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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification there should be no reference to specific or individual claims as the subject matter/language and numbering may change throughout prosecution. Any reference made to specific claims (such as “in claim 1”) is inappropriate and should be removed. This includes instances throughout [0006-0015]. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of fin portions supported by the frame about an axis in a vehicle width direction of claim 1; the dropping mechanism provided on more than one side of the frame of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis with the recitation of “both end portions”. No previous recitation of an end portion or two end portions is made. Further, the recitation that the dropping mechanism is provided on at least one side of the frame is clearly only for a dropping mechanism provided on “one side” but not more than one side. The recitation “at least one” allows for one or more sides to be provided with a dropping mechanism where only one side is shown in the current invention and not more than one side. Further explanation is requested.
In claim 4, the recitation “a vehicle rear side” lacks antecedent basis in the claim as this was previously recited in claim 2 from which this claim depends.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 is not further limiting in that if the fin portions are supported in the vehicle width direction (as recited in the alternative of claim 1), claim 3 provides no further limitations to distinguish the invention. Likewise, if instead the fin portions of claim 1 are oriented in a vehicle up-down direction, claim 3 still fails to further limit claim 1 because the limitations recited therein are already present in the alternative in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by FR 033.
For claim 1, FR 3093033 (FR 033) discloses a grille shutter device (FIG.3) comprising:
a frame (12) that is provided at a vehicle front portion and forms an opening portion to introduce air into the vehicle front portion;
PNG
media_image1.png
730
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of fin portions (shutter 14) that are supported by the frame such that the fin portions are rotatable about an axis in a vehicle width direction and open and close the opening portion; and
a dropping mechanism (weakening portion that is fusible) that is provided on at least one side (a rear side) of one end portion (a rear end) of the frame in a direction of the axis inside the vehicle and causes the fin portions to drop at time of collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific notch in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
The closest prior art references show a plurality of grille shutter devices having a frame with either vertically or horizontally positioned fins and further provides for different drop type mechanisms whereby the entirety of the frame breaks away and falls upon an impact collision.
Moreover, notches of the type recited are known (see for example, FIG.6 of Schmahl, below), but not in conjunction with the other elements recited.
Schmahl (8002072) shows a radiator (14) having a frame (13) and a lower portion (16) with shear pins (anchoring pins 17,18, FIG.6) which can break during a front impact to allow the radiator to translate rearwards. The anchoring pins (17,18) are attached/held by leaf springs (22) which operate in a similar fashion to the notch of the dropping mechanism of the current invention. Like the notch, the leaf springs fasten the anchoring pins of the radiator frame (13) therebetween. If the frame (13) is subjected to a sufficient force (from collision/impact) acting to the right in FIG.6, the leaf springs (22) are “driven apart” and the pins (17,18) come free without being damaged. Afterwards, the radiator frame can again be fixed by simply pressing the anchoring pin (17 or 18) back between the leaf springs (22).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
241
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
JP 2013203316 discloses a grill shutter device having a dropping mechanism that allows the entirety of the frame to drop down, as seen in FIG. 5.
PNG
media_image4.png
366
208
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
348
218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
348
218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights