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. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japan application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “frame members’ as used in claim 12, could not be found in the specification.
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 17, line 2 recites the limitation "support members" appears to be a double recitation of “a support member” as recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It appears Applicant is intending to recited further features of the support member introduced in claim 1. Applicant should use different terminology to clarify these features. For example, Applicant could recite “wherein the support member is provided with a pair of support guides, the support guides extending in the vehicle width direction…”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimasaki, et al. (US 20220314786 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure (Para. [0003]) comprising: front side frames in a pair (50, Fig. 1), the front side frames (50) extending in a vehicle front-rear direction (Abstract) respectively at both sides of a front part of a vehicle in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle (shown in Fig. 2 below); a radiator support (30, Fig. 1) disposed between the front side frames (50), the radiator support (30) being rectangular-frame-shaped in a front view of the vehicle and being coupled to the front side frames (50) respectively at both sides of the radiator support (30) in the vehicle width direction (shown in Fig. 1); a cross member (40, Fig. 1) extending in the vehicle width direction and disposed closer to a rear end of the vehicle than the radiator support (30), the cross member (40) extending between the front side frames (50, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2); an electrical device (64, Fig. 2) disposed closer to the rear end of the vehicle than the cross member (40); a radiator-support reinforcements (70, Fig. 2) in a pair (as shown in Fig. 2), the radiator-support reinforcements (70) respectively coupling outer ends (as shown in Fig. 1) of the radiator support (30) in the vehicle width direction to the cross member (40); and a support member (42, Fig. 1) provided on the cross member (40) and supporting respective rear ends of the radiator-support reinforcements (70) from below in an up-down direction of the vehicle (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
832
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
729
1172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shimasaki discloses the radiator-support reinforcements (70, Fig. 2) capable of receiving a collision load greater than or equal to a predetermined load in a direction toward the rear end of the vehicle (Para. [0004]), the respective rear ends of the radiator-support reinforcements (70) are decoupled from the cross member (40, Fig. 1). Note: claim 2 adds no further structural limitations to the claimed invention but instead recites a desired outcome of using the vehicle front structure.
Regarding claim 6, Shimasaki discloses the radiator support (30, Fig. 1) includes: a pair of radiator side supports (32, Para. [0034], Fig. 1) extending in the up-down direction of the vehicle and respectively defining both sides of the radiator support (30) in the vehicle width direction; a radiator upper support (37, Fig. 1) extending in the vehicle width direction and coupling upper ends of the pair of radiator side supports to each other (as shown in Fig. 2); and a radiator lower support (38, Para. [0040], Fig. 1) extending in the vehicle width direction and coupling lower ends of the pair of radiator side supports (38) to each other (Para. [0041]), wherein the radiator-support reinforcements (70, Fig. 2) respectively couple the radiator side supports (32, Para. [0034], Fig. 1) to the cross member (40, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shimasaki discloses the radiator side supports (30, Fig. 1) are joined to the front side frames (50, Fig. 1) at positions near lower ends of the radiator side supports (38, Para. [0040]), such that the radiator support (30, Fig. 1) projects upward from the front side frames (50).
Regarding claim 17, Shimasaki discloses the cross member (40, Fig. 1) is provided with support members (42, Fig. 1) in a pair including the support member (42), the support members (42) extending in the vehicle width direction and supporting the respective rear ends of the radiator-support reinforcements (70, Fig. 2) from both sides in the up-down direction of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Shimasaki discloses the cross member (40, Fig. 1) has a closed rectangular cross-sectional shape (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Shimasaki discloses a bumper beam (18, Fig. 2) extending in the vehicle width direction and constituting a framework at a front end of the vehicle (as shown in Fig. 2); and crash boxes (19, Fig. 2) in a pair disposed between the bumper beam (18) and the front side frames (50, Fig. 2) respectively (Para. [0033]), the crash boxes (19) coupling the bumper beam (18) to the front side frames (50) and being configured to undergo compressive deformation upon receiving a collision toad (Para. [0033]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimasaki, et al. (US 20220314786 A1) in further view of Gavillon (EP 1568552 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shimasaki discloses the radiator side supports (Shimasaki, 30, Fig. 1) in a rectangular column in the up-down direction of the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1 except for each side support having a shape of a substantially hollow rectangular column. However, Gavillon discloses support elements can be hollow in the longitudinal axis of the vehicle (see pg. 3 of machine translation). Therefore, it 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 to construct radiator side supports as disclosed by Shimasaki to construct each shape to be hollow as disclosed by Gavillon with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage that the radiator side supports each have an additional wall as compared to Shimasaki and therefore the side supports are stronger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-10, 11-16, and 18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In claim 3, “the radiator-support reinforcements tilt toward a center in the vehicle width direction with increasing distance toward the rear end of the vehicle in a plan view of the vehicle” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the reinforcements tilting toward the center in the vehicle width direction with increasing distance toward the rear end of the vehicle. It would not be obvious to incorporate “reinforcements tilt toward a center in vehicle” as stated in claim 3. Claims 4 and 5 due to their dependency on claim 3 also contain allowable subject matter.
In claim 9, “the front fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to a corresponding one of the radiator side supports” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the front fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to a corresponding one of the radiator side supports. It would not be obvious to incorporate “the front fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to a corresponding one of the radiator side supports” as stated in claim 9. Claim 10 due to their dependency on claim 9 also contain allowable subject matter.
In claim 11, “each of the radiator-support reinforcements has a shape of a substantially trapezoidal plate” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not each of the radiator-support reinforcements has a shape of a substantially trapezoidal plate. It would not be obvious to incorporate “each of the radiator-support reinforcements has a shape of a substantially trapezoidal plate” as stated in claim 11.
In claim 12, “each of the radiator-support reinforcements comprises frame members arranged in a trapezoidal frame shape” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not each of the radiator-support reinforcements comprises frame members arranged in a trapezoidal frame shape. It would not be obvious to incorporate “each of the radiator-support reinforcements comprises frame members arranged in a trapezoidal frame shape” as stated in claim 12.
In claim 13, “the rear fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to the cross member” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the rear fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to the cross member. It would not be obvious to incorporate “the rear fixing flange being bent outward in the vehicle width direction and fixed to the cross member” as stated in claim 13. Claim 14 due to their dependency on claim 13 also contain allowable subject matter.
In claim 15, “the support member has a shape of a rib” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the support member has a shape of a rib. It would not be obvious to incorporate “the support member has a shape of a rib” as stated in claim 15.
In claim 16, “the support member… extends over an entire length of the cross member in the vehicle width direction” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the support member extending over the entire length of the cross member. It would not be obvious to incorporate “the support member… extends over an entire length of the cross member in the vehicle width direction” as stated in claim 16.
In claim 18, “the guide member” is not taught in the prior art. For example, Shimasaki, et al. discloses a vehicle front structure however not the guide member. It would not be obvious to incorporate “the guide member” as stated in claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 (regarding Applicant’s argument A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 argument A of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Shimasaki does not disclose a “support member provided on the cross member and supporting respective rear ends of the radiator-support reinforcements from below in an up-down direction of the vehicle. However, it is noted that the “gusset” 42 of Shimasaki is located below “the reinforcing member” 70 of Shimasaki which can be broadly interpreted as a support member supporting under the radiator-support reinforcement as shown in Figure 1 and 3 of Shimasaki.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 argument B, filed 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Shimasaki have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Shimasaki.
After reviewing Applicant’s remarks, reference number for “radiator support” as 37 was an error and is now identified as reference number 30. "The radiator support" 30 of Shimasaki includes upper support 37, lower support 38 and two side supports 32 as shown in Figures 1 and 3 of Shimasaki which does couple to the radiator support 70 of Shimasaki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashida, et al. (US 20200086926 A1) discloses a vehicle front structure including: front side members, cross member, a rectangular radiator, and electrical device.
Mori (US 20150251613 A1) discloses a vehicle front structure with a radiator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Alma D. Schuster/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights