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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The reference numerals in all figures are too small, and thus do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
The specification defines a position “Pa” as being “a corner R of the center pillar outer 33” (see Page 11, lines 25-26). However, the indicator “Pa” in Figs. 2, 6A, and 7A does not appear to point to a corner of the center pillar outer. See Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
239
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Section view indicator “A-A” in Fig. 3 should be changed to Roman or Arabic numerals, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Examiner suggests using “IV-IV” since Fig. 4 contains the section view.
Figures 5B, 7A, and 7B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Note that the brief description of the drawings on Pages 5 and 6 of the specification states that these figures show “conventional” subject matter.
Element “R,” mentioned on Page 11, line 25 appears to be missing from the drawings.
The drawings have poor line quality, and do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). Note that the drawings must be viewed in the USPTO Patent Center in order to see this problem. See examples below, as well. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements, which cause image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. Drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
PNG
media_image2.png
168
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
192
251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “are provided” in line 2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Examiner suggests the following amendments:
An upper end portion of [[the]] a center pillar reinforcement is fixed to a roof rail. The roof rail comprises a protrusion portion protruding in a vehicle width direction and extending in a vehicle longitudinal direction. The protrusion portion comprises a fixation portion where the upper end portion is fixed and a terminal end portion separate, in the vehicle longitudinal direction, from the center pillar reinforcement.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13, line 15, “disperse” should be changed to --dispersing--.
Page 13, line 19, “disperse” should be changed to --dispersing--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims frequently use the passive voice phrases “is provided” and “is formed,” for example. It is suggested that, instead of utilizing a “wherein” clause with the passive voice, the claims be amended using “comprising” or “further comprising.” See example below, from claim 6. (Note: The element “said part of said center pillar reinforcement” lacks antecedent basis and has been corrected below) Appropriate correction is required.
6. (currently amended) The upper vehicle-body structure of the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising:
a roof reinforcement extending inward, in the vehicle width direction, from said roof railsaid roof reinforcement positioned on the rearward side of and closest to the center pillar reinforcement;
a door opening portion with a front edge side constituted by ;
wherein
a corner portion of said door opening portion between the center pillar reinforcement and the roof rail is configured in an arc shape in a side view[[,]]; and
said terminal end portion positioned on a rearward side of said fixation portion is positioned on the rearward side of a rear end of said corner portion and on a forward side of a front end of the roof reinforcement
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “said protrusion portion extending rearward from said center pillar reinforcement” in lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “said terminal end portion which is positioned at a rear end of said first protrusion portion” lacks antecedent basis. 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 1-13 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 phrase “where said upper end portion is fixed” is vague and ambiguous. The term “separate from” is also vague, as elements can be “separate” from each other in many different ways. It is suggested that the following amendments be made, in order to reflect the assumed intended meaning of these limitations.
1. (currently amended) An upper vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a roof rail; and
a center pillar reinforcementcomprising an upper end portion to said roof rail, wherein said roof rail comprises a protrusion portion protruding in a vehicle width direction and extending in a vehicle longitudinal direction, and said protrusion portion comprises a fixation portion, said upper end portion [[is]] fixed to said fixation portion, and a terminal end portion spaced apart from said center pillar reinforcement in the vehicle longitudinal direction.
With regard to claim 3, the phrase “rearward adjacent” is unclear. The following amendment is suggested, and the claim is being examined as if this amendment has been made:
“…which is and rearward of said terminal end portion of the first protrusion portion in the vehicle longitudinal direction.”
With regard to claims 5 and 9, it is unclear whether both the upper-face and lower-face bead portions are required, because no “and” or “or” operator is provided.
The following amendment is suggested, and the claim is being examined as if this amendment has been made:
5. (currently amended) The upper vehicle-body structure of the vehicle of claim 4, wherein said bead portion is defined as an upper-face bead portion protruding upward from the upper face portion of said roof rail[[,]] and a pair of lower-face bead portions extending in the vehicle width direction and protruding downward from the lower face portion of the roof rail, wherein said pair of lower-face bead portions are located at respective positions, in the vehicle longitudinal direction, adjacent to said first protrusion portion and said second protrusion portion.
A similar amendment should be made to claim 9.
With regard to claim 10, the phrase “separate rearward from” is ambiguous, and should be changed to --spaced apart rearwardly in the vehicle longitudinal direction from-- or similar.
With regard to claim 11, the phrase “an elongated circular shape” does not make sense, as a “circle” must be a perfect circle. It is suggested that the phrase “an elongated circular shape with arc-shaped both side ends thereof” be changed to --an obround shape--.
With regard to claim 13, the phrase “extend…over” is confusing. Examiner suggests the following amendment:
13. (currently amended) The upper vehicle-body structure of the vehicle of claim 3, wherein said second protrusion portion is configured to extend in the vehicle longitudinal direction rearwardly past a front end of a roof reinforcement extending inward, in the vehicle width direction, from said roof rail.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 12 are rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa (US 2013/0300155).
With regard to claim 1, Kurokawa discloses an upper vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a center pillar reinforcement (32); and
a roof rail (22), to which an upper end portion (42) of the center pillar reinforcement is fixed (via welding), wherein said roof rail comprises a protrusion portion (see annotated Fig. provided below—note that the “protrusion” is considered to be the portion of the roof rail that protrudes in the outward direction beyond the upper and lower flanges of the roof rail) protruding in a vehicle width direction and extending in a vehicle longitudinal direction (the protrusion extends beyond the edges of the illustration in the vehicle longitudinal direction), and said protrusion portion comprises a fixation portion where said upper end portion is fixed (see annotated Fig. below) and a terminal end portion separate, in the vehicle longitudinal direction, from said center pillar reinforcement (the terminal end portion is not shown, but is simply considered to be the end of the roof rail. In other words, the protrusion has to terminate somewhere, and wherever the termination occurs is considered the “terminal end”).
PNG
media_image4.png
404
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Kurokawa teaches that said protrusion portion is provided at a side face portion of said roof rail (see Fig. above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13 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.
With regard to claims 3 and 7, the terminal end portion of Kurokawa’s first protrusion portion is considered to be the end of the roof rail itself (given that Kurokawa does not actually illustrate the terminal end of the protrusion). Therefore, Kurokawa cannot teach a second protrusion portion rearward and adjacent to the first protrusion portion.
With regard to claim 6, given that Kurokawa does not actually show the terminal end of the protrusion, then Kurokawa cannot teach that the terminal end is positioned forward of a front end of a roof reinforcement as specifically called for in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references are further examples of connections between central pillars and roof rails, but which do not disclose the claimed protrusion structure.
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