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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of their remarks that primary reference Terada (JP 2020183155 A) fails to disclose “a cover member”, and “an inner end of the lower bracket 6 in a width direction of the vehicle is fastened to the upper bracket 7”. Upper bracket 7 covers the gap between fender 3 and the bracket 6, and upper bracket 7 also extends in the width direction and length direction of the vehicle and hence covers the area below it. Upper member 7 discloses a cover member when given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Also, Terada discloses lower bracket 6 and upper bracket 7 extending in a width direction (X-direction, figures 2-7) and fastened to each other through welding points W (fig.2). Below is figure 6 of the instant application and figure 4 of Terada to show how fender panel 3 of Terada represents the same structure as fender 20, upper bracket 7 of Terada represents the cover member 11, lower bracket 6 of Terada represents fender apron 10 when given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 1-4, 7, 10, 12-15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terada (JP 2020183155 A).
Regarding claim 1, Terada discloses a structure for covering a fender connection portion (structure in figs.1-7), the structure comprising: a fender (fender panel 3, figs.1-7) of a vehicle (vehicle in fig.1); a fender apron (vehicle body 4 with the bracket 6, figs.1-7) on which the fender is mounted; and a cover member (bracket 7, figs.2-7), wherein an inner end of the fender apron in a width direction (width direction X, fig.1, arrow I direction indicates the inside, fig.4) of the vehicle is fastened to the cover member and the fender is fastened to the cover member (bracket 6 is fastened to bracket 7 and panel 3 is fastened to bracket 7, fig.3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Terada discloses a vehicle (vehicle in fig.1) comprising: a vehicle body (body of vehicle in fig.1); a cover member (bracket 7, figs.2-7); a fender apron (vehicle body 4 with the bracket 6, figs.1-7) having an inner end in a width direction of the vehicle fastened to the cover member (figs.1-7), wherein the fender apron comprises a wheel house in which a wheel of the vehicle is mounted (body 4 with the bracket 6 form a housing for the wheel of the vehicle as seen in figures 1-7); and a fender (fender panel 3, figs.1-7) mounted on the fender apron, fastened to the vehicle body, and fastened to the cover member ((bracket 6 is fastened to bracket 7 and panel 3 is fastened to bracket 7, fig.3-4)).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Terada discloses wherein the cover member comprises: a fastening portion (lower fixing portions 71a and 71b, figs.3-4) fastened to the fender apron; and a fender mounting portion (upper portion 75, figs.3-4) extending in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle from the fastening portion on an outside of the vehicle in the width (width direction X, fig.1, arrow I direction indicates the inside, fig.4) direction and fastened to an inner end of the fender (fender panel mounting piece 31, figs.3-4).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Terada discloses wherein the fastening portion is disposed stepwise with the fender mounting portion (lower fixing portions 71a and 71b are stepwise with the upper portion 75 as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Terada discloses wherein the fastening portion is fastened to an upper end of the fender apron (fixing portions 71a and 71b are fixed to upper end of bracket 6, figs.3-4).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Terada discloses further comprising a plurality of fastening holes (holes for fastening bolts 82 and 32, figs.3-6) in the fender mounting portion at intervals in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle, wherein the fender is fastened to the plurality of fastening holes (fender 3 is fastened to the holes through fastening bolts 82 and 32, figs.3-6).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Terada discloses further comprising: a headlamp mounting portion on a front end of the cover member in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (headlamp fixing portion 75a, figs.1-7); and a headlamp (headlamp 8, figs.1-7) having a rear end fastened to the headlamp mounting 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2020183155 A) in view of Mark (GB 2563022 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Terada discloses the structure of claim 2 and the vehicle of claim 13, but fails to disclose a bent portion bent downward from the fender mounting portion.
However, Mark discloses wherein the cover member (bracket 120, figs.1-4) has a bent portion bent downward from the fender mounting portion on the outside of the vehicle in the width direction (fender panel 110 attaches to top horizontal surface of the bracket 120, bracket 120 also has vertical members bent downward from the mounting portion as seen in figure 4 to provide support and reinforce the mounting structure, figs.1-4).
Terada and Mark are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fender mounting assemblies. Therefore, 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 Terada with the bent downward vertical portions of the bracket of Mark with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of enhancing its structural integrity.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Terada in combination with Mark, Terada discloses wherein the inner end of the fender overlaps an upper surface of the fender mounting portion and is fastened to the fender and the fender mounting portion (fender 3 overlaps and is fastened to upper portion 75, figs.1-7).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP 2020183155 A) in view of Iwano (US 20150158531 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Terada discloses the structure of claim 2, but fails to disclose a bead portion.
However, Iwano discloses further comprising a bead portion (reinforcing beads 52 and 54, fig.3) on the mounting portions (44 and 46) of the mounting bracket (40, fig.3).
Terada and Iwano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fender mounting structures. Therefore, 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 Terada with the reinforcing beads of Iwano with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of increasing the rigidity and strength of the bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, and 19 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.
Claim 11 depends from claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 11 has the limitation of “further comprising an outer plate supporting portion extending from the fender mounting portion in the width direction of the vehicle and in contact with an inner surface of the fender.” The primary reference of Terada discloses fender mounting portion (75, fig.4), but does not disclose an outer plate supporting portion extending from the fender mounting portion in the width direction of the vehicle and in contact with an inner surface of the fender (3). Having a plate extend from the upper portion (75) to contact the fender 3 would require reconstruction and hindsight. The prior art taken alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 11. Claim 11 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 depends from claim 13 which is rejected, but claim 19 has the limitation of “further comprising: a bead portion bent from the fender mounting portion to be positioned under the fender mounting portion; and an outer plate stiffness reinforcing portion bent upward from the fastening portion on a rear end of the cover member in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.” Claim 19 has the same allowable subject matter as discussed above in claim 9. Claim 19 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 allowable.
Claim 9 had allowable subject matter as discussed in the non-final office action. Claim 9 was written in independent form and has the limitation of “further comprising an outer plate stiffness reinforcing portion bent upward from the fastening portion on a rear end of the cover member in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.” The primary reference of Terada does not disclose an outer plate stiffness reinforcing portion bent upward from the fastening portion (lower fixing portions 71a and 71b, figs.3-4) on a rear end of the cover member in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle. The fastening portion (lower fixing portions 71a and 71b, figs.3-4) is fixed on the bracket 6 and would require serious reconstruction to have the above limitations regarding the orientation and configuration of the outer plate stiffness reinforcing portion. The prior art taken alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest without hindsight all of the limitations in claim 9. For the reasons above claim 9 has allowable subject matter and is in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights