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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/185682 (cited on IDS filed on 07/22/2026) in view of JP 2010083188 A (cited on IDS filed on 07/22/2026).
Regarding claim 1, WO 2023/185682 discloses a vehicle front structure (shown in Figure 15) comprising: a die-cast frame body (in Abstract) including a dash portion (near reference characters 26 and 28 shown in Figure 15) and a pair of right and left suspension support portions (ends of reference character connected to the suspension support portions shown in Figure 15), the dash portion (near reference characters 26 and 28 shown in Figure 15) being provided in a front part of a vehicle (shown in Figure 15) and separating inside of a vehicle cabin from outside of the vehicle cabin (shown in Figure 15), and the right and left suspension support portions (ends of reference character connected to the suspension support portions shown in Figure 15) each supporting a suspension (inherent from ends of reference character connected to the suspension support portions supports a suspension shown in Figure 15); a first brace (reference character 25 shown in Figure 15) connecting the right and left suspension support portions (ends of reference character connected to the suspension support portions shown in Figure 15) in a vehicle width direction (shown in Figure 15).
However, WO 2023/185682 does not show the right and left suspension support portions being disposed closer to a front of the vehicle than the dash portion; and a second brace extending in the vehicle width direction, an outer end in the vehicle width direction of the second brace being fixed to an outer edge portion in the vehicle width direction of the frame body at a position closer to the front of the vehicle than the first brace, and an inner end in the vehicle width direction of the second brace being connected to the first brace.
JP 2010083188 A describes (in paragraphs [0037] and [0062] shown in Figures 1-3) a vehicle front structure extending obliquely in the vehicle width direction, wherein an outer end portion in the vehicle width direction is fixed to an outer edge portion in the vehicle width direction of the front extension portion (36) of the apron frame (4) on the vehicle front side of the suspension tower (5), and an inner end portion in the vehicle width direction has a front-rear connecting member (47 corresponding to the second brace) connected to the suspension tower (5).
Regarding claim 1, 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 right and left suspension support portions of WO 2023/185682 being disposed closer to a front of the vehicle than the dash portion is the difference between the prior art and claim 1, the location of the right and left suspension support portions
(is considered a dimension) would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 1, 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 vehicle front structure of WO 2023/185682, as modified, with a second brace, as taught by JP 2010083188 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the collision safety at the time of a front collision.
Regarding claim 1, 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 second brace of WO 2023/185682, as thrice modified, with an inner end in the vehicle width direction of the second brace being connected to the first brace, with a reasonable expectation of success because connecting the second brace to the first brace would not have modified the operation of the vehicle front structure, mere obvious design choice.
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 2, WO 2023/185682, as thrice modified, discloses the vehicle front structure (shown in Figure 15 of WO 2023/185682) according to claim 1, wherein the second brace is tilted toward the front of the vehicle as the second brace gets closer to an outer side in the vehicle width direction of the vehicle, as viewed in plan (shown in Figure 2 of JP 2010083188 A).
Regarding claim 5, WO 2023/185682, as thrice modified, discloses the vehicle front structure (shown in Figure 15 of WO 2023/185682) according to claim 1, wherein the outer edge portion (front extension 36 of the apron frame 4 in paragraph [0062] as shown in Figure 2 of JP 2010083188 A) in the vehicle width direction of the frame body is tilted inward in the vehicle width direction as the outer edge portion gets closer to the front of the vehicle (shown in Figure 2 of JP 2010083188 A), as viewed in plan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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:
Regarding claim 3, further comprising a third brace fixed to the frame body at a position closer to the front of the vehicle than the second brace, and tilted inward in the vehicle width direction as the third brace gets closer to the front of the vehicle, as viewed in plan is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights