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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/9/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5-7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the vehicle upper side of the second drainage part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the vehicle lower part of the closed cross-section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the vehicle upper side of the second drainage port" in line2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the drainage channel provided in a reinforcement suspension front" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “wherein the drainage channel and” appears to be incomplete.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the vehicle lower side of the first drainage port toward the vehicle-widthwise inner side" in lines 3 and 4 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, lines 1 and 2, the phrase “wherein the drainage channel and” appears to be incomplete.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vehicle loser side of the first drainage port" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments filed 3/26/2026 were persuasive in overcoming the rejections based on Shibata (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0370576).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18 are allowed.
Claims 5-7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 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 in claims 1 and 5-16 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the drainage channel has, on a vehicle lower side of the drainage channel, a second drainage port opened toward a wheel house in which a tire is housed. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Shibata (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0370576), appears to show the drainage channel opening toward an inside engine compartment of the vehicle and not the wheel house as can be seen in figure 3.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 2, 4, and 17 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations direct position not overlapping the first drainage port in a plan view, a front view, and a side view of the vehicle. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Shibata (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0370576), shows that the first and second drainage port overlapping in at least a front view.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 3 and 18 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the second drainage port having an opening area smaller than an opening area of the first drainage port. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Shibata (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0370576), shows the second drainage port being at least as large as the first drainage port, if not larger.
Conclusion
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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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 at (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 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights