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 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 1-3 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.
In claim 1, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination (a protective structure) and line 6 reciting a combination in that the second bracket is positively recited as fixed (fixing and supporting) a protection target member, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear as to whether or not the protection target member constitutes a positive limitation of the claim. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as subcombination claims. If applicant amends the claims to be directed to the combination, any indication of allowable subject matter will have to be reevaluated accordingly.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 572.
For claim 1, JP 572 (JP 2013-193572) discloses a protective structure (FIG.3) comprising:
a frame (FIG.1) forming a skeleton of a vehicle;
a base (1) configured to disperse an impact due to a collision to the frame when the collision occurs;
a first bracket (21) fixed to the base (1); and
a second bracket (20) fixing and supporting a protection target member (3) to be protected from an impact due to the collision,
the second bracket (20) being fixed to the first bracket,
wherein the second bracket (20) comprises a contact portion (20c) protruding toward an adjacent member (bumper 54) disposed adjacent to the second bracket, and
at least a part of the contact portion (20c) and a part of the first bracket (21) overlap (FIG.3) each other as viewed from a side (a front side of the vehicle) where the contact portion protrudes.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, a fixing direction (see 21c) in which the second bracket (20c) is fixed to the first bracket (21) is directed in a direction orthogonal to a contact surface formed by the contact portion which is protruding.
For claim 3, at least a part of a fixing direction in which the first bracket (21) is fixed to the base (1) is directed in a direction different (see 21b, FIG.5) from the fixing direction of the second bracket to the first bracket (see FIG.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 572.
For claim 1, JP 572 (JP 2013-193572) discloses a protective structure (FIG.3) comprising:
a frame (FIG.1) forming a skeleton of a vehicle;
a base (1) configured to disperse an impact due to a collision to the frame when the collision occurs;
a first bracket (24) fixed to the base (1); and
a second bracket (20) fixing and supporting a protection target member (3) to be protected from an impact due to the collision,
the second bracket (20) being fixed to the first bracket,
wherein the second bracket (20) comprises a contact portion (20c) protruding toward an adjacent member (bumper 54) disposed adjacent to the second bracket, and
at least a part of the contact portion (20c) and a part of the first bracket (24) overlap (FIG.3) each other as viewed from a side (a front side of the vehicle) where the contact portion protrudes.
For claim 2, a fixing direction (see 24b) in which the second bracket (20c) is fixed to the first bracket (24) is directed in a direction orthogonal to a contact surface formed by the contact portion which is protruding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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