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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the Amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Please see below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are moot. Applicant has amended the claims to recite new combinations of limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are directed at the amendment. Please see below for new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “wherein a height of an upper end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle front side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes is equal to or greater than a height of a lower end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle rear side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes” is unclear. It’s unclear as if Applicant is comparing height(s) of the same through hole or two different throughs hole. In other words, it’s unclear if the one through hole in “a height of a lower end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle rear side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes” the same one through hole in “a height of an upper end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle front side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes” or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as “wherein a height of an upper end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle front side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes is equal to or greater than a height of a lower end of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle rear side of the one through hole of the plurality of through holes”, see specification Page 8 Lines [12-17], as filed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI (JP 2014234097 A: Machine Translation was Previously provided by Examiner) in view of Vacca (US 20170043659 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KOBAYASHI teaches a radiator support upper cover (10: see Figures 1 and 2) that covers an upper portion of a radiator (2 and/or 3: see Figure 2 where 10 covers an upper portion of 2 and 3), the radiator support upper cover (10) comprising:
a front cover member (FM: see KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner) that covers a portion (PU) of the upper portion of the radiator on a vehicle front side (see KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner),
wherein the front cover member (FM) is provided with a plurality of through holes (10a) penetrating the front cover member (FM) in a vehicle up-down direction (see KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner),
wherein the plurality of through holes (10a) are formed to be arranged in rows from the vehicle front side to a vehicle rear side (see KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner), and
wherein a through hole (TH1) located on the vehicle rear side among the plurality of through holes is formed at a position further on an upper side in the vehicle up-down direction than a through hole (TH2) located on the vehicle front side among the plurality of through holes (see KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner).
KOBAYASHI does not teach that the plurality of through holes (10a) are formed to be arranged in rows from a vehicle left side to a vehicle right side.
However, it’s old and well known in the art for radiator covers to have a plurality of through holes that are formed to be arranged in rows from a vehicle left side to a vehicle right side, as evidenced by Vacca, see Vacca’s Figures 1 and 2 where the radiator cover (1) comprises a plurality of through holes (11) that are formed to be arranged in rows from a vehicle front side to a vehicle rear side and from a vehicle left side to a vehicle right side.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the plurality of through holes of KOBAYASHI to be arranged in rows from a vehicle left side to a vehicle right side, since as evidenced by Vacca, such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of increasing the airflow opening area thus increasing the heat transfer rate.
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, KOBAYASHI further teaches wherein a height of an upper end (UE) of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle front side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes is equal to or greater than a height of a lower end (LE) of a portion forming an edge on the vehicle rear side of one through hole of the plurality of through holes (see in KOBAYASHI’s Figure 2 annotated by Examiner where the height of (UE) is greater than the height of (LE)).
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 KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763