png
128
148
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at least one of the first member or the second member coupled with a vehicle (as shown in Fig. 5 of Fretz et al.).
Hartung teach a similar grille guard apparatus including a second member 30 forming a stadium shape, as shown in Fig. 1 of Hartung.
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 Hartung with the grille guard apparatus disclosed by Fretz et al. as a matter of aesthetic design choice. That is, the shape of the second member performs the same function (protecting a front end portion of a vehicle) regardless of its exact shape. Thus, the difference in shape is purely one of aesthetic design.
With respect to claim 10, Fretz et al. disclose a first component coupled to a frame 16 of the vehicle on a passenger side of the vehicle (Fretz et al., paragraph [0027]), the first component comprising an opening 114 (see Fig. 2B of Fretz et al.) as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Fretz:
[AltContent: textbox (first component)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image7.png
262
224
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a second component coupled to the frame 16 of the vehicle on a driver side of the vehicle, the second component comprising an opening 114 (see Fig. 2B of Fretz) as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Fretz et al:
[AltContent: textbox (second component)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image8.png
287
157
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
the first member, comprising:
a first vertical portion that extends from the second member through the opening 114 of the first component as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 5 of Fretz et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (second vertical portion)][AltContent: textbox (first vertical portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
208
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a second vertical portion that extends from a third member of the grille guard apparatus forming a stadium shape through the opening 114 of the second component (as indicated above); and
a portion 96 that extends from an end of the first vertical portion to an end the second vertical portion that is perpendicular to the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion (as shown in Fig. 3 of Fretz et al.).
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