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 2-3, 5 and 7-9 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim states, “imaginary lines are provided”. The renders the claim unclear as an imaginary structure cannot be claimed as being provided or part of the structure. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner will consider the claim to read, “the outer tubular portion is disposed to intersect diagonal reference lines between the two diagonally-located fixation portions”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3, 5 and 7-9 are rejected as above due to dependency on Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diagonal lines" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should read “the imaginary lines” to overcome the antecedent basis rejection. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 5 and 7-9 are rejected as above due to dependency on Claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suasa (JP 200191945 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Suasa teaches a subframe structure in a vehicle including a steering rack mechanism and a subframe (Fig. 6 element 10) having a plurality of fixation portions (Fig. 6 elements 12c and 14c) fixed to a vehicle body, wherein the steering rack mechanism has an outer tubular portion (Fig. 6 element 16) extending in a vehicle width direction, and the subframe and the outer tubular portion are integrally formed (Shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses imaginary lines are provided, each connecting at least two diagonally-located ones of the plurality of fixation portions, and the outer tubular portion is disposed to intersect with the imaginary lines (Fig. 6 shows outer tubular portion 16 disposed on reference lines connecting diagonal fixation points).
Regarding Claim 3, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the subframe has paired left and right extension portions continuously extending from the outer tubular portion to the fixation portions along the diagonal lines (Shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the subframe is provided with an upper rib connecting at least one of the fixation portions to a vehicle-width-direction end portion of the outer tubular portion in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 6 structure coupling upper fixation points to the outer tubular portion).
Regarding Claim 5, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the subframe is provided with an upper rib connecting at least one of the fixation portions to a vehicle-width-direction end portion of the outer tubular portion in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 6 structure coupling upper fixation points to the outer tubular portion).
Regarding Claim 6, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a lower rib is provided at a lower surface portion of the outer tubular portion, extending downward in a vehicle up-down direction (Fig. 6 structure coupling lower fixation points to the outer tubular portion).
Regarding Claim 7, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses a lower rib is provided at a lower surface portion of the outer tubular portion, extending downward in a vehicle up-down direction (Fig. 6 structure coupling lower fixation points to the outer tubular portion).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suasa (JP 200191945 A) in view of Komiya (WO 2013145549 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Suasa fails to explicitly teach a lower end portion of the lower rib is linked to a jack member having a jack-up point.
However, Komiya teaches a lower end portion of the lower rib is linked to a jack member having a jack-up point (Fig. 5 element 27).
Suasa and Komiya are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle subframes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subframe of Suasa to have the jack-up point as disclosed by Komiya. Doing so would provide a strong point on the subframe to allow the vehicle to be safely jacked up.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suasa (JP 200191945 A) in view of Komiya (WO 2013145549 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Suasa teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 7.
Suasa fails to explicitly teach a lower end portion of the lower rib is linked to a jack member having a jack-up point.
However, Komiya teaches a lower end portion of the lower rib is linked to a jack member having a jack-up point (Fig. 5 element 27).
Suasa and Komiya are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle subframes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subframe of Suasa to have the jack-up point as disclosed by Komiya. Doing so would provide a strong point on the subframe to allow the vehicle to be safely jacked up.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644