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 9-12 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 9 recites the limitation "the second portion extending in the vehicle-width direction more rearward". It is unclear the second portion is more rearward than what.
Claims 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 5238286 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a vehicle (abstract), comprising: a dashboard (15 in Fig. 2); and a mount bar (1 in Fig. 1) including a rod-shaped main body (Fig. 1) whose cross-sectional contour is circular (Fig. 2), the mount bar being formed along the dashboard (both extends in transverse direction), wherein the mount bar includes a single bar (Fig. 1, bar of 1), and the single 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 upward than an upper surface (see annotated Fig. 1, upper surface of the rod portion indicated by first portion) of the at least one first portion; and a third portion (see annotated Fig. 1) coupling the at least one first portion to the second portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Tanaka
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, comprising pillars (23 in Fig. 1) each including a bar connector (12 in Fig. 1) to which an end of the mount bar is connected along an axial direction (Fig. 1, both axial ends of the bar 1 is connected to 12).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, the second portion extending in the vehicle-width direction more rearward (Fig. 1-2, more rearward than all the parts in front of the bar, such as part of the airbag 16, instrument panel 15, and steering column 6, etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the mount bar is located between a base end of a steering column (6 in Fig. 1-2) and a steering wheel (8 in Fig. 1) in a vertical direction (Fig. 1-2, up-down direction, bar is between the bottom/base end of steering column 6 and steering wheel 8 at the top).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the main body of the mount bar is a component obtained by bending a circular pipe (Fig. 2, shows it is a hollow pipe, annotated Fig. 1 shows it is bent), and the main body of the mount bar includes a straight portion and a curved portion (see annotated Fig. 1, first portion is straight, curved portion at second and third portions).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as apply to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kurokawa (US 20150367890 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 3, but fails to disclose each of the ends of the mount bar along the axial direction is formed into a structure covering the bar connector from a top.
Kurokawa teaches each of the ends of the mount bar along the axial direction is formed into a structure covering the bar connector from a top (Kurokawa, Fig. 2, ends of the bar cover bar connectors 43/44 from the top since the connectors are inside the pipe structure).
Kurokawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success and use the bar connector to connect with the pillars. Doing so reduces the occupied space and footprint of the connection between the bar and the pillar to give more space for other component, also allows integration with other vehicle frame parts to allow better load distribution.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 3, but fails to disclose outside portions overlapping the pillars through the bar connectors and extending inward in a vehicle-width direction in a side view.
Kurokawa teaches outside portions overlapping the pillars (Kurokawa, Fig. 1-2, from a side view, the outer portions of the bar is overlap with the pillar) through the bar connectors and extending inward (Kurokawa, Fig. 1-2, outside portions of the bar is inward relative to the pillars) in a vehicle-width direction in a side view.
Kurokawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Kurokawa with a reasonable expectation of success and use the bar connector to connect with the pillars such that the bar overlaps with the pillar. Doing so reduces the occupied space and footprint of the connection between the bar and the pillar to give more space for other component, also allows integration with other vehicle frame parts to allow better load distribution.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US 20110227369 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the third portion extends oblique to a forward and backward direction in a plan view (Tanaka, see annotated Fig. 1, third portion is extending in the width direction in the plan view therefore oblique to the forward and backward direction).
Tanaka fails to disclose the third portion extends oblique to the vehicle-width direction in a plan view.
Abe teaches the third portion extends oblique to the vehicle-width direction in a plan view (Abe, paragraph 4, known in the art to have a portion bulge to the front; after combination, the third portion of Tanaka can also bulge towards the front therefore be oblique to the width direction in a plan view).
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the third portion to also bulge to the front such that it is oblique to the width direction. Doing so provides greater usable space towards the occupant area for the mounting of components or use as storage.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the second portion is higher than the at least one first portion (Tanaka, see annotated Fig. 1), and the third portion extends oblique to a forward and backward direction in a side view (Tanaka, see annotated Fig. 1, third portion is extending upward in the side view therefore oblique to the forward and backward direction).
Tanaka fails to disclose the third portion extends oblique to a vertical direction in a side view.
Abe teaches the third portion extends oblique to a vertical direction in a side view (Abe, paragraph 4, known in the art to have a portion bulge to the front; after combination, the third portion of Tanaka can also bulge towards the front therefore be oblique to the vertical direction in a side view).
Abe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success and have the third portion to also bulge to the front such that it is oblique to the vertical direction. Doing so provides greater usable space towards the occupant area for the mounting of components or use as storage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 5857726 A) and Dura (DE 202004011120 U1).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 9, but fails to disclose 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 a middle in the vehicle-width direction, the second portion is formed in the middle in the vehicle-width direction, and the at least one first portion comprises first portions at both sides of the second portion in the vehicle-width direction.
Yokoyama teaches 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 a middle in the vehicle-width direction (Yokoyama, Fig. 6, driver seat 7 and assistant driver seat 8, middle is the region between the two seats).
Yokoyama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success and have two seats. Doing so provides increased comfort and safety to the occupants in the vehicle.
Dura teaches the second portion is formed in the middle in the vehicle-width direction, and the at least one first portion comprises first portions at both sides of the second portion in the vehicle-width direction (Dura, Fig. 1, middle portion 37 is the second portion that is higher than the side portions, which can the first portions).
Dura is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka 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 Tanaka in view of Yokoyama to incorporate the teachings of Dura with a reasonable expectation of success and have the second portion in the middle. Doing so a larger area to accommodate and protect a center console or a center infotainment system.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dura (DE 202004011120 U1).
Regarding claim 23, Tanaka discloses the vehicle according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the second portion is positioned at a center in the vehicle-width direction, the first portion is positioned outward of the second portion in the vehicle-width direction.
Dura teaches the second portion is positioned at a center in the vehicle-width direction, the first portion is positioned outward of the second portion in the vehicle-width direction (Dura, Fig. 1, center portion 37 is the second portion that is higher than the outward side portions, which can the first portions).
Dura is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle dashboard mount bar as Tanaka.
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 Tanaka to incorporate the teachings of Dura with a reasonable expectation of success and have the second portion in the middle. Doing so a larger area to accommodate and protect a center console or a center infotainment system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last paragraph on page 8 of Applicant's Reply, filed 7/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 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 new primary reference Tanaka. See rejection above for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 allowed.
Claims 2, 7, 15-17, and 22 are 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 primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the mount bar is disposed upward away from an upper surface of the dashboard as claimed in claim 2; 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 as claimed in claim 7; the upper surface of the dashboard is formed such that a height of the dashboard varies from one point along the vehicle-width direction toward an other point along the vehicle-width direction, and the mount bar is formed such that a height of the mount bar varies from one point along the vehicle-width direction toward an other point along the vehicle-width direction, according to the variation in the height of the dashboard as claimed in claim 13; and an upper surface of the mount bar is formed such that a height of the upper surface of the mount bar varies from one point along the vehicle-width direction toward an other point along the vehicle-width direction, according to the variation in the height of the dashboard as claimed in claim 22. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The closest prior art is Tanaka, but Tanaka teaches a dashboard mount bar within the dashboard assembly, not disposed upward away from an upper surface of the dashboard. It is also not obvious to have the mount bar connector to located in between the upper portion and the lower portion of the windshield due to the fact that Tanaka’s bar is located within the dashboard assembly. Claims 2 and 7 were previously rejected using other references that teach mount bars disposed outside and above dashboard assemblies, but those previously applied primary references fail to teach the amended limitation of “the mount bar includes a single bar, and the single bar includes at least one first portion extending in a vehicle-width direction; a second portion extending in the vehicle-width direction more upward than an upper surface of the at least one first portion; and a third portion coupling the at least one first portion to the second portion” as claimed in currently amended claim 1.
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 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