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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14A” has been used to designate two different components in Figure 2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “10A”, “10B” (paragraph 0032).
The drawings are also objected to because line “2-2” in Figure 1 is not a straight line. In addition, it is unclear why Figure 1 indicates the “UP” direction when Figure 1 is a plan/overhead view.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the changes below:
“an disclosure” be changed to --a disclosure-- (paragraph 0003);
“line 1-1 of FIG. 2” be changed to --line 2-2 of FIG. 1-- (paragraph 0021).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda (JPS6382880A; page numbers pointed out below correspond to the attached translation from the EPO website). Honda discloses a vehicle front body reinforcement structure (strength member #7) comprising a vehicle body reinforcement portion (strut body #8) that includes:
(claim 1) a front reinforcement portion (front lateral portion of strut body #8 connecting strut towers #3) that connects upper portions of respective suspension tower portions (#3) to each other in a vehicle width direction (figure 1);
a rear reinforcement portion (rear lateral portion of strut body #8 that connects to airbox #10) that extends in the vehicle width direction and is disposed along a cowl portion (#10) positioned behind the suspension tower portions (#3) in a vehicle front rear direction, the rear reinforcement portion being connected to the cowl portion (figure 1);
a pair of outer reinforcement portions (opposite sides of strut body #8) integrally provided with the front reinforcement portion (front lateral portion of strut body #8) and the rear reinforcement portion (rear lateral portion of strut body #8) and connecting the front reinforcement portion and the rear reinforcement portion, the outer reinforcement portions being disposed spaced apart from each other in the vehicle width direction (figure 1);
(claim 5) wherein a cooling module is supported by the vehicle body reinforcement portion (including outside air intake duct #9 in first embodiment, or outside air intake duct #19 or heat exchange core #34 in alternative embodiments).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JPS6382880A; page numbers pointed out below correspond to the attached translation from the EPO website) in view of Kuroita et al. (US 7854473 B2). Honda discloses the vehicle body reinforcement portion (strut body #8) is made of a highly rigid metal plate (page 3), but does not specifically disclose a pressed steel plate. Kuroita et al. teaches a vehicle body reinforcement portion (stiffener #6) connecting suspension tower portions (damper housings #3) to a cowl portion (upper dashboard #5; figure 1), wherein the vehicle body reinforcement portion is formed of a pressed steel plate (column 4, lines 20-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle front body reinforcement structure of Honda to include the vehicle body reinforcement portion is formed of a pressed steel plate, as taught by Kuroita et al., so as to enhance strength and rigidity of the vehicle front body structure (discussed throughout Kuroita et al.). In addition, the method of forming the device, in this case pressing, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself, and carries little patentable weight. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, in this case steel, on the basis of its suitability as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JPS6382880A; page numbers pointed out below correspond to the attached translation from the EPO website) in view of Seksaria et al. (US 6755461 B2). Honda discloses the vehicle body reinforcement portion (strut body #8) is made of metal (page 3), but does not specifically disclose a metal cast product. Seksaria et al. teaches a vehicle body reinforcement portion (cross member #210) connecting suspension tower portions (support members #206, 208; figures 8, 10, 11), wherein the vehicle body reinforcement portion is formed of a metal cast product (column 10, lines 8-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle front body reinforcement structure of Honda to include the vehicle body reinforcement portion is formed of a metal cast product, as taught by Seksaria et al., so as to enhance strength and rigidity of the vehicle front body structure (discussed throughout Seksaria et al.). In addition, the method of forming the device, in this case casting, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself, and carries little patentable weight.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JPS6382880A; page numbers pointed out below correspond to the attached translation from the EPO website) in view of Takeda et al. (JP 2017071232 A; paragraph numbers pointed out below correspond to the attached translation from the EPO website). Honda does not disclose connection to a support member of a steering device. Takeda et al. teaches a support member (steering hanger #21 including beam #25, hanger brackets #30, 40) of a steering device (including steering column #27, steering wheel #28) is connected to a connection portion with a cowl portion (including dashboard upper #18, windshield lower support #19) in a cross member reinforcement portion (cross member #24; figures 1-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle front body reinforcement structure of Honda to include the claimed connection with a support member of a steering device, as taught by Takeda et al., so as to increase the support rigidity of the steering device at the front of the vehicle (discussed throughout Takeda et al., including paragraphs 0020, 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses vehicle front body reinforcement structures. In particular:
Leanza et al. (US 8128160 B2) discloses a vehicle front body reinforcement structure comprising a vehicle body reinforcement portion that includes a front reinforcement portion that connects upper portions of respective suspension tower portions to each other in a vehicle width direction, a rear reinforcement portion that extends in the vehicle width direction and is disposed along a cowl portion positioned behind the suspension tower portions in a vehicle front rear direction, the rear reinforcement portion being connected to the cowl portion, and a pair of outer reinforcement portions integrally provided with the front reinforcement portion and the rear reinforcement portion and connecting the front reinforcement portion and the rear reinforcement portion, the outer reinforcement portions being disposed spaced apart from each other in the vehicle width direction.
Willi et al. (US 3188132 A), Kubogami (JP 07025360 A), Shimmell et al. (US 5411311 A), Aonuma et al. (JP 2007230490 A), Miyata et al. (US 7404596 B2), Sakai et al. (JP 2014019165 A), Hara (JP 2014031106 A), Cho et al. (US 9126633 B2), Briceno et al. (US 9260138 B1), Cho et al. (US 9290207 B2), Briceno et al. (US 9381949 B2), Nakauchi et al. (US 9446797 B2), Ciccone et al. (US 10144456 B1), Kamei et al. (US 10464608 B2), Nakauchi et al. (US 10486751 B2), Matsuoka et al. (US 10981603 B2), Kuroda et al. (US 11535302 B2), and Nishida et al. (US 11858555 B2) disclose a vehicle body reinforcement portion that connects upper portions of respective suspension tower portions to each other and is connected to a cowl portion.
Tamagawa et al. (JP 2010105585 A), Kong (US 11001303 B2), and Mitsuo et al. (US 11104387 B2) disclose steering support members.
Asai (US 7850228 B2) discloses a vehicle body reinforcement portion that connects upper portions of respective suspension tower portions to each other and supports a cooling module.
Taniguchi (JP 2018114839 A) discloses a support member of a steering device is connected to a connection portion with a cowl portion in a cross member reinforcement portion;
Ayukawa (US 10668951 B2) discloses suspension tower portions coupled to a radiator support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights