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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
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 2 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “reinforcing fibers”, and the claim also recites “preferably glass fibers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kellner (US Pat. No. 12,288,431).
Regarding claim 1, Kellner discloses an underride guard for a motor vehicle for arrangement below a high-voltage battery of the motor vehicle (at least Abstract), comprising: a plate-shape (see at least “protective plate,” Abstract), a first surface (any of the surfaces of 14, 15, etc.), at least one plastic layer, and at least one electrical component arrangement (comprising 11) which comprises at least one associated electrical line (at least col 4, line 62 – col 5, line 3), wherein the at least one electrical line is arranged on a support (at least 16) and is embedded in the plastic layer together with the support (at least fig 2); or is arranged on the plastic layer.
Regarding claim 8, Kellner discloses wherein the at least one plastic layer is designed as a fiber-reinforced plastic layer (at least col 6, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 9, Kellner discloses A motor vehicle having an underride guard according to claim 1 (at least Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Kellner discloses A method for producing an underride guard for a motor vehicle for arrangement below a high-voltage battery of the motor vehicle, wherein the underride guard is plate-shaped, with a first surface and with at least one plastic layer, and is designed with at least one electrical component arrangement which comprises at least one associated electrical like, wherein the at least one electrical line is arranged on a support and is embedded together with the support in the plastic layer or is arranged on the plastic layer (see discussion of claim 1 above). Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 11-20 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: the prior art when taken alone or in combination does not appear to teach or fairly suggest at this time the combination of limitations of claims 3-7 or 11-20. The prior art discloses electric vehicles charged by induction coils, plastic underride guards with detection lines therein and associated circuits for detection, but do not teach the combination of limitations of the dependent claims as noted.
Claim 2 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B MEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-7.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
JACOB B. MEYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JACOB B MEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights