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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character 101a, shown in figure 1, is absent from the written description.
Reference character 1a, shown in figures 2 and 5, is absent from the written description.
Reference character w35, shown in figure 10A, is absent from the written description.
Reference character 55f, shown in figure 9, is absent from the written description.
Reference character 60, shown in figures 2-9, is absent from the written description.
Reference character 61, shown in figures 2-9, is absent from the written description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 3 of Application No. 19047371. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons provided in the table below.
Application 19/052,446
Application 19/047,371
Claim 1:
A lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, the lower vehicle-body structure comprising:
a frame including a closed cross-section portion extending in a front-rear direction on a vehicle-width-direction outer side of a floor panel; and
a suspension housing provided on the frame and supporting a suspension, wherein the suspension housing includes a damper mounting surface portion extending along an upper surface of the frame, and
a peripheral wall extending downward from a peripheral edge of the damper mounting surface portion,
a vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame has an inner flange portion to which the floor panel is fixed, and
the lower vehicle-body structure further comprises a connecting surface portion provided inward of the peripheral wall in a vehicle width direction, the connecting surface portion connecting a vehicle-width-direction inner part of the peripheral wall with the inner flange portion such that the connecting surface portion extends downward toward the vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame.
Claim 1:
A lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, the lower vehicle-body structure comprising:
a frame that including a closed cross-section portion extending in a front-rear direction on a vehicle-width-direction outer side of a floor panel; and
a suspension housing provided on the frame and supporting a suspension, wherein the suspension housing includes a damper mounting surface portion extending along an upper surface of the frame, and a peripheral wall extending downward from a peripheral edge of the damper mounting surface portion,
at a part of the frame adjacent to a vehicle-width-direction inner side of the suspension housing, the frame includes a narrow width portion in which a dimension in a vehicle width direction of the closed cross-section portion is reduced compared with a part of the frame adjacent to the suspension housing in the front-rear direction,
the lower vehicle-body structure comprises a cross member provided inward of the frame in the vehicle width direction, the cross member extending in the vehicle width direction and being disposed at a same front-rear position as the suspension housing, and
a load transmission portion is provided to the narrow width portion, the load transmission portion connecting the suspension housing with the cross member in such a way as to allow transmission of an input load from the suspension housing to the cross member, the input load being input from the suspension.
Claim 3:
The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame has an inner flange portion to which the floor panel is fixed, the load transmission portion includes a connecting surface portion that connects a vehicle-width-direction inner part of the peripheral wall with the inner flange portion such that the connecting surface portion extends downward toward a vehicle-width-direction inner side, and the floor panel is provided in such a way as to linearly extend in the vehicle width direction at a height position of a first inner fixation portion at whichthe connecting surface portion is fixed to the inner flange portion, the floor panel , in cooperation withthe cross member forms a closed cross-section portion extending in the vehicle width direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 states that “the lower vehicle-body structure further comprises a connecting surface portion provided inward of the peripheral wall in a vehicle width direction, the connecting surface portion connecting a vehicle-width-direction inner part of the peripheral wall with the inner flange portion such that the connecting surface portion extends downward toward the vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame,” however, the written description fails to sufficiently detail which component in the drawings this claim is directed to. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “connecting surface portion” is construed to be what is shown in the drawings as component 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuoka et al. (JP 2011168121 A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka teaches “A lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle, the lower vehicle-body structure comprising:
a frame including a closed cross-section portion extending in a front-rear direction on a vehicle-width-direction outer side of a floor panel (see Matsuoka, paragraph 0022); and
a suspension housing provided on the frame and supporting a suspension, wherein the suspension housing includes a damper mounting surface portion extending along an upper surface of the frame (see Matsuoka, paragraph 0026), and
a peripheral wall extending downward from a peripheral edge of the damper mounting surface portion (wheel house inner extends down from damper attachment, see Matsuoka, paragraph 0030),
a vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame has an inner flange portion to which the floor panel is fixed (see Matsuoka, paragraph 0033), and
the lower vehicle-body structure further comprises a connecting surface portion provided inward of the peripheral wall in a vehicle width direction, the connecting surface portion connecting a vehicle-width-direction inner part of the peripheral wall with the inner flange portion such that the connecting surface portion extends downward toward the vehicle-width-direction inner side of the frame (see Matsuoka, paragraph 0031).”
Regarding claim 2, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein an opening portion is formed in the damper mounting surface portion and has a front-rear dimension (see Matsuoka, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1), and
the connecting surface portion is positioned within the front-rear dimension of the opening portion in the front-rear direction (see Matsuoka, Figure 1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
461
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 3, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the connecting surface portion is fixed at a position higher than an intermediate position of the peripheral wall in a height direction of the vehicle (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image2.png
677
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the connecting surface portion is linearly formed in the vehicle width direction (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image3.png
677
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein a joint member is provided in the closed cross-section portion of the frame and is disposed inward of the peripheral wall in the vehicle width direction, the joint member having a U shape that is open downward in cross section in the front-rear direction (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3), and
the connecting surface portion is formed by an upper wall of the joint member (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3).”
PNG
media_image4.png
677
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 3
Regarding claim 7, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
another frame provided on an opposite side of the lower vehicle-body structure in a vehicle-width direction from the frame (see Matsuoka, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1);
a cross member extending in the vehicle width direction, wherein the cross member connecting the frames with each other (see Matsuoka, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1),
the damper mounting surface portion has a front-rear dimension (see Matsuoka, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1),
the cross member is positioned within the front-rear dimension of the damper mounting surface portion in the front-rear direction (see Matsuoka, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image5.png
543
735
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the frame includes a frame front portion and a frame rear portion (see Matsuoka, Figure 1, Annotation Set 2), and the connecting surface portion is fixed to a coupled part at which the frame front portion and the frame rear portion are superimposed on each other (see Matsuoka, Figure 1, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image6.png
549
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 1, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 10, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the intermediate position is a substantially middle position in the height direction (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 1).”
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP 2011168121 A).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka teaches all the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 1 above, except for “wherein the suspension housing is made of sheet metal.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the hollow vehicle frame from welded sheet metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (JP 2011168121 A), in view of Noboru et al. (JP 2010018087 A).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuoka teaches “The lower vehicle-body structure of a vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the connecting surface portion includes an outer fixation portion fixed to the peripheral wall, and an inner fixation portion fixed to the frame (see Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 4).”
Matsuoka does not teach “the outer fixation portion and the inner fixation portion at least partially overlap with each other in the front-rear direction.”
However, Noboru teaches “the outer fixation portion and the inner fixation portion at least partially overlap with each other in the front-rear direction (see Noboru, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a vertically aligned set of fixation portions as taught by Noboru, into the lower vehicle body and damper support frame as taught by Matsuoka, in order to minimize the length of material required to connect the upper and lower fixation portions, therefore reducing material costs and production times, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image7.png
677
523
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Matsuoka, Figure 4, Annotation Set 4
PNG
media_image8.png
477
658
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Noboru, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose vehicle lower body frames and suspension housings.
Okamoto et al. (JP 2014008915 A)
Maruyama et al. (JP 6406321 B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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 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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights