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 § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitsui et al. (US 2006/0181071).
Mitsui discloses in figures 1 – 12 a vehicle base structure, comprising: a front-side mount portion (63) that is provided on a cross member (16) making up a front portion side of a suspension member and extending in a vehicle width direction, and that is disposed on a vehicle downward side from a center of gravity of a motor unit (15) for driving a vehicle and supports a front portion of the motor unit; and a rear-side mount portion (37, 38) that is disposed on an opposite side from the front-side mount portion and also on a vehicle upward side, with the center of gravity of the motor unit interposed between, and that supports a rear portion of the motor unit (claim 1). the motor unit is disposed at a vehicle front portion, and the front-side mount portion is provided at one position at a substantially central portion in the vehicle width direction, and the rear-side mount portion is provided at right and left sides in the vehicle width direction (claim 2). at a lower portion of a side rail (21) making up part of the suspension member and extending in a vehicle front-rear direction, a second bent portion, that is a starting point for bending of the side rail when the vehicle collides, is provided on a vehicle rearward side of the rear-side mount portion in side view of the vehicle (figure 10B) (claim 5).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (JP 205280647).
Mitsui discloses in figures 1 – 6 a vehicle base structure, comprising: a front-side mount portion (56 area) that is provided on a cross member (62) making up a front portion side of a suspension member and extending in a vehicle width direction, and that is disposed on a vehicle downward side from a center of gravity of a motor unit (45) for driving a vehicle and supports a front portion of the motor unit; and a rear-side mount portion (58) that is disposed on an opposite side from the front-side mount portion and also on a vehicle upward side, with the center of gravity of the motor unit interposed between, and that supports a rear portion of the motor unit (claim 1). the motor unit is disposed at a vehicle front portion, and the front-side mount portion is provided at one position at a substantially central portion in the vehicle width direction, and the rear-side mount portion is provided at right and left sides in the vehicle width direction (claim 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsushima et al. (CN 112606907).
Mitsui discloses the claimed invention excluding explicitly disclosing die-casted structure. However Matsushima discloses in figure 3 a vehicle subframe structure (14) with casting members (34a). At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use a die casted member for the front frame. The motivation would have been efficiently transferring the load input from the front sub-frame. Further determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Also it is well known in the art vehicle front subframes are made from die casted members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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.
/NICOLE T VERLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights