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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language is difficult to follow/ grammatically incorrect and would be easier understood as: “… wherein the connecting portions of the band element pieces each have the spring function component and there are connecting portions disposed both above and below the pair of third connecting members.” The examiner also notes that the phrase “are each disposed above and below” may be understood to mean that each connecting portion is disposed such that it is both above and below the pair of third connecting members, i.e. that they each straddle them vertically, but this is not consistent with the applicant’s disclosure- see Fig. 1 where there is at least one instance of the connecting portions (the combination of parts 16-19) that is fully above and at least one instance that is fully below the third connecting members (20C), as recited in the examiner’s suggestion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitation, and its interpreted structure is:
“spring function component” introduced in claim 13 (because A – “component” is a nonce / placeholder term; B-“spring function/ connects… with spring elasticity” represents the function, and C-no structural limitations are recited, that may perform said function; in other words, the phrase is equivalent to “means for providing a spring function/ connecting with spring elasticity”). Based on at least paragraphs [0009], [0033], [0043], and [0049] “spring function component” will be interpreted as a guide rod and compression spring, or equivalents.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HONDA (JP-2011088550-A).
Regarding Claim 11, HONDA teaches a tank holding portion structure of a vehicle (Tank Support Structure 10 of Vehicle 12, Fig. 1) which holds a substantially cylindrical tank (Tank 22, Fig. 2) disposed below a floor panel (Vehicle Body Frame 16, Fig. 1) of a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 14, Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of tank bands (Band Units 32, Fig. 2) which are disposed at a plurality of locations spaced apart from each other in an axial direction (along axis H, Fig. 2) of the tank (22) and each of which restrains an outer circumferential surface of the tank (Figs. 2 and 4); and
a plurality of connecting members (Side Cross Member 42 and Rear Cross Member 44, Figs. 2 and 3) extending in the axial direction of the tank and connecting the adjacent tank bands to each other on an outer circumferential portion of the tank (22).
Regarding Claim 12, HONDA further teaches that each of the tank bands (32) is formed by connecting a plurality of band element pieces (Bands 34, Fig. 2) arranged in an outer circumferential direction of the tank (22) in an annular shape (Fig. 4), and
wherein the plurality of connecting members (42 and 44) include a first connecting member (42) that connects connecting ends (Connectors 36, Fig. 2) of the band element pieces (34) of the adjacent tank bands (32) to each other (Connectors 36 of the left and right instances of Band 34 being connected to each other by Side Cross Member 42 via Brackets 54a and Bands 34, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, HONDA further teaches that a connecting portion (Connectors 36) of the band element pieces (34) includes a first fixing piece (“FP1”, Fig. 2 Annotated) that is fixed to one of the band element pieces (34),
PNG
media_image1.png
722
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second fixing piece (“FP2”, Fig. 2 Annotated) that is fixed to the other one of the band element pieces (34), and
a spring function component (Compression Spring 38, Fig. 2; comprising a compression spring and guide rod as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above) that connects the first fixing piece (FP1) and the second fixing piece (FP2) with spring elasticity, and
wherein the first connecting member (42) connects at least either the first fixing pieces (FP1) or the second fixing pieces (FP2) of the adjacent tank bands (32) in the connecting portions (36) of at least some of the band element pieces (Side Cross Member 42 connecting First Fixing Pieces FP1 via Brackets 54a and Bands 34, Fig. 2; First Fixing Pieces FP1 being a part of and located at Connectors 36).
Regarding Claim 15, HONDA further teaches that the first connecting member (42) includes a band fixing wall (“BFW”, Fig. 2 and 4 Annotated) that is overlapped and fixed to an outer surface of each of the band element pieces (34) of the adjacent tank bands (32), and
a standing wall (“SW”, Fig. 2 and 4 Annotated) that stands up outward from the band fixing wall (BFW) in a radial direction of the tank (22), and
wherein the spring function component (38) is connected to the standing wall (Compression Spring 38 being connected to Standing Wall SW via First and Second Fixing Pieces FP1 and FP2 and Bands 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
749
1089
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, HONDA further teaches that the plurality of connecting members include a second connecting member (Rear Cross Member 44) that connects portions (“P”, Fig. 3 Annotated) of the band element pieces (34) of the adjacent tank bands (32) other than the connecting ends (36) to each other (Portions P of Bands 34 being separate from Connectors 36 and connected by Rear Cross Member 44 via Brackets 54b, Fig. 3 Annotated).
PNG
media_image3.png
762
994
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA in view of TOYOTA (JP-2009101865-A).
Regarding Claim 14, HONDA does not teach that the first connecting member is formed integrally with one of the fixing pieces.
TOYOTA teaches, in another tank mount for a vehicle (Title), a first fixing piece (Bracket 132, Fig. 3) and a first connecting member (Frame 111, Fig. 3) that is formed integrally with a second fixing piece (Frame 111 connecting Side Fixing Bands 130 to each other and integrally forming a fixing piece that connects with Bracket 132, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the separate first connecting part and first or second fixing piece of HONDA’s tank holding portion structure integral, since it has been held that making separate parts of an invention integral involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 and MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of HONDA and TOYOTA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HONDA’s tank holding portion structure such that the first connecting member is formed integrally with one of the fixing pieces as suggested by TOYOTA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of reducing the total number of parts in the assembly that would beneficially make an easier assembly to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 16, HONDA, as modified by TOYOTA, teaches all limitations (see the 102 rejection of claim 15 above, which has different dependencies but similar limitations).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA in view of CAMPKO (“CAMPKO gas bottle holder, gas cylinder stand...”).
Regarding Claim 18, HONDA does not teach that the second connecting member is plate-shaped and has a lightening hole.
CAMPKO, in another tank holding device (Title), teaches a connecting member (“CM”, Time 0:05 Annotated) that is formed of a plate-shaped member which substantially conforms to the outer circumferential surface of a tank (“TK”, Time 0:24 Annotated), and wherein a lightening hole (a plurality of holes “HL”, Time 0:05 Annotated) is formed at a position on the connecting member (CM) which does not overlap adjacent tank bands (“TB”, Time 0:05 Annotated) between the tank bands (Holes HL being formed between and not overlapping Tank Bands TB and being understood to make the Connecting Member CM lighter).
PNG
media_image4.png
760
1342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
762
1341
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of HONDA and CAMPKO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify HONDA’s tank holding portion structure such that the second connecting member is plate-shaped and has a lightening hole as suggested by CAMPKO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of forming a connecting member such that it conformed to a tank that would beneficially make a lighter and more compact assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 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:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted above, HONDA, TOYOTA, and CAMPKO, generally disclose a tank holding portion structure of a vehicle with similar components to the claimed invention.
However none of these specifically disclose first, second, and third connecting members that connect portions of band element pieces which are arranged as claimed, particularly in that a pair of connecting members, being connected to a vehicle body frame, are in addition to first and second connecting members.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claims 19-21, as far as they include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights