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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention A (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown that maintaining the inventions in the application would be a burden or how searching would be burdensome (Applicant should take note that “Unity of Invention” and “Special Technical Feature” arguments presented are not relevant under US Restriction practice and instead pertain to PCT Restriction standards).
This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided evidence or identified such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants nor clearly admitted on the record that this is the case, the conclusion is made that Applicant considers the inventions to be patentably distinct. Thus, in addition to reading and understanding all of the various features of the inventions presented it would, indeed, be a serious burden upon the examiner to search for the added features and apply any found additional relevant prior art to each of the inventions presented. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees with Applicant's allegation that the search for each invention would be substantially the same. Clearly, in the examiner's view, the inventions carry substantially more features that could be claimed, and which therefore would require being individually searched and individually addressed in the written Office Action, thus prima facie a serious burden.
Consequently, Applicant s arguments in traverse notwithstanding, the examiner maintains the restriction requirement to be proper and hereby makes the restriction final.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023, was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “vehicle” (Claim 1) and “are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member to induce deformation” (Claim 5 - see below 35 USC 112b rejection) and “are configured as openings, at least a part of which is open toward” (Claim 6) and “wherein multiple mounting pipes are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member and elongated in a forward/backward direction of the vehicle so as to mount the mounting bush… fixed to the front cross member by multiple mounting bolts fastened to the multiple mounting pipe” (Claim 7/8– see below 35 USC 112b rejection) and “wherein an alignment protrusion is integrally formed on the front end of the mounting block so as to protrude forwards such that, when the drive unit is moved downwards for alignment with the mounting bush, the alignment protrusion engages with an upper surface of the mounting bush” (Claim 9 – see below 35 USC 112b rejection) must be shown and labeled 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
Claim 3/4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the front end” (line 3 & 4) should be rewritten as “the front end of the drive unit”. 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.
Claim 2, 7, and 8 is 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. Regarding claim 2/7, the claim recites the limitation: "a forward/backward direction”, which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-10 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. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation: "configured to form the front end, and the mounting block is shaped to have a section expanded from the front end toward a rear side" (emphasis added), which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-8 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. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation: "formed to have a section expanded from the front end toward the rear side" (emphasis added), which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-6 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. Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation: " wherein multiple local reduced-strength portions are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member to induce deformation" (emphasis added), and claim 6: “are configured as openings, at least a part of which is open toward” (emphasis added) which are unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 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. Regarding claim 7/8, the claim recites the limitation: "wherein multiple mounting pipes are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member and elongated in a forward/backward direction of the vehicle so as to mount the mounting bush…fixed to the front cross member by multiple mounting bolts fastened to the multiple mounting pipe" (emphasis added), which is currently unclear from the claims in line with disclosure and figures how the mounting pipes and bolts mount the mounting bush, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
Claim 9 is 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. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation: "so as to protrude forwards such that, when the drive unit is moved downwards for alignment with the mounting bush " (emphasis added), which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viereck et al. (US 11,673,607 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Viereck discloses: A drive unit mounting structure of a vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), comprising:
a front cross member (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, Q2) disposed on a front side of a drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101) and elongated in a transverse direction of the vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
a mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 30+130) formed in the front cross member such that a front end of the drive unit is configured to insert into the mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7); and
a mounting bush (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 30+130) mounted in the mounting hole and configured to support the front end of the drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Viereck discloses: wherein both ends of the front cross member are fixed to side members (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, L1+L2) disposed on both sides of the vehicle and elongated in a forward/backward direction of the vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Viereck discloses: wherein the drive unit has a mounting block (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+30+31) configured to form the front end (See, e.g., Fig.1-7), and the mounting block is shaped to have a section expanded from the front end toward a rear side (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+30+31).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Viereck discloses: wherein the mounting block is formed to have a section expanded from the front end toward the rear side and having a size greater than a size of the mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+30+31).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Viereck discloses: wherein an alignment protrusion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+30+31) is integrally formed on the front end of the mounting block so as to protrude forwards such that, when the drive unit is moved downwards for alignment with the mounting bush, the alignment protrusion engages with an upper surface of the mounting bush (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viereck and further in view of Mitsui et al. (US 7,393,016 B2).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Viereck fails to explicitly teach: wherein the front end of the mounting block of the drive unit is coupled to the mounting bush by a fastening bolt fastened through the mounting bush mounted on the front cross member.
However, Mitsui teaches a similar vehicle drive unit mounting structure (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12) wherein a mounting block (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 63+33+34+etc.) of the drive unit (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 15) is coupled to a mounting bush (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 63+33+34+etc.) by a fastening bolt (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, unlabeled+64+65+etc.).
Mitsui teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicles to provide the drive unit mounted via a fastening bolt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Viereck modified with a fastening bolt such as taught by Mitsui, for the purpose of conveniently maintaining the drive unit in a mounted configuration when in use, beneficially allowing a user to dismount the drive unit easily for service/replacement (e.g., by unfastening the bolt), and additionally presenting a neat and concise visual appearance when stored on the vehicle. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein multiple local reduced-strength portions are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member to induce deformation, as claimed in Claim 5 and similarly provided in Claim 7: wherein multiple mounting pipes are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member and elongated in a forward/backward direction of the vehicle so as to mount the mounting bush (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613