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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “of lower member” should be “of the lower member”. 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 1-2, 4-8, and 11-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to eliminate the recitation of “a dimension” such that the phrase at lines 6-9 now recites that the tip end portion “is larger” without identifying what specifically is larger in the width direction making the claim unclear and indefinite. It is unclear how one would determine infringement.
At lines 6-9, claim 1 further recites ‘a passenger compartment’, ‘a passenger compartment side’, and ‘a tip end side’ which are unclear because the phrases are not defined relative to the other recited components. Specifically, it is unclear if applicant intends for the passenger compartment to be considered laterally inward relative the lower member, longitudinally rearward of the lower member, or both. It is additionally unclear because the sides are not defined and can have more than one meaning imparted to the phrase. That is, the passenger compartment side could be a rearward most side but could equally be considered a laterally inward side and as such, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites at line 20, “a vehicle widthwise outer side surface” which lacks antecedent basis because the same is recited at claim 1, line 17.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear how the tip end portion “extends toward” the side frame as the tip end portion extends away from the passenger compartment and no further explanation is given. Looking to the specification, it is clear that the lower member (4) itself linearly approaches the side frame (1) ([0024]) but not that the tip end portion itself does the same. The tip end portion (4b) includes lower inner plate (41) and lower outer plate (42). It is unclear if applicant intends to recite a portion of edge of one of these components or something else. The limitation is unclear. Further explanation is requested and the claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 2 recites the flange portion includes an extended pieces that is a piece “projecting in a direction away from the passenger compartment” but has not defined if that direction is lateral or longitudinal.
Claim 2 recites “an inner flange” at line 18 which lacks antecedent basis in the claim as “an inner flange” is previously recited in claim 2 at line 12; and “a vehicle widthwise outer side surface” at line 20 where the same limitation is recited at claim 2, line 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific extended piece is joined to a vehicle widthwise outer side surface of the side frame bracket, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
For claims 1-2, as best understood, JP 572 discloses a vehicle body structure (V) comprising:
a side frame (1) extending in a front-rear direction;
a side frame bracket (16) connected to a front end portion of the side frame; and
a lower member (3) located outside the side frame in a vehicle width direction and extending in the front-rear direction.
The vehicle body structure further includes a compartment (CR, FIG.1, described in the machine translation as the vehicle compartment) located rearwardly of the front vehicle structure shown in FIGS.1-2. Additionally, the vehicle body structure includes a compartment (MR, described as a power mounting chamber).
The lower member (3) is set such that a tip end portion (generally see 20,22) of the lower member is located apart from the compartment (MR) in a vehicle width direction. The tip end portion is larger on a compartment side (see the inner side nearer to the compartment MR) than on a tip end side (an outer side positioned laterally outward from the compartment side) in the front- rear direction.
The tip end portion (20,22) of the lower member, which is located apart from the compartment (MR) and which extends toward the side frame as the tip end portion extends away from the compartment (MR) in the front-rear direction, is connected to the side frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The lower member includes a flange portion (20i) which faces in the vehicle width direction and which projects from the tip end portion along the front-rear direction,
the lower member flange portion including an inner flange; and
the lower member is connected to the side frame via the flange portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
353
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The flange portion includes an extended piece that is a piece projecting in a direction away from the passenger compartment, and
the extended piece is connected to a vehicle widthwise outer side surface of the side frame and extends from a lower front edge portion of an inner flange of the lower member flange portion; and
the lower member is connected to the side frame via said side frame bracket.
JP 572 therefor lacks only the extended piece is joined to a vehicle widthwise outer side surface of the side frame bracket as indicated allowable above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes JP 2018-095060 which shows corrugated flange portions welded to other vehicle components in at least FIGS. 3-4 and 6. JP 060 teaches the use of such a configuration with a flange portion including beads and corrugations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights