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 § 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 – 4, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tropee (FR 3 120 093).
As for claim 1, Tropee discloses a vehicle subassembly, comprising: a vehicle underbody; a battery (3); an exhaust (6) extending between the vehicle underbody and the battery; and an exhaust mounting assembly comprising: a battery mounting element (5) secured to the battery; and an exhaust mounting arm (8) having a first end (8b) secured to the battery mounting element and a second end (8a) secured to the exhaust.
As for claims 2 and 3, Tropee discloses a substantially annular body (10) having an aperture extending therethrough, and further wherein the first end of the exhaust mounting arm is secured within the aperture (Fig. 3).
As for claim 4, Tropee discloses an elastomeric insert (11) received within the body and wherein the aperture extends through the elastomeric insert.
As for claims 8 and 9, Tropee discloses a mounting flange (4b,c,d) extending from the body and
a web (10a) extending between the body and the mounting flange.
As for claim 15, Tropee discloses an aluminum alloy (see page 3 of the attached translation).
As for claim 17, Tropee discloses an elbow (Fig. 3).
As for claim 18, Tropee discloses a vehicle subassembly comprising: a battery frame (2) for securing a battery (3) to a vehicle; and an exhaust (6) held in a position relative to the battery frame by an exhaust mounting assembly, wherein the exhaust mounting assembly comprises: a battery mounting element (5) secured to the battery frame; and an exhaust mounting arm (8) having a first end (8b) secured to the battery mounting element and a second end (8a) secured to the exhaust.
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(s) 5, 10, 12 – 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropee (FR 3 120 093).
As for claim 5, Tropee at least suggests in the figures an enlarged portion at the first end of the exhaust mounting arm. See the examiner-annotated copy of Fig. 3 of Tropee below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an enlarged portion larger than the aperture to prevent the mounting arm from falling through the mounting element.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claims 10 and 12, Tropee discloses an integral connection between the exhaust mounting assembly (5) and battery support (2). It would have been obvious to simply substitute a fastener, such as a clinch nut, with predictable results. Likewise, as for claims 13 and 14, the integral connection of Tropee prevents rotation between the exhaust mounting assembly and battery. It would have been obvious to simply substitute an anti-rotation pin received in an aperture, with predictable results.
As for claim 16, the exhaust mounting assembly of Tropee is capable of being die cast. It is noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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).
As for claim 19, Tropee discloses an exhaust mounting assembly comprising: a body (10) having an aperture; a battery mounting assembly extending from the body, wherein the battery mounting assembly comprises one or more fasteners for connection to a battery frame; and an exhaust mounting arm having a first end secured within the aperture of the body and a second end for connection to an exhaust.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropee (FR 3 120 093) in view of Orihashi (CN 102536408 B).
Tropee teaches that the second end of the exhaust mounting arm may consist of a collar surrounding part of the exhaust, for example the silencer (see page 7 of the attached translation). Orihashi discloses a mount arm is connected at an interface between two sections of the exhaust, at a silencer (Fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the mounting arm of Tropee at an interface between two sections of an exhaust system to strengthen said interfaces and reduce the number of components required to assemble the exhaust system on the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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: the prior art does not teach or suggest a longitudinal axis of the aperture of the mounting flange extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aperture of the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (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.
/Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613