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 .
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the front end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the phrase be changed to --the forward end--.
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, 6, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (US Patent 9,555,754).
Re claim 1, Hara discloses a vehicle comprising a frame including a longitudinal rail (12, figure 1); and a structural member including: a front bracket (24) joined to the rail and having an arm (24R figure 1) that extends outwardly away from the rail, a curved elongate member (32, figure 1) having a first end connected to an outer end of the arm (as shown in figure 1) and extending rearwardly therefrom to a second end (36f, figure 1) that is spaced from the rail (at c in figure 1), and a rear bracket (46) connected to the rail, the rear bracket defining a slot (a, figure 1) that receives the second end of the curved elongate member therein (as in figure 3A), wherein a width of the slot (a, figure 1) is wider than a width of the second end (b, figure 1) such that the second end is rearwardly slidable within the slot (as shown by figures 1 and 3A).
Re claim 6, the structural member further includes an elbow bracket (34H, figure 1) that connects the outer end of the arm to the first end.
Re claim 7, the elbow bracket includes a weld tab (the structure protruding from 34H which accepts the end of 32 in figure 1) welded (see column 8, line 35) to a front side of the arm, and wherein the elbow bracket is fastened to the first end of the elongate member and the outer end of the arm (as shown by figure 1).
Re claim 8, the curved elongate member is a tube (32, as shown in figure 1).
Re claim 12, Hara discloses a vehicle comprising a longitudinal frame rail (12, figure 1); and a structural member including: a front bracket (24, figure 1) joined to the rail and having an arm (24R, figure 1) extending outwardly therefrom, an elongate member (32, figure 1) having a forward end connected to an outer end of the arm (as shown in figure 1) and extending rearwardly therefrom to a rear end (36F, figure 1) that is spaced from the rail, and a rear abutment (46R, figure 1) fixed relative to the rail at a location behind the rear end to define a gap therebetween, wherein the gap defines a travel allowing the elongate member to move from a forward resting position (as shown in figure 1) to a rearward position in which the rear end is disposed against the rear abutment (as shown in figure 3A).
Re claim 13, the rear abutment is formed on a bracket (46, figure 1) connected to the rail.
Re claim 14, the structural member further includes a rear bracket (46, figure 1) connected to the rail, the rear bracket defining a slot (a, figure 1) that receives the rear end of the elongate member therein, wherein a width of the slot (a, figure 1) is wider than a width of the second end (b, figure 1) to form the gap, and wherein the rear abutment is formed on a rear peripheral wall of the slot.
Re claim 16, a reinforcement plate (36, figure 1) connected to the rear end of the elongate member, wherein a second gap (c, figure 1) is defined between the plate and the rail.
Re claim 17, the structural member further includes an elbow bracket (34H, figure 1) connected between the arm and the front end.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US Patent 9,555,754) in view of Ramoutar et al. (US Patent 9,156,418).
Hara discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for a front wheel assembly, wherein the structural member is disposed forward of the front wheel assembly.
Ramoutar et al. teaches a front wheel assembly (W figure 3), wherein a structural member (36, 16, 60) is disposed forward of the front wheel assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a vehicle, such as that disclosed by Hara, to have a front wheel assembly, wherein the structural member is disposed forward of the front wheel assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a wheel for the vehicle in a position that will not interfere with the operation of the structural member in a collision.
Claim 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US Patent 9,555,754) in view of Grattan (US Patent 10,526,017).
Hara discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the elongate member defining a body mount receiving area and a body mount connected to the rail between the front and rear brackets.
Grattan teaches an elongate member (14, figure 2) defining a body mount receiving area and a body mount (42) connected to a rail (22, figure 3) in front of a rear bracket (70) and behind a front end of the rail.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle, such as that disclosed by Hara, to have the elongate member define a body mount receiving area and a body mount connected to the rail between the front (the front bracket is attached to a front end of the rail in Hara) and rear brackets, as taught by Gratan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the vehicle to use a truck body as shown in figure 1 of Gratan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 18 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the front bracket defining an opening and is received on the rail via the opening. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The prior art of record shows such a front bracket structure, but modifying the device Hara to have the bracket mounted as claimed would result in the device of Hara becoming non-functional.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 4, 5, and 18-20 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a shear member. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. No use of a shear member is suggested in the device of Hara and modifying the device to use such a shear member would result in the device not operating the manner intended by Hara
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 10 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a lateral beam joined to a side of the rail that is opposite the rear bracket such that the rear bracket and the lateral beam have an overlapping longitudinal position. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. While lateral beams are old and well known in the art, modifying the device of Hara to include the claimed lateral beam would result in the device of Hara being non-functional as it would no longer deform as intended and shown in figure 3C.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 11 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the first end of the curved elongate member being disposed in a rear cavity of the bumper. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Modifying the device of Hara would require the elimination of the claimed front bracket and would result in a non-functional device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all discloses vehicle front frame members.
US 2015/0360632 discloses a front bracket for an elongate member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights