3DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga et al. U.S. 2019/0152543 (“Shiga”) in view of Kiyotake et al. U.S. 2008/0265623 (“Kiyotake”). Shiga discloses a vehicle front portion structure (abstract), comprising:
a framework member (F, 2) structuring a portion of a vehicle lower side of a vehicle body front portion (abstract), the framework member extending in a vehicle front-rear direction (paragraph [0002], fig. 3), and the framework member consisting of a bumper reinforcement (2);
a flow-straightening member (10) disposed at a vehicle front side of a front wheel (abstract), the flow-straightening member being turnable by being driven between a first state (fig. 9) in which the flow-straightening member is turned furthest toward a vehicle front side (abstract) and a second state (fig. 4) in which the flow-straightening member is turned furthest toward a vehicle rear side (abstract); and
a driving unit (abstract, actuator) configured to drive the flow-straightening member, the driving unit being supported by the framework member at a vehicle upper side (fig. 1, 9) relative to the framework member. Shiga does not directly disclose the framework connecting to a suspension member. Kiyotake teaches a framework (35) connecting a suspension member (tower 30) and a bumper reinforcement (109) in the vehicle-front rear direction (fig. 12). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Shiga such that it comprised the connection to the suspension member in view of the teachings of Kiyotake obvious so as to provide a front structure of an automotive vehicle that can properly restrain a forward deformation of a cabin by transmitting an impact load at a vehicle frontal crash to a hinge pillar efficiently (abstract).
In reference to claims 2, 3, and 5, Shiga in view of Kiyotake further discloses [[claim 2]] wherein seen in a vehicle vertical direction (fig. 1 - 4), a portion of the driving unit (actuator 13) is superposed with the framework member (fig. 4); and
[[claim 3]] further comprising: a power conversion unit (link unit 14) that is configured to adjust a driving force (abstract) applied from the driving unit to the flow-straightening member; and a support member (15, 17) that supports the power conversion unit relative to the framework member, wherein: the support member is disposed at a vehicle lower side of the driving unit (fig. 4), and seen in the vehicle vertical direction, a portion of the support member is superposed with the driving unit (fig. 3 - 4); and
[[claim 5]] the flow-straightening member attached to the framework member (F) via a support member (15), and an entirety of the support member (15, fig. 4) is disposed between the flow-straightening member and the framework member in a vehicle width direction (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga in view of Kiyotake and Fannin et al. U.S. 6,079,769 (“Fannin”). Shiga discloses a vehicle front portion structure (abstract), comprising:
a framework member (F, 2) structuring a portion of a vehicle lower side of a vehicle body front portion (fig. 1), the framework member extending in a vehicle front-rear direction (fig. 3 – 4), and the framework member connecting a bumper reinforcement (2);
a flow-straightening member (10, 11) disposed at a vehicle front side of a front wheel (Wf)], and a support member (l15, 17 supporting the flow-straightening member relative to the framework member.
Shiga does not directly disclose the framework connecting to a suspension member. Kiyotake teaches a framework (35) connecting a suspension member (tower 30) and a bumper reinforcement (109) in the vehicle-front rear direction (fig. 12). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Shiga such that it comprised the connection to the suspension member in view of the teachings of Kiyotake obvious so as to provide a front structure of an automotive vehicle that can properly restrain a forward deformation of a cabin by transmitting an impact load at a vehicle frontal crash to a hinge pillar efficiently (abstract).
Shiga does not disclose the flow-straightening member being formed of a soft resin. Fannin teaches a flow-straightening member (22) being formed of a soft resin (flexible plastic material such as polypropylene). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would find modifying Tachi such that it comprised the soft resin in view of the teachings of Fannin obvious so as to provide a material which is sufficiently rigid to withstand aerodynamic forces but flexible to bend when an object is contacted during impacts such as stones and other roadway debris (column 4, line 52).
In reference to claim 6, Shiga in view of Kiyotake and Fannin further discloses the flow-straightening member attached to the framework member via a support member (15), and an entirety of the support member (15) is disposed between the flow-straightening member and the framework member in a vehicle width direction (fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAREN BECK whose telephone number is (571)272-6212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
KAREN BECK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/KAREN BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights