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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the term "quick-release fastene.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20,
The term “secure fit” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “secure fit” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term above renders the attachment of the grille assembly indefinite as “a secure fit” is not clearly defined. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “vibration reduction” is unclear as there is no definition of what the vibration is being reduced to/from. This would render the testing step unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (GB 2423352 A) in view of Townson et al. (DE 102013222489 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches an apparatus for a front grille assembly for a motor vehicle, comprising: a grille frame (Fig. 2 element 2) mountable to a vehicle hood of the motor vehicle, the grille frame comprising a first pattern of fastener features for attachment to the vehicle hood (Fig. 2 fastener holes on element 2), a second pattern of fastener features for securing a screen (Fig. 2 fastener holes to connect to element 4), and a third pattern of fastener features for securing a grille plate (Fig. 2 fastener holes to connect to element 3); the screen removably mountable to the grille frame via the second pattern of fastener features, the screen configured to filter debris while allowing airflow into the vehicle hood (Fig. 2 element 4); the grille plate removably mountable to the grille frame via the third pattern of fastener features, the grille plate providing aesthetic and aerodynamic features (Fig. 2 element 3); wherein the grille frame, the screen, and the grille plate are configured to be removed and replaced without accessing an interior of the vehicle hood (Fig. 2).
Liu fails to explicitly teach a plurality of dampers positioned between the grille frame and the vehicle hood, and between the grille frame and the screen, to reduce vibration and ensure a secure fit.
However, Townson teaches a plurality of dampers positioned between the grille frame and the vehicle hood, and between the grille frame and the screen, to reduce vibration and ensure a secure fit (Fig. 6 elements 144).
Liu and Townson are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle grille structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grille assembly of Liu to have the damper structures as disclosed by Liu. Doing so would reduce the vibration between the grille assembly/vehicle structures. Reducing the vibrations is known in the art to reduce the noise of the structure on the vehicle and would limit the risk of fasteners gradually loosening from vibrations.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Townson further discloses the grille frame is made from stainless steel (“the frame 191 […] may be made of any suitable material, including various thermosetting polymers, thermoplastic polymers, metals or composites, or a combination thereof” Highlighted in PE2E English translation; Stainless steel is known in the art to be used for grille structures and is not considered novel).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the screen comprises a woven mesh of wires, allowing for different airflow rates based on a mesh spacing (Fig. 2 element 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the grille plate includes an aesthetic design that enhances an aerodynamic property of the front grille assembly (Fig. 2 element 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Townson further discloses the plurality of dampers are made from rubber and are configured to be press fit onto the grille frame (Fig. 6 elements 144).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the fastener features include threaded inserts for securing the screen and the grille plate to the grille frame (Fig. 2 threaded fastener holes).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the grille frame is configured to match a geometry of the vehicle hood (Fig. 2 element 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the screen is configured to be replaced with a different screen having a different mesh spacing to alter airflow and cooling rates (Fig. 2 element 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Liu further discloses the grille plate is configured to be swapped with a different grille plate having a different aesthetic design (Fig. 2 element 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Townson further discloses the plurality of dampers are configured to reduce noise and wear caused by a vibration during vehicle operation (Fig. 6 elements 144).
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (GB 2423352 A) in view of Townson et al. (DE 102013222489 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu teaches a method for installing a front grille assembly on a motor vehicle, comprising: providing a grille frame (Fig. 2 element 2) configured with a first pattern of fastener features for attachment to a vehicle hood (Fig. 2 fastener holes on element 2), a second pattern of fastener features for securing a screen (Fig. 2 fastener holes to connect to element 4), and a third pattern of fastener features for securing a grille plate (Fig. 2 fastener holes to connect to element 3); mounting the grille frame to the vehicle hood by aligning the first pattern of fastener features with corresponding fastener features on the vehicle hood (Fig. 2 element 2); attaching the screen to the grille frame by aligning the screen with the second pattern of fastener features (Fig. 2 element 4), the screen configured to filter debris while allowing airflow into the vehicle hood; securing the grille plate to the grille frame by aligning the grille plate with the third pattern of fastener features, the grille plate providing aesthetic and aerodynamic features (Fig. 2 element 3; enabling a removal and a replacement of the grille frame, the screen, and the grille plate without accessing an interior of the vehicle hood (Fig. 2).
Liu fails to explicitly teach positioning a plurality of dampers between the grille frame and the vehicle hood, and between the grille frame and the screen, to reduce a vibration and provide a secure fit.
However, Townson teaches positioning a plurality of dampers between the grille frame and the vehicle hood, and between the grille frame and the screen, to reduce a vibration and provide a secure fit (Fig. 6 elements 144).
Liu and Townson are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle grille structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grille assembly of Liu to have the damper structures as disclosed by Liu. Doing so would reduce the vibration between the grille assembly/vehicle structures. Reducing the vibrations is known in the art to reduce the noise of the structure on the vehicle and would limit the risk of fasteners gradually loosening from vibrations.
Regarding Claim 12, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Townson further discloses the step of selecting the grille frame from a material group consisting of stainless steel, composite, and plastic (“the frame 191 […] may be made of any suitable material, including various thermosetting polymers, thermoplastic polymers, metals or composites, or a combination thereof” Highlighted in PE2E English translation; The material claimed is known in the art to be used for grille structures and is not considered novel).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu and Townson teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of attaching the screen includes selecting a screen with a specific mesh spacing to regulate airflow and cooling rates (Fig. 2 element 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of selecting the grille plate with an aesthetic design that enhances an aerodynamic property of the motor vehicle (Fig. 2 element 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Townson further discloses the step of positioning the plurality of dampers includes selecting dampers includes selecting dampers made from rubber to reduce noise and wear caused by a vibration (“The sealing elements 144 may comprise a rubberized or elastomeric material” Highlighted in the attached PE2E English translation).
Regarding Claim 16, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of using threaded inserts as the fastener features for securing the screen and the grille plate to the grille frame (Fig. 2 threaded fastener holes).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of enabling the removal and the replacement includes using quick-release fasteners to facilitate easy disassembly and reassembly (Fig. 2 fastener elements).
Regarding Claim 18, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of aligning the grille frame with a geometry of the vehicle hood to provide a seamless fit (Shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu and Townson teach eh limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu further discloses the step of securing the grille plate includes an option to interchange the grille plate with another grille plate having a different design without requiring additional tools (Fig. 2 element 3).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (GB 2423352 A) in view of Townson et al. (DE 102013222489 A1) and further in view of Pan et al. (CN 117002429 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Liu and Townson teach the limitations set forth in Claim 11.
Liu and Townson fail to explicitly teach the step of testing the installed grille assembly for a vibration reduction and the secure fit during vehicle operation.
However, Pan teaches the step of testing the installed grille assembly for a vibration reduction and the secure fit during vehicle operation (“The front bumper assembly 100 is positioned and locked with the front beam bracket 600 through the central support adjusting rod mechanism 300. The central support adjusting rod mechanism 300 can be adjusted by a tool, so that the lower end of the central support adjusting rod mechanism 300 and the front beam bracket 600 can be reliably supported and located in the Z direction, so as to prevent the front protection assembly from collapsing in the central area due to gravity, and ensure the stability of the front bumper system under high and low temperature vibration test” Highlighted in attached PE2E English translation).
Liu, Townson and Pan are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of front vehicle structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of installing the front grille assembly of Liu in view of Townson to have the system texted vibration tested as disclosed by Pan. Doing so would increase the security of the assembly as the testing would ensure a strong connection to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
