DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s Amendment, filed 7/13/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 recite “a respective first crash box and a respective second crash box are disposed to be parallel with each other with respect to the width direction of the vehicle body and are horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction.” These recitations are indefinite for the following reasons.
1) it is unclear as to which first and second crash box is being recited as being parallel to each other (it is the examiner’s understanding that there are four crash boxes being recited);
2) it is unclear how the crash boxes are parallel in a width direction. It appears that the crash boxes extend in a direction perpendicular to the width direction and therefore cannot be parallel in the width direction; and
3) it is not clear what is means to be horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction. Without better reference points, each crash box is interpreted as at least being horizontally disposed from the ground (i.e. in a vertical direction from the ground).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-20 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claims 1, 9, and 18 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 20210261195).
Regarding claim 1: Okamoto discloses a structure of a vehicle body (Fig. 1; title; abstr.;[0002]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame 100 coupled to opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3). Okamoto discloses that the sub-frame comprises sub-frame side members 20, 21, 130 coupled to the opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3; [0040], [0043], [0048]). Okamoto discloses first crash boxes 53 each coupled to an end of a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0047]). Okamoto discloses second crash boxes 55 each spaced apart from a corresponding one of the first crash boxes inwardly in a width direction of the vehicle body and coupled to a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0049]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame back beam 54, 58 disposed at the first crash boxes and at the second crash boxes (Figs. 1, 3; [0047], [0049]).
Okamoto discloses that a respective first crash box and a respective second crash box are disposed to be parallel with each other with respect to the width direction of the vehicle body and are horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction (Fig. 1 clearly shows the recited limitation).
Regarding claim 2: Okamoto discloses side members elongated in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body at the opposite sides of the vehicle body and coupled to the sub-frame (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of side members which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 3: Okamoto discloses front mounting members each disposed between a corresponding one of the side members and a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of front mounting members which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 4: Okamoto discloses that each of the front mounting members is coupled to an external surface of the corresponding one of the side members and to a front of the corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of such positional relationships which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 5: Okamoto discloses that each of the sub-frame side members 130 comprises a front curved portion curved outward at a front of the sub-frame side member coupled to the sub-frame back beam and a rear curved portion curved outward at a rear of the sub-frame side member coupled to a rear vehicle body (Fig. 3; [0048]).
Regarding claim 6: Okamoto discloses a sub-frame front cross member 140 disposed at the front curved portion and a sub-frame rear cross member 60, 61 disposed at the rear curved portion (Fig. 3; [0048], [0050]).
Regarding claim 7: Okamoto discloses that the sub-frame front cross member and the sub-frame rear cross member extend in the width direction of the vehicle body between the opposite sides of the vehicle body (Fig. 3; [0048], [0050]).
Regarding claim 8: Okamoto discloses that each of the second crash boxes 55 is disposed to be coupled to an inner end of the front curved portion of the corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 3 – at least and indirect connection).
Regarding claim 9: Okamoto discloses a structure of a vehicle body (Fig. 1; title; abstr.;[0002]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame 100 coupled to opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3). Okamoto discloses that the sub-frame comprises sub-frame side members 20, 21, 130 coupled to the opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3; [0040], [0043], [0048]). Okamoto discloses first crash boxes 53 each coupled to an end of a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0047]). Okamoto discloses second crash boxes 55 each spaced apart from a corresponding one of the first crash boxes inwardly in a width direction of the vehicle body and coupled to a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0049]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame back beam 54, 58 disposed at the first crash boxes and at the second crash boxes (Figs. 1, 3; [0047], [0049]). Okamoto discloses side members elongated in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body at the opposite sides of the vehicle body and coupled to the sub-frame (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of side members which meet the limitation as recited). Okamoto discloses a back beam 54, 58 disposed at a front of the side members (Figs. 1, 3; [0047], [0049]).
Okamoto discloses that a respective first crash box and a respective second crash box are disposed to be parallel with each other with respect to the width direction of the vehicle body and are horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction (Fig. 1 clearly shows the recited limitation).
Regarding claim 10: Okamoto discloses that an end of the back beam and an end of the sub-frame back beam are parallel to one another (Figs. 1, 10).
Regarding claim 11: Okamoto discloses that the back beam has a curvature in the width direction of the vehicle body identical to that of the sub-frame back beam (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12: Okamoto discloses front mounting members each disposed between a corresponding one of the side members and a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of front mounting members which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 13: Okamoto discloses that each of the front mounting members is coupled to an external surface of the corresponding one of the side members and to a front of the corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of such positional relationships which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 14: Okamoto discloses that each of the sub-frame side members 130 comprises a front curved portion curved outward at a front of the sub-frame side member coupled to the sub-frame back beam; and a rear curved portion curved outward at a rear of the sub-frame side member coupled to a rear vehicle body (Fig. 3; [0048]).
Regarding claim 15: Okamoto discloses a sub-frame front cross member 140 disposed at the front curved portion of each of the sub-frame side members and a sub-frame rear cross member 60, 61 disposed at the rear curved portion of each of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 3; [0048], [0050]).
Regarding claim 16: Okamoto discloses that the sub-frame front cross member and the sub-frame rear cross member extend in the width direction of the vehicle body between the opposite sides of the vehicle body (Fig. 3; [0048], [0050]).
Regarding claim 17: Okamoto discloses that each of the second crash boxes 55 is disposed to be coupled to an inner end of the front curved portion of the corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 3 – at least and indirect connection).
Regarding claim 18: Okamoto discloses a vehicle comprising a vehicle body (Fig. 1; title; abstr.;[0002]). Okamoto discloses side members separated from each other in a width direction of the vehicle body and disposed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle at opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1-3 – Okamoto illustrates a plurality of side members which meet the limitation as recited). Okamoto discloses a back beam 54, 58 disposed at an end of the side members and extending in the width direction of the vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3; [0047], [0049]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame 100 disposed at an underside of the side members (Figs. 1, 3). Okamoto discloses that the sub-frame comprises sub-frame side members 20, 21, 130 each coupled to a corresponding one of the side members (Figs. 1, 3; [0040], [0043], [0048]). Okamoto discloses first crash boxes 53 each coupled to an end of a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0047]). Okamoto discloses second crash boxes 55 each spaced apart from a corresponding one of the first crash boxes inwardly in the width direction of the vehicle body and coupled to a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0049]). Okamoto discloses a sub-frame back beam 54, 58 disposed at the first crash boxes and at the second crash boxes (Figs. 1, 3; [0047], [0049]). Okamoto discloses that an end of the back beam and an end of the sub-frame back beam are parallel to one another (Figs. 1, 10).
Okamoto discloses that a respective first crash box and a respective second crash box are disposed to be parallel with each other with respect to the width direction of the vehicle body and are horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction (Fig. 1 clearly shows the recited limitation).
Regarding claim 19: Okamoto discloses that each of the sub-frame side members 130 comprises a front curved portion curved outward at a front of the sub-frame side member coupled to the sub-frame back beam; and a rear curved portion curved outward at a rear of the sub-frame side member coupled to a rear vehicle body (Fig. 3; [0048]).
Regarding claim 20: Okamoto discloses a sub-frame front cross member 140 extending in the width direction of the vehicle and disposed at the front curved portion of each of the sub-frame side members and a sub-frame rear cross member 60, 61 extending in the width direction of the vehicle and disposed at the rear curved portion of each of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 3; [0048], [0050]).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (US 20150251613).
Regarding claim 1: Mori discloses a structure of a vehicle body (Fig. 1; title; abstr.;[0001]). Mori discloses a sub-frame coupled to opposite sides of the vehicle body (Figs. 1; [0020]). Mori discloses that the sub-frame comprises sub-frame side members 11, 14 coupled to the opposite sides of the vehicle body (Fig. 1; [0020], [0022]). Mori discloses first crash boxes 31 each coupled to an end of a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0031]). Mori discloses second crash boxes 30 each spaced apart from a corresponding one of the first crash boxes inwardly in a width direction of the vehicle body and coupled to a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Fig. 1; [0031]). Mori discloses a sub-frame back beam 33, 34 disposed at the first crash boxes and at the second crash boxes (Figs. 1, 3; [0033]).
Mori discloses that a respective first crash box and a respective second crash box are disposed to be parallel with each other with respect to the width direction of the vehicle body and are horizontally disposed with respect to a vertical direction (Fig. 1 clearly shows the recited limitation).
Regarding claim 2: Mori discloses side members elongated in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body at the opposite sides of the vehicle body and coupled to the sub-frame (Figs. 1-5, 8 – Mori illustrates a plurality of side members which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 3: Mori discloses front mounting members each disposed between a corresponding one of the side members and a corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-5, 8 – Mori illustrates a plurality of front mounting members which meet the limitation as recited).
Regarding claim 4: Mori discloses that each of the front mounting members is coupled to an external surface of the corresponding one of the side members and to a front of the corresponding one of the sub-frame side members (Figs. 1-5, 8 – Mori illustrates a plurality of such positional relationships which meet the limitation as recited).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein. However, it should be noted that applicant’s amendments required a new 112 rejection
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, applicant argues that Okamoto, Mori, and Han do not disclose the applicant’s amended claim language. Regarding Okamoto and Mori, based on the examiner’s understanding of the newly recited limitations, the examiner disagrees as both Okamoto and Mori clearly illustrate the new limitations, as understood by the examiner, in Fig. 1 of each reference. The 102 rejection, based on Han, has been withdrawn.
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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
8/12/2026
Prosecution Insights