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 § 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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 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 1 recites the limitation " the driver's seat" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the seat" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 14-18 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US 8905282 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a vehicle (12 in Fig. 1), comprising: a dashboard (see annotated Fig. 1); and a mount bar (Fig. 2) including a rod-shaped main body (28 in Fig. 3) whose cross-sectional contour is circular (Fig. 2 and 5, they are tubular), the mount bar being formed along the dashboard (see annotated Fig. 1, both extends in the vehicle width direction and the mount bar extends above the dashboard), wherein the mount bar includes a front portion (see annotated Fig. 1) located in front of the driver's seat (Fig. 1, seat behind steering wheel) and a lateral portion (see annotated Fig. 1) located beside the front portion, and the front portion is lower in height (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 1, front portion is smaller in circumference therefore lower in height) than the lateral portion.
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar is disposed upward away from an upper surface (see annotated Fig. 1) of the dashboard.
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar includes: at least one first portion (see annotated Fig. 1) extending in a vehicle-width direction; a second portion (see annotated Fig. 1) extending in the vehicle-width direction more rearward (see annotated Fig. 1, rearward) or more upward than the at least one first portion; and a third portion (see annotated Fig. 1, bent curved portion) coupling the at least one first portion to the second portion.
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the third portion extends oblique (see annotated Fig. 1, oblique due to the curve) to a forward and backward direction and the vehicle-width direction in a plan view.
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the main body of the mount bar is a component obtained by bending (Fig. 2, 130 is bent) a circular pipe, and the main body of the mount bar includes a straight portion (Fig. 2, portions other than the bent portion of 130) and a curved portion (Fig. 2, bent portion of 130).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Miller
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 5857726 A).
Regarding claim 15, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the mount bar includes an extending portion (Miller, Fig. 3, any portion of main body 28).
Miller fails to disclose a recess with an upper opening for housing an object, and extending portion displaced from the recess in a forward and backward direction.
Yokoyama teaches a recess (Yokoyama, 11b or 11d in Fig. 1) with an upper opening for housing an object; the extending portion displaced from the recess in a forward and backward direction (after combination, Miller’s mount bar is capable of doing so due to having both straight portion 110 and the bent portion 130 and being adjustable up and down the pillars which is tilted relative to the vertical).
Yokoyama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with a dashboard as Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Miller to incorporate the teachings of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success and have a recess. Doing so provides storage means for occupants to hold objects in a convenient and accessible manner.
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the mount bar includes a portion (Miller, portion 110 in Fig. 1).
Miller fails to disclose a recess with an upper opening for housing an object, and the portion extending more forward of the vehicle than the recess.
Yokoyama teaches a recess (Yokoyama, 11b or 11d in Fig. 1) with an upper opening for housing an object, and the portion extending more forward of the vehicle than the recess (capable of doing so due to being adjustable up and down the pillars which is tilted relative to the vertical; 110 of Miller can be position forward of recess 11b in Yokoyama by positioning the mount bar at a certain location on the pillar).
Yokoyama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with a dashboard as Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Miller to incorporate the teachings of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success and have a recess. Doing so provides storage means for occupants to hold objects in a convenient and accessible manner.
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the mount bar includes a portion (Miller, 110/130 in Fig. 1).
Miller fails to disclose a first recess and a second recess which are formed apart in a vehicle-width direction, and the portion extending more forward of the vehicle than the first recess and a portion extending more rearward of the vehicle than the second recess.
Yokoyama teaches a first recess (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, recess of 20) and a second recess (Yokoyama, 11d in Fig. 1) which are formed apart in a vehicle-width direction (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, spaced apart in width direction), and the portion extending more forward of the vehicle than the first recess (can be portion 110 of Miller when mounted at a certain location on the pillar) and a portion extending more rearward of the vehicle than the second recess (can be portion 130 of Miller when mounted at a certain location on the pillar).
Yokoyama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with a dashboard as Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Miller to incorporate the teachings of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success and have the recesses. Doing so provides storage means for occupants to hold objects in a convenient and accessible manner; and protects the item held within the recess.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger et al. (US 20090224016 A1) in view of Lorenzana (US 20130105532 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stautzenberger discloses a vehicle (Stautzenberger, abstract), comprising: a mount bar (Stautzenberger, Fig. 1) including a rod-shaped main body (Stautzenberger, 9 or 7 in Fig. 4) whose cross-sectional contour is circular (Stautzenberger, Fig. 4, they have cylindrical cross sections), wherein the mount bar includes a front portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) located in front of the driver's seat (Stautzenberger, Fig. 2) and a lateral portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) located beside the front portion, and the front portion is lower in height than the lateral portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4, lateral portion is above front portion).
Stautzenberger fails to disclose a dashboard, the mount bar being formed along the dashboard.
Lorenzana teaches a dashboard (Lorenzana, Fig. 1, mount bar above dashboard), the mount bar being formed along the dashboard (after combination, the dashboard would be below the mount bar and both will extend in a vehicle lateral direction).
Lorenzana is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front mount bar as Stautzenberger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger to incorporate the teachings of Lorenzana with a reasonable expectation of success and have a dashboard. Doing so provides additional controlling features and vehicle infotainment access for the operator. Also provides storage means and functions as a mean to block incoming wind.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar is disposed upward away from an upper surface of the dashboard (after combination with Lorenzana, Fig. 1 of Lorenzana shows the upper surface).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar includes: at least one first portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) extending in a vehicle-width direction; a second portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) extending in the vehicle-width direction more rearward or more upward (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) than the at least one first portion; and a third portion (Stautzenberger, 10 in Fig. 4, at least coupling indirectly) coupling the at least one first portion to the second portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
307
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 4 from Stautzenberger
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the second portion is higher than the at least one first portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4), and the third portion extends oblique to a forward and backward direction and a vertical direction in a side view (Stautzenberger, Fig. 4, third portion 10 is extending in the width or left-right direction, therefore oblique to both front-rear direction and the vertical direction in the side view).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar is located between a base end of a steering column and a steering wheel in a vertical direction (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Annotated Fig. 2 from Stautzenberger
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuchman (US 20100199835 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, comprising pillars (Stautzenberger, 1 in Fig. 1).
The combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana fails to teach a bar connector to which an end of the mount bar is connected along an axial direction.
Schuchman teaches a bar connector (Schuchman, 3 in Fig. 2, on both pillars) to which an end of the mount bar is connected along an axial direction (Schuchman, Fig. 4A, bar 1 is connected along its axial direction to bar connector 3 on the pillar 3).
Schuchman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front mount bar as Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana to incorporate the teachings of Schuchman with a reasonable expectation of success and use the bar connector of Schuchman. Doing so provides a small component that does not take up much space on the pillar and provides greater adjustability.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein each of the ends of the mount bar along the axial direction is formed into a structure covering the bar connector from a top (Schuchman, Fig. 4A, ends of the bar form hollow interior that covers one end of the connector 3 and allows insertion of bolt 4a).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the mount bar includes outside portions overlapping the pillars through the bar connectors and extending inward in a vehicle-width direction in a side view (Schuchman, Fig. 4-5, laterally outer portions of the bar is overlapping with the pillar in the vehicle lateral/width direction, and extends laterally inward relative to the pillars).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 4773695 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, but fails to teach each of the pillars includes an upper connector and a lower connector to which an upper portion and a lower portion of a windshield are connected, respectively, and the bar connectors are located between the upper connectors and the lower connectors.
Jones teaches each of the pillars includes an upper connector (Jones, 26 in Fig. 4) and a lower connector (Jones, 31 in Fig. 4, the ones at the bottom) to which an upper portion (Jones, 11 in Fig. 4) and a lower portion (Jones, 12 in Fig. 4) of a windshield (Jones, W in Fig. 4) are connected, respectively.
Jones is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with pillars as Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman to incorporate the teachings of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success and have a windshield with connectors. Doing so protects the occupants from exterior elements and bugs.
The combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana, Schuchman, and Jones teaches the claimed invention except for the bar connectors are located between the upper connectors and the lower connectors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the bar connector to a location such that it is between the upper and lower connectors, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so protects the mount bar and items attached to the mount bar from exterior elements and prevent obstructing the operation of the windshield connectors.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana, Schuchman, and Jones et al. (US 4773695 A).
Regarding claim 8, Stautzenberger discloses a vehicle (Stautzenberger, abstract), comprising, a mount bar (Stautzenberger, Fig. 1) including a rod-shaped main body (Stautzenberger, 9 or 7 in Fig. 4) whose cross-sectional contour is circular (Stautzenberger, Fig. 4, they have cylindrical cross sections), pillars (Stautzenberger, 1 in Fig. 1) each including a pillar body extending upward from a left or right portion (Stautzenberger, Fig. 1, two pillars 1 on left and right sides, both has longitudinal pillar body) located forward of the seat (Stautzenberger, Fig. 2).
Stautzenberger fails to disclose a dashboard, the mount bar being formed along the dashboard, and a bar connector to which an end of the mount bar is connected along an axial direction; and a windshield connected to the pillars, wherein the ends of the mount bar extend along a rear surface of the windshield, and wherein the bar connector protrudes inward or rearward from the pillar body.
Lorenzana teaches a dashboard (Lorenzana, Fig. 1, mount bar above dashboard), the mount bar being formed along the dashboard (after combination, the dashboard would be below the mount bar and both will extend in a vehicle lateral direction).
Lorenzana is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front mount bar as Stautzenberger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger to incorporate the teachings of Lorenzana with a reasonable expectation of success and have a dashboard. Doing so provides additional controlling features and vehicle infotainment access for the operator. Also provides storage means and functions as a mean to block incoming wind.
Schuchman teaches a bar connector (Schuchman, 3 in Fig. 2, on both pillars) to which an end of the mount bar is connected along an axial direction (Schuchman, Fig. 4A, bar 1 is connected along its axial direction to bar connector 3 on the pillar 3); and wherein the bar connector protrudes inward (Schuchman, Fig. 4A, inward in the transverse direction) or rearward from the pillar body.
Schuchman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front mount bar as Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana to incorporate the teachings of Schuchman with a reasonable expectation of success and use the bar connector of Schuchman. Doing so provides a small component that does not take up much space on the pillar and provides greater adjustability.
Jones teaches a windshield (Jones, W in Fig. 1) connected to the pillars (Jones, Fig. 4 and 6, to pillars P), wherein the ends of the mount bar extend along a rear surface of the windshield (after combination, since the windshield is in front of the pillar as shown in Fig. 1 and 4 of Jones, the mount bar attached by connectors of Schuchman would be behind the windshield).
Jones is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with pillars as Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana and Schuchman to incorporate the teachings of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success and have a windshield with connectors. Doing so protects the occupants from exterior elements and bugs.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 4773695 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana teaches there is a middle (Stautzenberger, Fig. 2, middle between the two pillars) in the vehicle-width direction, the second portion is formed in the middle (Stautzenberger, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 4) in the vehicle-width direction, and the at least one first portion comprises first portions (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) at both sides of the second portion in the vehicle-width direction.
The combination of Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana fails to teach a driver seat on one side in the vehicle-width direction and an assistant driver seat on an other side in the vehicle-width direction are disposed to sandwich the middle.
Jones teaches a driver seat (Jones, see annotated Fig. 1) on one side in the vehicle-width direction and an assistant driver seat (Jones, see annotated Fig. 1) on an other side in the vehicle-width direction are disposed to sandwich the middle (after combination with Stautzenberger).
PNG
media_image4.png
374
473
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Annotated Fig. 1 from Jones
Jones is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with pillars as Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Stautzenberger in view of Lorenzana to incorporate the teachings of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success and have seats. Doing so provides enhanced comfort to occupants.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 5857726 A).
Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses a vehicle (Miller, 12 in Fig. 1), comprising: a dashboard (Miller, see annotated Fig. 1); and a mount bar (Miller, Fig. 2) disposed upward away from an upper surface of the dashboard (Miller, see annotated Fig. 1), and the mount bar includes a portion (Miller, 110/130 in Fig. 1).
Miller fails to disclose wherein the upper surface of the dashboard includes a first recess and a second recess which are formed apart in a vehicle-width direction, the mount bar includes a portion extending more forward of the vehicle than the first recess and a portion extending more rearward of the vehicle than the second recess, and the first recess is positioned rearward of the second recess.
Yokoyama teaches a first recess (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, recess of 20) and a second recess (Yokoyama, 11d in Fig. 1) which are formed apart in a vehicle-width direction (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, spaced apart in width direction), and the mount bar includes a portion (Miller, 110 in Fig. 1) extending more forward of the vehicle than the first recess (can be portion 110 when mounted at a certain location on the pillar) and a portion (Miller, 130 in Fig. 1) extending more rearward of the vehicle than the second recess (can be portion 130 when mounted at a certain location on the pillar), and the first recess is positioned rearward of the second recess (Yokoyama, recess of 20 is rearward of the second recess 11d).
Yokoyama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with a dashboard as Miller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Miller to incorporate the teachings of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success and have the recesses. Doing so provides storage means for occupants to hold objects in a convenient and accessible manner; and protects the item held within the recess.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miller in view of Yokoyama as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Duplantis et al. (US 20090206627 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Miller in view of Yokoyama teaches the vehicle according to claim 19, wherein the second recess holds a rectangular plate-shaped object (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, 11d is rectangular therefore it can hold a rectangular plate-shaped object).
The combination of Miller in view of Yokoyama fails to teach the first recess is a cup holder.
Duplantis teaches the first recess is a cup holder (Duplantis, first recess can be 88 in Fig. 2, which is a cup holder).
Duplantis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure with a dashboard as Miller in view of Yokoyama.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Miller in view of Yokoyama to incorporate the teachings of Duplantis with a reasonable expectation of success and have a cup holder. Doing so provides additional storage means for the convenience for the occupants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the fourth paragraph on page 11 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Miller fails to disclose amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miller discloses a front portion (see annotated Fig. 1) located in front of the driver's seat (Fig. 1, seat behind steering wheel) and a lateral portion (see annotated Fig. 1) located beside the front portion, and the front portion is lower in height (Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 1, front portion is smaller in circumference therefore lower in height) than the lateral portion.
In the second paragraph on page 11 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Stautzenberger fails to disclose amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stautzenberger discloses a front portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) located in front of the driver's seat (Stautzenberger, Fig. 2) and a lateral portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4) located beside the front portion, and the front portion is lower in height than the lateral portion (Stautzenberger, see annotated Fig. 4, lateral portion is above front portion).
In the third paragraph on page 15 of Applicant’s reply, Applicant argues that a windshield will interfere with a portion of the bar connector taught by Schuchman located at a front side of the pillar. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones’ windshield is spaced apart from the pillar as shown in Fig. 3, providing clearance for Schuchman’s bar connector. Therefore, there will not be interferences.
In the first paragraph on page 17 of Applicant’s reply, Applicant argues that Miler in view of Yokoyama fails to teach claim 19. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Due to the mount bar of Miller having portions 110 and 130 arranged in a forward-rearward relationship and that the pillar is tilted with the mount bar adjustable along the pillar, the prior art is capable of meeting the claim limitation by positioning the mount bar at the right locations along the pillar. Miler in view of Yokoyama teaches a first recess (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, recess of 20) and a second recess (Yokoyama, 11d in Fig. 1) which are formed apart in a vehicle-width direction (Yokoyama, Fig. 1, spaced apart in width direction), and the mount bar includes a portion (Miller, 110 in Fig. 1) extending more forward of the vehicle than the first recess (can be portion 110 when mounted at a certain location on the pillar) and a portion (Miller, 130 in Fig. 1) extending more rearward of the vehicle than the second recess (can be portion 130 when mounted at a certain location on the pillar), and the first recess is positioned rearward of the second recess (Yokoyama, recess of 20 is rearward of the second recess 11d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle front mounting frames/bars.
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 Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights