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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004314899 A (cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, JP 2004314899 A discloses a front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1), applicable to a
body-on-frame construction (vehicle body 20 and right and left front side frames 31 shown in Figure 1) of a vehicle, (vehicle 10 shown in Figure 1) the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) comprising: an A-pillar (24 shown in Figure 1); a wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), a first end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) connected with the A-pillar (24 shown in Figure 1); a radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1); and a trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1),
a first end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with a second end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), and a second end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with the radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 1 but does not show wherein the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) and the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 2, 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 front compartment structure of JP 2004314899 A wherein the wheel housing upper side beam and the trunk beam are integrally formed, that the use of a one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
In reLarson, 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. The court 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.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding claim 7, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 1, further comprising a dashboard cross beam (21 shown in Figure 1), two ends of the dashboard cross beam (21 shown in Figure 1) respectively connected with two A-pillars (24 shown in Figure 1) on two sides of a vehicle body (vehicle body 20 shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 7 but does not show wherein in a width direction of the vehicle body (vehicle body 20 as shown in Figure 1), a length of the radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1) is less than a length of the dashboard cross beam (21 shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, 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 front compartment structure of JP 2004314899 A wherein in a width direction of the vehicle body, a length of the radiator lower cross beam is less than a length of the dashboard cross beam because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004314899 A (cited by applicant) in view of
CN 208593443 U (cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 3, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 1 but does not show wherein the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) and the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) are separated structures, and the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) is connected to the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) by welding.
CN 208593443 U teaches “Specifically, the connection portion 11 and the inducing portion 12 are connected by welding, and the inducing portion 12 and the mounting portion 13 are also connected by welding. More specifically,
two-layer welding can be used for welding” (in paragraph [0050] and shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, 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 front compartment structure of JP 2004314899 wherein the wheel housing upper side beam and the trunk beam are separated structures, and the trunk beam is connected to the wheel housing upper side beam by welding, as taught by
CN 208593443 U, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to join the wheel housing upper side beam and the trunk beam together.
Regarding claim 4, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 3 but does not show wherein the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) comprises an inner plate and an outer plate, and the inner plate and the outer plate form an enclosed cavity structure.
CN 208593443 U teaches “In a specific solution, the upper side beam 10 includes an inner panel and an outer panel, which are spliced together to form a hollow cylindrical structure. Obviously, according to the cross-sectional shape design of the upper side beam (10), the inner panel and/or the outer panel are bent and spliced together to form in the required cross-sectional shape. The inner plate and the outer plate may be joined by welding, or a two-layer welding method may be used (in paragraph [0053] and shown in Figures 5 and 6a-6e).
Regarding claim 4, 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 front compartment structure of JP 2004314899 A wherein the trunk beam comprises an inner plate and an outer plate, and the inner plate and the outer plate form an enclosed cavity structure, as taught by CN 208593443 U, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form a hollow cylindrical structure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004314899 A (cited by applicant) in view of CN 21421594 U (cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 5, JP 2004314899 A discloses the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) according to claim 4 wherein the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) has an extension portion
(the length of 33 shown in Figure 1) and a connecting portion (end of 33 that connects 32 shown in Figure 1) but does not disclose the extension portion and the connecting portion are disposed of in an L shape.
CN 21421594 U teaches “In this embodiment, the front wheel cover upper side beam (1) includes a front wheel cover upper side beam inner plate (9) and a front wheel cover upper side beam outer plate (10). The cross-sections of the front wheel cover upper side beam inner plate (9) and the front wheel cover upper side beam outer plate (10) are both L-shaped. The front wheel cover upper side beam inner plate (9) and the front wheel cover upper side beam outer plate (10) are connected to form a cavity inside the front wheel cover upper side beam (1)” (in paragraph [0061] and show in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, 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 trunk beam of JP 2004314899 A wherein the extension portion and the connecting portion are disposed in an L shape, as taught by CN 21421594 U, with a reasonable expectation of success because the configuration of the claimed the trunk beam was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed trunk beam was significant.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 are allowed.
Claim 6 is 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 6, wherein the connecting portion comprises an end surface facing a ground, and the end surface comprises a frame mounting structure configured to connect to a frame of the vehicle is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, JP 2004314899 A discloses a body-on-frame construction (vehicle body 20 and right and left front side frames 31 shown in Figure 1), comprising a frame (side frames 31 shown in Figure 1) and a front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) of a vehicle (10 shown in Figure 1), the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) comprising: an A-pillar (24 shown in Figure 1); a wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), a first end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) connected with the A-pillar (24 shown in Figure 1); a radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1); and a trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1), a first end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with a second end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), and a second end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with the radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1).
However, JP 2004314899 A does not show the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) comprising a frame mounting structure, and the frame (31 shown in Figure 1) connected to the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) through the frame mounting structure.
Regarding claim 9, the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) comprising a frame mounting structure, and the frame (31 shown in Figure 1) connected to the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) through the frame mounting structure is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 10-16 depend on claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, JP 2004314899 A discloses a vehicle (10 shown in Figure 1), comprising a body-on-frame construction (vehicle body 20 and right and left front side frames 31 shown in Figure 1), the body-on-frame construction (vehicle body 20 and right and left front side frames 31 shown in Figure 1) comprising a frame (side frames 31 shown in Figure 1) and a front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1), the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) comprising: an A-pillar
(24 shown in Figure 1); a wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), a first end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1) connected with the A-pillar (24 shown in Figure 1); a radiator lower cross beam (42 shown in Figure 1); and a trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1), a first end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with a second end of the wheel housing upper side beam (32 shown in Figure 1), and a second end of the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) connected with the radiator lower cross beam
(42 shown in Figure 1).
However, JP 2004314899 A does not show the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) comprising a frame mounting structure, and the frame (31 shown in Figure 1) connected to the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) through the frame mounting structure.
Regarding claim 17, the trunk beam (33 shown in Figure 1) comprising a frame mounting structure, and the frame (31 shown in Figure 1) connected to the front compartment structure (engine compartment 22 shown in Figure 1) through the frame mounting structure is not taught nor is fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 18-20 depends on claims 17.
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