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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penn (Patent No. 4,125,214) in view of Howell Sr.
Re: claim 1, Penn teaches a grill guard (Fig. 1 - 11) for a vehicle (13) comprising a grill structural frame (49 & 17) and a center assembly (61) having a center structural frame (63 & 65) wherein:
a) the grill guard (11) is attached to the vehicle (13) by the grill structural frame (49 & 17); and
b) the center assembly (61) is attached to the grill structural frame (49 & 17) and folded down (See Fig. 1) while the grill structural frame (49 & 17) remains fixed in its original location attached to the vehicle (See Fig. 1);
c) the grill structural frame (49 & 17) is comprised of two structural members (17) connected to a grill member (15) and side wing structures (49), and is designed to provide an unobstructed opening in the center of the vehicle when the center assembly is folded down (See Fig. 1);
d) the side wing structures (49) are fixedly attached to the vehicle's body via vehicle mounting features (53 & 59); and
e) the unobstructed opening in the center of the vehicle provided by the grill structural frame when the center assembly is folded down allows a user to have unobstructed access to the vehicle (See Fig. 1).
Penn fails to teach a releasably fold down center assembly having a latching assembly; the grill guard attached to the front of the vehicle.
However, Howell Sr. teaches a grill structural frame (Annotated Fig. 2 – Grill Structural Frame) and a releasably fold down center assembly (11) having a latching assembly (Fig. 1 – 17) wherein: the grill guard (1) is attached to front (See Fig. 2) of the vehicle (V) by the grill structural frame (Annotated Fig. 2 – Grill Structural Frame).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s positioning and center assembly with those of Howell Sr.’s positioning and latch assembly in order to provide the advantage of a guard that does not fall into the open position due to bumps, vibrations, or sudden movements.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Penn teaches wherein the grill guard (11) is attached to the vehicle (13) by vehicle mounting features (Fig. 3 – 27, 45, 59) of the grill structural frame (Fig. 1 - 49 & 17). Penn fails to teach wherein the grill guard is attached to the front of the vehicle.
Howell Sr. teaches the grill guard (Fig. 2 – 1) is attached to the front of the vehicle (See Fig. 2 - V).
Re: claim 3, Penn fails to teach wherein the vehicle mounting features include mounting brackets.
However, Howell Sr. teaches wherein the vehicle mounting features include mounting brackets (Col. 5 – lines 13-16).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s mounting features with those of Howell Sr.’s brackets in order to provide the advantage of having an apparatus which has more positive engagement with the vehicle and is less likely to fall off the vehicle due to vibrations, bumps, and wear over time.
Re: claim 4, Penn teaches wherein each of the two structure members (Fig. 1 – 17) includes at least one pivot feature (81 & 69). Penn fails to teach a) each of the two structural members includes at least one latching feature; and b) the latching assembly is configured to releasably engage with the latching features and the pivot features of the two structural members.
However, Howell Sr. teaches wherein:
a) each of the two structural members (Fig. 2 - 3 & 5) includes at least one latching feature (Fig. 3 - 17a) and at least one pivot feature (Fig. 4 – 13b); and
b) the latching assembly (17) is configured to releasably engage (Fig. 7 - 17p) with the latching features (17a) and the pivot features (13b) of the two structural members (3 & 5).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s structural members with those of Howell Sr.’s latch assembly in order to provide the advantage of a guard that does not fall into the open position due to bumps, vibrations, or sudden movements.
Re: claim 6, Penn teaches wherein each of the two structural members (Fig. 1 – 17) includes at least one pivot feature (81 & 69). Penn fails to teach wherein:
a) each of the two structural members includes at least one latching feature and at least one pivot feature;
b) the latching assembly is configured to releasably engage with the latching features and the pivot features of the two structural members;
c) when the center assembly is in a non-released configuration, the center assembly is retained by the latching assembly's engagement with the latching features of the structural members; and
d) when the center assembly is in a released configuration, the latching assembly is released from the latching features and with the assistance of the pivot features.
However, Howell Sr. teaches wherein:
a) each of the two structural members (3 & 5) includes at least one latching feature (Fig. 2 – 17a & 17b) and at least one pivot feature (Fig. 7 – 13b);
b) the latching assembly (17) is configured to releasably engage (Fig. 5 & 7 – 17p) with the latching features (17a) and the pivot features (13b) of the two structural members (3 & 5);
c) when the center assembly (11) is in a non-released configuration (Fig. 1 & 6), the center assembly (11) is retained by the latching assembly's (17) engagement (17p) with the latching features (17a) of the structural members (3 & 5); and
d) when the center assembly (11) is in a released configuration (Fig. 2 & 7), the latching assembly (17) is released from (See Fig. 7) the latching features (17a) and with the assistance of the pivot features (13b).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s structural members with those of Howell Sr.’s latch assembly in order to provide the advantage of a guard that does not fall into the open position due to bumps, vibrations, or sudden movements.
Re: claim 7, Howell Sr. further teaches wherein the at least one latching feature (17a) include a latching aperture (17a) and a latching interface (Face of element 3 shown in Fig. 7) having a bumper (15s).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s structural members with those of Howell Sr.’s latch assembly in order to provide the advantage of a guard that does not fall into the open position due to bumps, vibrations, or sudden movements.
Re: claim 8, Penn and Howell Sr. fail to teach wherein the at least one pivot feature is a semi-circular cutout.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 9, Penn teaches wherein the center structural frame includes one or more non-latching members (65) and pivot members (81 & 69). Penn fails to teach wherein the center structural frame includes a latching member.
Howell Sr. teaches wherein the center structural frame (11a, 11b, 11c) includes a latching member (11a & 11b).
Penn and Howell Sr. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle guards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Penn’s center structural frame with those of Howell Sr.’s latching member in order to provide the advantage of a guard that does not fall into the open position due to bumps, vibrations, or sudden movements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 10-12 and 21, claim 10 was previously identified as allowable subject matter as objected to being dependent on a rejected claim. Applicant has amended the claim to be independent thus overcoming the objection. Claims 11-12 and 21 depend on allowable claim 10.
Re: claim 13-20, claims previously identified as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Penn in view of Howell Sr.
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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612