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 § 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 3-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “between the roof side inner portion and other members” in Ln. 4-5 of the claim. It is unclear what “other members” is referencing, whether it is pointing to the sealing members previously disclosed in the claim, or the other members of the rear structure such as the first and second pillars, and the wheel well. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as meaning the other members of the rear structure including the first and second pillars, and the wheel well.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a pair of second pillars, each identical to the second pillar” in Ln. 5 of the claim. The limitation is confusing and appears to be claiming a new pair of second pillars, when it appears that is not the intended meaning. The claim language should be made clear and definite in order to make the limitation more understandable and clearer on what the intended structure is.
Claim 4 also recites the limitation “a pair of lamp housings, each identical to the lamp housing” in Ln. 7 of the claim. The limitation is confusing and appears to be claiming a new pair of lamp housings, when it appears that is not the intended meaning. The claim language should be made clear and definite in order to make the limitation more understandable and clearer on what the intended structure is.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe (EP 3395654 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanabe discloses
a vehicle rear structure (vehicle rear portion structure S, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first pillar (rear pillar 10, Fig. 1) defining a rear end edge of a side door opening (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a second pillar (trough reinforcement 12 and roof side inner panel 13, Fig. 1) defining an interface between a rear surface and a side surface of a vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a lamp housing (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below circled in red, the indent structure indicated is capable of performing a housing function for a tail lamp and thus meets the claim limitation) connected to a lower end of the second pillar (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
a wheel well (rear wheel house 22, Fig. 1) disposed between and connected to the first pillar and the lamp housing (as can be seen in Fig. 1; the rear wheel house 22 is connected to the lamp housing through the barrier wall 14; Paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0036]);
and a roof side inner portion (barrier wall 14, Fig. 1) filling, without a gap, an area enclosed by the first pillar (rear pillar 10, Fig. 1), the second pillar (trough reinforcement 12 and roof side inner panel 13, Fig. 1), the lamp housing (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below circled in red), and the wheel well (as can be seen in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Tanabe
Regarding claim 5, Tanabe teaches all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a design panel (side panel 16, Fig. 1) covering at least the roof side inner portion from the outside and constituting an outer surface of the vehicle (Paragraph [0040]),
wherein the design panel is made of resin (Paragraph [0040]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe (EP 3395654 A1) in view of Hiroe (US Patent Application 20190263238 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tanabe discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
a roof header (rear header 18, Fig. 1) defining an upper edge of a back door opening (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a rear end (lower back panel 20, Fig. 1) defining a lower edge of the back door opening (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
and the second pillar (trough reinforcement 12 and roof side inner panel 13, Fig. 1) includes a rear flange projecting toward the outside of the vehicle (as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Tanabe does not disclose
and a weatherstrip attached to a circumferential edge of the back door opening,
wherein each of upper ends of a pair of second pillars, each identical to the second pillar, is joined to a respective one of both ends of the roof header in a vehicle width direction,
each of lower ends of a pair of lamp housings, each identical to the lamp housing, is joined to a respective one of both ends of the rear end in the vehicle width direction,
the rear flange being sealed by the weatherstrip.
PNG
media_image2.png
595
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Hiroe
Hiroe teaches a vehicle rear structure that discloses these missing elements
and a weatherstrip (weather strip 6, Fig. 1) attached to a circumferential edge of the back door opening (as can be seen in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0043]),
wherein each of upper ends of a pair of second pillars (pillar portions 1b on each side in Fig. 1), each identical to the second pillar, is joined to a respective one of both ends of the roof header (roof-side side portion 4a, Fig. 1) in a vehicle width direction (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above),
each of lower ends of a pair of lamp housings (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above), each identical to the lamp housing, is joined to a respective one of both ends of the rear end (floor-side side portion 4c, Fig. 1) in the vehicle width direction (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above),
the rear flange (taught by Tanabe as disclosed above) being sealed by the weatherstrip (as detailed in annotated Fig. 1 above the weather strip 6 is attached to the edge of the opening, and as Tanabe teaches the rear flange portion of the second pillar, the weather strip can be likewise attached to the flange portion which creates the edge of the opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rear opening of Tanabe to be fully completed with the second pillar and lamp housing on each side and the opening to be sealed with a weather strip with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to seal the vehicle properly at the rear opening (Hiroe; Paragraph [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 2 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the vent duct is disposed at the flange portion and below a trunk board. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Tanabe (EP 3395654 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim but does not teach the vent duct disposed at such a position on the flange portion of the wheel well. It was considered by the examiner to incorporate another reference since having a vent duct on such a part of the vehicle is well known in the art, but it would not have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wheel well to have the flange portion that can support the vent duct below the trunk board. These deficiencies in Tanabe are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Claim 3 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 in claim 3 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the number of the sealing members provided at joints facing upward when viewed from the exterior of the vehicle out of the plurality of joints is greater than number of the sealing members provided at joints facing downward when viewed from the exterior of the vehicle out of the plurality of joints. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Tanabe (EP 3395654 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim but does not teach the sealing members and the specific number of each kind facing upward/downward. These deficiencies in Tanabe are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon teach similar rear structures, and more particularly some with vent ducts that are similar to the invention.
US 9908561 B2 teaches most of the structure of the invention, but does not teach the lamp housing.
US 10633034 B2 teaches a vent hole in partially in a flange portion of a wheel well.
US 9914336 B2, US 8128146 B2 and US 20110101736 A1 teach a vent hole in a side of the vehicle near the wheel well, but does not appear to be below the level of the trunk floor.
US 9821860 B2 teaches a vent hole in an arch portion of the wheel well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
