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 § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilfoyle et al. (US 20090050385 A1).
Re Claim 1 and 2, Guilfoyle et al. discloses the following limitations: A vehicle grille structure, comprising:
a vehicle exterior member (Fig. 2: 10; Para 0026), having a grille opening (Fig. 2: 20; Para 0026);
a grille fin (Fig. 2: 26, 28; Para 0026), provided on the grille opening and across the grille opening in an up and down direction of the vehicle;
and a reinforcement rib (Fig. 4: 50, 52; Para 0029), provided on a rear surface of the grille fin (as seen in the rear view Fig. 4)
Guilfoyle et al., also discloses that the reinforcement rib is inclined in the width direction (Fig. 4: 50, 52 – reinforcement rib inclined).
However, Guilfoyle et al., does not disclose the limitation: having a size in a width direction of the vehicle that is smaller than a size of the grille fin in the width direction wherein the reinforcement rib extends in the up and down direction. Guilfoyle et al. also does not disclose a size of the reinforcement rib in a front and rear direction of the vehicle is one third or less of a size of the grille fin in the front and rear direction.
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 the reinforcement rib disclosed by Guilfoyle et al., to have a size in the width direction of the vehicle that is smaller than a size of the grille fin in the width direction or a size of the reinforcement rib in a front and rear direction of the vehicle is one third or less of a size of the grille fin in the front and rear direction, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the reinforcement rib and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Guilfoyle et al. suggests (Para 0029) making the reinforcement rib not visible from the outside and making the reinforcement rib smaller than the grille fin that would be an obvious way to accomplish this to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
329
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Guilfoyle et al. (US 20090050385 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
307
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Guilfoyle et al. (US 20090050385 A1)
Re Claim 3, Guilfoyle et al. further discloses a size of the reinforcement rib in a front and rear direction of the vehicle is equal in all areas in the up and down direction (as seen in Fig. 4).
Re Claim 4, Guilfoyle et al. further discloses the reinforcement rib extends from an upper end portion of the grille fin to a lower end portion of the grille fin in the up and down direction and extends from one end portion of left and right end portions of the grille fin to other end portion of the left and right end portions in the width direction (as seen in Figs. 2 & 4).
Re Claim 9-12, Guilfoyle et al. further disclose a size of the grille fin in a front and rear direction of the vehicle is equal in all areas in the up and down direction (as seen in Fig. 2).
Re Claim 13-16, Guilfoyle et al. further disclose a size of the reinforcement rib in the width direction is equal in entire area in the up and down direction, and a size of the grille fin in the width direction is equal in entire area in the up and down direction (as seen in Figs. 2 & 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 5-8 are the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a stepped portion between the left and right sides of the reinforcement rib in the width direction and the rear surface of the grille fin, and the size of the stepped portion on one side of the reinforcement rib in the width direction gradually becomes larger along the up and down direction, and the size of the stepped portion on other side of the reinforcement rib in the width direction gradually becomes smaller along the up and down direction. 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 closest prior art of record, Guilfoyle et al., do not teach or suggest a stepped portion as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Guilfoyle et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The cited references all disclose a vehicle grille structure.
Tazaki et al. (EP 1939045 A2) disclose a front structure with a grid member that has a another member disposed on the rear side of the grid member.
Fukui (JP 7829342 B2) discloses a radiator grille with reinforcing ribs to improve strength of the grille.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights