DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/292705, filed on 01/26/2024. Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “at least one of a shape or a fastening device to correspond to at least one of a shape or a fastening device of a fastening region of an associated equipping component” and should state --at least one of a shape and a fastening device to correspond to at least one of a shape and a fastening device of a fastening region of an associated equipping component of the equipping components--.
Claim 4 states “at least one of X or Y” and should state --at least one of X and Y--.
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 2-3, 8, 10-14, and 16-17 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 2 states “at least one electrical machine corresponding to at least one machine model”. It is unclear how one electrical machine can correspond to multiple machine models.
Claim 2 states “wherein the support structure comprises at least one equipment place configured to receive each machine model and each assembly type”. This is a double inclusion as “equipment places” have already been established in claim 1. Is this a different equipment place? It is suggested applicant delete this limitation as claim 1 already establishes that all equipping components are provided a respective equipment place.
Claim 2 states “a plurality of different machine models”. This is a double inclusion as “at least one machine model” is already established in the claim.
It is suggested applicant state --at least one electrical machine respectively corresponding to at least one machine model of a plurality of machine models… wherein the plurality of different machine models are provided as alternatives…--.
Claim 3 states “wherein the at least one assembly type comprises one or more of:” It is unclear how one assembly type can comprise more than one. It is suggested applicant state --wherein the at least one assembly type comprises:--
Claim 8 states “the at least one grid rod further comprises a rod including a structural weakening location”. It is unclear how this relates to the at least one grid rod of claim 1. Is this the same grid rod or a new grid rod of the at least one grid rod? Does this rod also have all the features of the at least one grid rod of claim 1? Does the “at least one reduced stiffness region” not already qualify as a “structural weakening location”? It is unclear what further limitation this claim is trying to establish. It is suggested applicant cancel this claim.
Claim 10 states “wherein the mechanical support structure comprises an equipment place configured to position an electrical machine… the mechanical support structure further comprises at least one support element”. First, “an equipment place” is a double inclusion as equipment places have already been established in claim 1. Further, it is unclear if the electrical machine is meant to be positively recited or not. The claim goes into more detail of the electrical machine, but does not positively recite it earlier in the claim. Further still, is this electrical machine not part of the equipping components of claim 1? Does claim 1 not already establish how these equipping components are provided with respective equipment places? It is also unclear how the at least one support element is different than the “fastening device” of claim 1 and what the differences between these elements are.
Claim 11 states “A support structure for a kit system according to claim 1”. It is unclear if the features of the kit system are meant to be required in claim 11. There are many double inclusions already established in claim 1. A support structure for a kit system can be claimed, but it is unclear what the metes and bounds of a support structure for a kit system according to claim 1 would be. Applicant could write out the claim so as not to depend on claim 1 in order to establish what is and is not required by the claim, but this may be subject to an election by original presentation based on how the claim is written. Therefore, it is suggested applicant cancel claims 11-14 and 16.
Claims 12-14 and 16 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim 17 states “wherein each equipment place is predefined and dedicated to a respective type of equipping component”. It is unclear what this is referring to in claim 1. There is a double inclusion for “each equipment place” and “equipping component” as these have already been established in claim 1. Claim 1 also already establishes that “each equipment place is configured with respect to at least one of a shape or fastening device of a shape or a fastening device of a fastening region of an associated equipping component for which the respective equipment place is intended”. So it is already established that each equipment place has a respective equipping component, what then is claim 17 trying to further limit in this regard?
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 102(a)(1) and 103 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 in view of the 112(b) rejections noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claim 1. Particularly, a grid frame with at least one grid rod having a wall thickness or a diameter varying along a longitudinal direction to define at least one reduced stiffness region, the at least one grid rod being curved, and the at least one grid rod being configured to bend in a transverse direction relative to an impact direction, in response to a frontal impact acting on the support structure. Further, see applicant’s arguments.
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 TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights