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.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper panel and the lower panel" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper panel and the lower panel" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (US 8337064 B2) in view of Tanabe et al. (US 20200094879 A1) and Mildner (US 8246105 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yonezawa discloses a front face (Yonezawa, Fig. 1) for a motor vehicle (Yonezawa, 18 in Fig. 1) characterized in that it comprises: an upper portion (Yonezawa, 10 in Fig. 1) having a first external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 22) visible from an outside of the vehicle (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, exposed to forward exterior) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle, the upper portion comprising a trim module (Yonezawa, 20 in Fig. 1), wherein the trim module includes an electromagnetic waves diffusion member (Yonezawa, Col. 5 lines 46-49, lamp), the trim module is adapted to attach to a support structure (Yonezawa, 26 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle, a lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, portion below 10, includes 16 and 48) having a second external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, forward outer surface of 48) visible from the outside of the vehicle when the front face is mounted on the vehicle, wherein an upper end of the lower portion and a lower end of the upper portion are adjacent and offset horizontally along a longitudinal axis (X) (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, upper end of 48 adjacent to and in front of lower end of 22) of the vehicle so that the upper end of the second external surface of the lower portion is located further toward a front (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 48 is in front) of the vehicle than the lower end of the first external surface of the upper portion when the front face is mounted on the vehicle; wherein the upper panel and the lower panel are integral (Yonezawa, Fig. 1 and 11A, integral as in connected and assembled together).
Yonezawa fails to disclose an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves and an offset (d1) along the longitudinal axis (X) of the vehicle is between 10 mm to 100 mm.
Tanabe teaches an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves (Tanabe, Fig. 1-2 and paragraph 43, trim module of 16 has lamps along with other electromagnetic wave emitting devices, and the external surface is made from transparent material, therefore some electromagnetic waves will be able to go through).
Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and have a trim module with transparent surface. Doing so provides a surface allowing multiple devices to be installed behind of and maximizes vehicle capabilities.
Mildner teaches an offset (d1) along the longitudinal axis (X) of the vehicle is between 10 mm to 100 mm (Mildner, Col. 9 lines 20-27, 40-45 mm or 75 mm).
Mildner is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure that displaces in the event of an impact to protect other vehicle components as Yonezawa in view of Tanabe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa in view of Tanabe to incorporate the teachings of Mildner with a reasonable expectation of success and have an offset of 10 mm to 100 mm such that the lower panel can be displaced by such distance. Doing so provides desired protection to other vehicle component during an impact.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the upper end of the lower portion and/or at least part of the lower end of the upper portion extends in a substantially horizontal plane (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, both has part that extends substantially horizontally) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion comprises an upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 22) made of plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic) and the lower portion comprises a lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 16) made of plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic; Yonezawa already teaches synthetic resin in Col. 10 last line).
Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and use plastics. Doing so reduces the weight of the vehicle by using plastic as compare to metal.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the front face at a junction between the upper panel and the lower panel forms a connecting zone (Yonezawa, Fig. 11A) configured to deform or break during an impact (Yonezawa, Fig. 10-11B, Fig. 10 shows impact and Fig. 11B shows breaking) at the second external surface of the lower portion.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the lower panel is more flexible than the upper panel (Yonezawa, upper panel is fixed to both supports 20 while lower panel is releasable and can move as shown in Fig. 11B, making it more flexible than the upper panel).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the upper portion comprises an upper panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 22) made of a first plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic) and the lower portion comprises a lower panel (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, panel of 16) made of a second plastic material (Tanabe, paragraph 37, both panels can be made of plastic; Yonezawa already teaches synthetic resin in Col. 10 last line).
Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and use plastics. Doing so reduces the weight of the vehicle by using plastic as compare to metal.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 6, wherein the lower panel and the upper panel are adapted to attach to the vehicle so as to be independent (Yonezawa, Fig. 1 and Fig. 11B, independent movement during an impact) from each other.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, further comprising two optical units (Tanabe, 15 in Fig. 1) integrated into the trim module, the optical units being arranged respectively at two opposite lateral ends of the trim module (Tanabe, Fig. 1, two lights 15 on each end of the trim module).
Examiner notes that optical units are known in the vehicle area to have structural connotations; they are interpreted to be equivalent of lighting units.
Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and have two optical units. Doing so provides safety to vehicle operators and other traffic users during low light conditions.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yonezawa in view of Tanabe and Mildner teaches the front face according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic waves diffusion member of the trim module is adapted to emit light (Yonezawa, Col. 5 lines 46-49, lamp can emit light) and the external surface of the trim module is any one of: transparent and translucent to light (Tanabe, paragraph 43, transparent therefore at least certain lights can go through).
Regarding claim 10, Yonezawa discloses a motor vehicle (Yonezawa, 18 in Fig. 1) characterized in that it comprises a front face (Yonezawa, Fig. 1), wherein the front face further comprises: an upper portion (Yonezawa, 10 in Fig. 1) having a first external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 22) visible from an outside of the vehicle (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, exposed to forward exterior) when the front face is mounted on the vehicle, the upper portion comprising a trim module (Yonezawa, 20 in Fig. 1), wherein the trim module includes an electromagnetic waves diffusion member (Yonezawa, Col. 5 lines 46-49, lamp), the trim module is adapted to attach to a support structure (Yonezawa, 26 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle, a lower portion (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, portion below 10, includes 16 and 48) having a second external surface (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, forward outer surface of 48) visible from the outside of the vehicle when the front face is mounted on the vehicle, wherein an upper end of the lower portion and a lower end of the upper portion are adjacent and offset horizontally along a longitudinal axis (X) (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, upper end of 48 adjacent to and in front of lower end of 22) of the vehicle so that the upper end of the second external surface of the lower portion is located further toward a front (Yonezawa, Fig. 1, surface of 48 is in front) of the vehicle than the lower end of the first external surface of the upper portion when the front face is mounted on the vehicle; wherein the upper panel and the lower panel are integral (Yonezawa, Fig. 1 and 11A, integral as in connected and assembled together).
Yonezawa fails to disclose an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves and an offset (d1) along the longitudinal axis (X) of the vehicle is between 10 mm to 100 mm.
Tanabe teaches an external surface transparent or translucent to said electromagnetic waves (Tanabe, Fig. 1-2 and paragraph 43, trim module of 16 has lamps along with other electromagnetic wave emitting devices, and the external surface is made from transparent material, therefore some electromagnetic waves will be able to go through).
Tanabe is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front face as Yonezawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa to incorporate the teachings of Tanabe with a reasonable expectation of success and have a trim module with transparent surface. Doing so provides a surface allowing multiple devices to be installed behind of and maximizes vehicle capabilities.
Mildner teaches an offset (d1) along the longitudinal axis (X) of the vehicle is between 10 mm to 100 mm (Mildner, Col. 9 lines 20-27, 40-45 mm or 75 mm).
Mildner is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle front structure that displaces in the event of an impact to protect other vehicle components as Yonezawa in view of Tanabe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front face as taught by Yonezawa in view of Tanabe to incorporate the teachings of Mildner with a reasonable expectation of success and have an offset of 10 mm to 100 mm such that the lower panel can be displaced by such distance. Doing so provides desired protection to other vehicle component during an impact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first two paragraphs on page 7 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Examiner’s interpretation of "integral" is unreasonable in light of the specification and the term "integral" should be understood as meaning "one piece." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Integral means part of a whole, and Yonezawa’s upper panel and lower panel meet this definition as they are connected together and forms the vehicle front assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have make the same interpretation. As explained in MPEP 2111.01, Applicant may rebut the ordinary and customary meaning of a term by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the time of filing. Applicant must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” within the specification so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change in meaning. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since Applicant fails to clearly define “integral” with a definition different from its ordinary and customary meaning, Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights