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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1
Line 2 recites the language “a battery of plug-in hybrid”. For consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –a battery of a plug-in hybrid—
Line 6 recites the language “the one side”. For consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the one side of the heat exchanger—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to “An engine vibration reduction structure” however the claims and specification do not describe how the structure as recited in claim 1 would reduce engine vibration. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Line 1 recites the limitation “An engine vibration reduction structure”. However, it is unclear how the structure of claim 1 reduces engine vibration.
Line 6 recites the limitation “a second bracket that is disposed on another side” (emphasis added). The language “another side” makes the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –a second bracket that is disposed on a second side of the heat exchanger—
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Engelhardt, WO 2011092240 A1.
Regarding Claim 1
Engelhardt discloses an engine vibration reduction structure, comprising:
a heat exchanger (1) that is for raising a temperature of a battery of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (Engelhardt, [0033]), and that is disposed away from a vehicle-upper side of an engine mount [engine body] (Engelhardt, [0034]-[0035], Figure 5);
a first bracket (9) that is disposed on one side of the heat exchanger (1) in a vehicle plan view, and that links the heat exchanger (1) and the engine mount (Engelhardt, [0034]-[0035], Figure 5); and
a second bracket (9) that is disposed on another side of the heat exchanger (1) that is opposite to the one side of the heat exchanger (1) in the vehicle plan view with respect to the heat exchanger (1), and that links the heat exchanger (1) and the engine mount (Engelhardt, [0034]-[0035], Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 2
Engelhardt discloses the engine vibration reduction structure according to claim 1. Engelhardt further discloses a rib (10, web) provided on an inner-face side of a housing of the heat exchanger (1) [It is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first and second brackets (9) house the heat exchanger (1)] (Engelhardt, [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights