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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, lines 9-11, the following change is suggested, to insert standard language into the specification and thereby ensure that the application will appear in future searches:
The disclosure relates to a front frame structure for an electric vehicle including a motor room (motor compartment, “engine” compartment, or “engine” bay) in a front portion of a vehicle body.
Page 2, line 4, the phrase “in the event of a head-on collision” is redundant.
Page 3, line 16, the term “annular opening” is introduced for the first time. This term is unclear, for the reasons discussed below regarding 35 U.S.C. 112. It is suggested that a clarifying term be added in parenthesis after the phrase “annular opening.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
With regard to claim 1, the term “annular opening” is confusing. Wikipedia defines the term “annulus” to be a region between two concentric circles, or a region shaped like a ring (see excerpt below). In applicant’s disclosure, the opening is not shaped like a circle or a ring, but is irregular. It is also not concentric with any other shape. For purposes of examination, the term “annular opening” will be taken to require that the rim of the opening is a closed loop. Under this interpretation, the claim would not cover a situation in which, when viewed from the side, the arm-shaped portion and the sub-frame portion form what looks like an opening due to the projection of these parts onto a 2D vertical viewing plane. Instead, the claim requires that the sub-frame portion and the arm-shaped portion actually form an opening that has a closed rim (i.e. an “annular” opening, as best understood).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
284
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, with regard to claim 1, the phrase “a wall-shaped portion that has a wall shape with a dimension in a height direction from a bottom portion to an upper portion of a motor room of the electric vehicle” is confusing. It is believed that this limitation could be read to require merely that the height of the wall-shaped portion is measured in the direction that extends from the bottom of the motor room to the top of the motor room. However, examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean that the height of the wall-shaped portion is from the bottom portion to the upper portion of the motor room, as this appears to be what is intended in light of the specification.
PNG
media_image3.png
359
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “arm-shaped portion” is being interpreted to mean that the arm-shaped portion has a smaller height dimension than the wall-shaped portion. Thus, given that the wall-shaped portion has a height from the bottom portion to the upper portion of the motor room, then the arm-shaped portion’s height must be less than that. This interpretation represents the examiner’s understanding of the reason behind the use of the nomenclature “wall-shaped” versus “arm-shaped.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is that of Yasuhara et al. (US 2010/0171340, hereinafter Yasuhara).
With regard to claim 1, Yasuhara discloses a front frame structure for an electric vehicle (note that Yasuhara does not state that the vehicle is an electric vehicle, but the limitation “for an electric vehicle” is being treated merely as the intended use of the frame structure. Yasuhara’s frame is at least capable of use with an electric vehicle), the front frame structure comprising:
a front side frame having a wall-shaped portion (i.e. the rear portion of element 12—see annotated Fig. provided below) that has a wall shape (the rear portion of element 12 has a “wall shape,” i.e. a larger height than the arm-shaped portion—this is visible in the annotated Fig. provided below)(see Fig. below), and an arm-shaped portion (i.e. the front portion of element 12—see annotated Fig. provided below) that protrudes from an upper portion of a front end portion of the wall-shaped portion and that extends in the front-rear direction of the vehicle body in a front region of the motor room (see Fig. below); and
a sub-frame (32) that is joined to a bottom portion of the wall-shaped portion (at 36) and a front end portion of the arm-shaped portion (at 35) and that has an annular opening between the sub-frame and the arm-shaped portion (see annotated Fig. provided below), wherein an inner peripheral surface of the annular opening comprises a first inclined surface disposed on a bottom surface of a rear portion of the arm-shaped portion (see Fig. below) and a second inclined surface disposed on an upper surface of a front portion of the sub-frame (see Fig. below)
Yasuhara fails to teach or suggest the wall-shaped portion having a height that extends from the bottom portion to the upper portion of the motor room (or engine bay). Yasuhara also fails to teach or suggest the first and second inclined surfaces being inclined at elevation angles that are equal to each other. Yasuhara’s illustration appears to show surfaces that are of a similar inclination angle, however, drawings are assumed not to be drawn to scale unless otherwise stated (MPEP 2125). Yasuhara does not state that the drawings are to scale. Yasuhara contains no explicit teaching about the relative angles of the first and second surfaces. Yasuhara also does not teach that the inclination angle of the first and second surfaces is a result-effective variable. Thus, it would not have been considered obvious to tweak the angles of the first and second surfaces such that they were exactly equal, as required by claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
551
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references provide further examples of vehicle engine compartments where a side member and a sub-frame member have angled surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676