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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The amendment filed 4/29/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The lower side frame, arm-shaped portion and load transmission member being arranged such that an axis, which extends in the vehicle height direction through the arm-shaped portion, also extends through each of the load transmission member and the lower side frame of the sub-frame newly added to claims 1, 15, and 18. There is no support for this in the specification or disclosure as originally filed. It is apparent applicant is relying solely on the drawing figures for this feature but the drawings (showing only side and perspective views) do not provide top-down or bottom-up views of the motor room (6) nor is there a cross-sectional view showing the features aligned in this manner. It is impermissible to rely exclusively on the drawing in this manner. See MPEP 2125 or for example, Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
The upper surface (25a) of the wall-shaped portion (25) and an upper surface of the vehicle suspension tower are each at a common height of claim 11 has no support in the original disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower side frame, arm-shaped portion and load transmission member being arranged such that an axis, which extends in the vehicle height direction through the arm-shaped portion, also extends through each of the load transmission member and the lower side frame of the sub-frame of claims 1, 15, and 18; and the common height of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, on line 2, “first” should be “first diagonal member” and “second” should be “second diagonal member”.
In claim 6, lines 3-4, “a front end portion” of the arm-shaped portion should be “the front end portion” because this limitation is previously recited in claim 1.
In claim 8, line 3, “a front end portion” should be “the front end portion”.
In claim 11, line 9, “an upper surface” should be “the upper surface”.
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 6-8, 11-15, and 16-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the first diagonal member” in line 3, “the second diagonal member” in line 4, and “a front end portion” in lines 3-4 all which lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 8 recites at line 3, “a front end portion” of the arm-shaped portion which lacks antecedent basis in the claims as the limitation was previously recited.
Claim 11, line 9 recites “an upper surface” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims as “an upper surface” is previously recited on lines 7-8.
Claim 16 recites, in lines 20-22, the terms “a bottom portion”, “an upper portion”, and “a motor room” all which lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 17 recite “of the front end portion” which is unclear as to what element of the invention the applicant is referring. Perhaps applicant meant to recite “of the wall-shaped portion” or “the front end portion of the wall-shaped portion” instead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are allowed.
Claims 11-18 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.
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific limitations added to claim 1 (specifically that the sub-frame has a lower side frame that extends in the front-rear direction of the vehicle body and which is joined to a lower surface of the wall-shaped portion; wherein the lower side frame, arm-shaped portion and load transmission member are arranged such that an axis, which extends in the vehicle height direction through the arm-shaped portion, also extends through each of the load transmission member and the lower side frame of the sub-frame); the inclusion of the specific upper panel (25a) forming an upper surface (25a) of the wall-shaped portion (25), wherein a portion of the upper panel, which forms the upper surface of the wall-shaped portion, extends outward, in the vehicle width direction, away from an outer side of the wall-shaped portion as to define a portion of a vehicle suspension tower, and such that the upper surface (25a) of the wall-shaped portion (25) and an upper surface of the vehicle suspension tower are each at a common height which is equivalent to the height representing the upper portion of the motor room of claim 11; and the suspension tower that, relative to the vehicle width direction, is positioned between the upper side frame and an outer wall of the wall-shaped portion; wherein said dimension in the height direction from the bottom portion to the upper portion of the motor room of the wall-shaped portion is substantially the same as the height of the upper side frame (21) in said height direction of claim 16, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights