DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (US 20150298742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ono et al. discloses “A vehicle front structure (11; Ono et al. Fig 1) comprising: a pair of framework portions (1 &3; Ono et al. Fig 1) extending in a vehicle front-rear direction, the framework portions being each provided on a side of a vehicle front portion in a vehicle width direction; a suspension member (17; Ono et al. Fig 1) disposed on a vehicle lower side of the framework portions; a joint portion (19; Ono et al. Fig 1) that joins the framework portion and the suspension member; and a protruding portion (25; Ono et al. Fig 1) provided at the joint portion and protruding to an outer side in the vehicle width direction.”
In reference to claim 2, Ono et al. discloses “The vehicle front structure (11; Ono et al. Fig 1) according to claim 1, wherein an inclined portion (25bs; Ono et al. Fig 1) that is inclined to a vehicle rear side and the outer side in the vehicle width direction in a plan view is provided at an end of the protruding portion (25; Ono et al. Fig 1) on the outer side in the vehicle width direction.”
With respect to claim 3, Ono et al. discloses “The vehicle front structure (11; Ono et al. Fig 2) according to claim 1, wherein in a region on a vehicle front side including the protruding portion (25bs; Ono et al. Fig 2), the end of the protruding portion on the outer side in the vehicle width direction is positioned on the outer side in the vehicle width direction with respect to the framework portion (1; Ono et al. Fig 2) and the suspension member (17a; Ono et al. Fig 2).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 20150298742 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 8857902 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Ono et al. teaches a vehicle front structure (11; Ono et al. Fig 1).
Ono et al. does not teach suspension towers.
However, Sekiguchi et al. teaches “…a pair of suspension tower portions (27; Sekiguchi et al. Fig 1) erected from upper surfaces of the framework portions, and integrated with the framework portions (15; Sekiguchi et al. Fig 1), the suspension tower portions being each provided on the side of the vehicle front portion in the vehicle width direction; and a suspension tower bar (28; Sekiguchi et al. Fig 1) connecting the suspension tower portions in the vehicle width direction.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the suspension towers and bar of Sekiguchi et al. with the vehicle front structure of Ono et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for softening the ride by adding suspension towers and corresponding struts .
7. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 20150298742 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ono et al. teaches a joint (19; Ono et al. Fig 1) and framework (1 &3; Ono et al. Fig 1).
The art does not disclose that they are integrated as a uniform piece.
However, the court has affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. See MPEP § 2144.04; V, B.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the joint and framework portion of Ono et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a simplified mold for manufacturing and simplifying assembly.
In reference to claim 6, Ono et al. teaches a joint (19; Ono et al. Fig 1) and protruding piece (25; Ono et al. Fig 1).
The art does not disclose that they are integrated as a uniform piece.
However, the court has affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. See MPEP § 2144.04; V, B.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the joint and protruding piece of Ono et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a simplified mold for manufacturing and simplifying assembly.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramoutar et al. (US-8807632-B2) teaches a framework, a suspension member, a joint and a protruding piece. However, the art does not teach suspension towers.
Murai (US-11548557-B2) a framework and suspension towers. However, the art does not teach a lower suspension member or joint.
Bhatta et al. (US 11628883 B2) teaches a joint and protruding piece connecting a framework and lower suspension side member, the protrusion piece and joint are not a single uniform component.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights