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
Figs. 1-8 in the drawings are objected to because they are not clear and do not show the proper cross-hatching of the solid parts that are being shown in section. See MPEP 608.02 V (h) “Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines”.
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 § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolworthy et al. (U.S. 2023/0092434A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stolworthy et al. disclose a vehicle (fig. 5) comprising:
a chassis (the lower mechanical foundation of the vehicle of fig. 5);
a floor panel (bottom lower floor of the vehicle facing the ground) connected to the chassis (as shown in fig. 5);
a vehicle body (33) connected to the floor panel (as shown in fig. 5);
a guard-drafter (450; see figs. 9-10 and refer to para 0068) connected to the floor panel (connected to the floor panel via frame 36. Also note that all parts of the vehicle are connected to each other); and
a splash shield (430; see figs. 9-10 and refer to para 0069) connected to and extending between the chassis and the guard-drafter (450; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Stolworthy et al. disclose rear wheels (as shown in fig. 5) supported by the chassis (as shown in fig. 5), wherein the guard-drafter (450) and the splash shield (430) are positioned rearwardly of the rear wheels (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Stolworthy et al. disclose wherein the splash shield (430) is positioned inboard of the rear wheels (as shown in fig. 5: examiner has interpreted “positioned inboard” to mean that it is positioned within the vehicles width).
Regarding claim 4, Stolworthy et al. disclose a wheel liner (as broadly claimed, “35” can be considered a wheel liner) positioned between the rear wheels and the vehicle body (as shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Stolworthy et al. disclose wherein the guard-drafter (450) and the splash shield (430) are positioned rearwardly of the wheel liner (as shown in fig. 5).
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamakawa (U.S. 2022/0185098A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamakawa discloses a vehicle (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (the lower mechanical foundation of the vehicle of fig. 1);
a floor panel (the floor panel is the “floor space” in the passenger compartment) connected to the chassis (as shown in fig. 1. Examiner note that every part of the vehicle is connected to each other);
a vehicle body connected to the floor panel (as shown in fig. 1);
a guard-drafter (14, figs. 1-2) connected to the floor panel (see fig. 1; the cover structure is mounted under the vehicle and it is connected to the floor panel by reason of being connected to the vehicle body); and
a splash shield (16; refer to para 0029) connected to and extending between the chassis (see fig. 1) and the guard-drafter (14, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Yamakawa discloses an air conditioning module (22; also, the “refrigerant” located in chamber 12 can be considered the air conditioning module; refer to para 0034: “cooling object 12 is cooled by refrigerant”; see figs. 1 and 5-6, refer to para 0028 and 0031) extending through the floor panel (as shown in fig. 1 and 5-6. Also refer to para 0031. Examiner has interpreted “extending through” to mean that it is below the floor panel. Note that the claim does not require a window/opening in the floor panel through which the air conditioning module extends).
Regarding claim 8, Yamakawa discloses wherein the splash shield (16; refer to para 0029) is configured to (the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02) at least partially conceal the air conditioning module (22 or “refrigerant”) to inhibit corrosion thereof (splash shield 16 is configured to inhibit corrosion by reason of being a splash shield).
Regarding claim 11, Yamakawa discloses a vehicle (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (the lower mechanical foundation of the vehicle of fig. 1);
a floor panel (the floor panel is the “floor space” in the passenger compartment) connected to the chassis (as shown in fig. 1. Examiner note that every part of the vehicle is connected to each other);
an air conditioning module (22; also, the “refrigerant” located in chamber 12 can be considered the air conditioning module; refer to para 0034: “cooling object 12 is cooled by refrigerant”; see figs. 1 and 5-6, refer to para 0028 and 0031) extending through the floor panel (as shown in fig. 1 and 5-6. Also refer to para 0031. Examiner has interpreted “extending through” to mean that it is below the floor panel. Note that the claim does not require a window/opening in the floor panel through which the air conditioning module extends); and
a splash shield (10; refer to para 0029) connected to the chassis (see fig. 1; it is connected to the chassis by reason of being connected to the vehicle floor and body), wherein the splash shield (10) is configured to at least partially conceal the air conditioning module (22 or “refrigerant”) and protect the air conditioning module from tiresplash (the cover will protect module 22 or “refrigerant” from tiresplash by virtue of being a shield).
Regarding claim 12, Yamakawa discloses wherein the splash shield (10) includes: an upper panel (16, figs. 2 and 5); a lower panel (14, figs. 2 and 5) extending from the upper panel (see figs. 2 and 5); and a side panel (20, figs. 2 and 5) extending outboard from at least one of the upper panel (16) and the lower panel (14, figs. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Yamakawa discloses wherein the splash shield (10) further includes: a shoulder (see annotated fig. 2 below) extending inboard from the upper panel (16) and configured to (intended use, See MPEP 2111.02) deflect tiresplash (by reason of it being a shield).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Yamakawa discloses wherein the upper panel (16, figs. 2 and 5) and the lower panel (14, figs. 2 and 5) extend in non-parallel relation (figs. 2 and 5; upper and lower panel overlap and are connected to teach other. This interpretation is consistent with fig. 5 of applicant’s drawings).
Regarding claim 15, Yamakawa discloses wherein the splash shield (10) further includes: a ridge (see annotated fig. 2 above) positioned at an intersection of the upper panel (16, figs. 2 and 5) and the lower panel (14, figs. 2 and 5).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (U.S. 2022/0185098A1), in view of Garimella et al. (U.S. 2024/0262422A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamakawa teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Yamakawa is silent to the structure of the chassis, wherein the chassis includes: a first longitudinal support and a second longitudinal support each extending along a length of the vehicle; and a crossbeam extending between the first longitudinal support and the second longitudinal support.
Garimella et al. generally teach a vehicle chassis assembly (10, fig. 1 and para 0030) comprising a first longitudinal support (24) and a second longitudinal support (24) each extending along a length of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1); and a crossbeam (28) extending between the first longitudinal support (24) and the second longitudinal support (24, see fig. 1). The longitudinal supports and the crossbeam form part of the structural load path of the vehicle (refer to para 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle chassis of Yamakawa to include a first longitudinal support and a second longitudinal support each extending along a length of the vehicle; and a crossbeam extending between the first longitudinal support and the second longitudinal support, as taught by Garimella et al., for forming part of the structural load path of the vehicle (refer to para 0030).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (U.S. 2022/0185098A1) alone.
Regarding claims 16-17, Yamakawa discloses that wherein the lower panel extends from the upper panel at a first angle and the side panel extends from the upper panel and/or the lower panel at a second angle (as shown in figs. 2 and 5-6).
However, Yamakawa is silent to the specific angle ranges, i.e., a range of approximately 340 degrees to approximately 350 degrees and a range of approximately 300 degrees to approximately 330 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the splash shield such that the lower panel extends from the upper panel at a first angle in a range of approximately 340 degrees to approximately 350 degrees and the side panel extends from the upper panel and/or the lower panel at a second angle in a range of approximately 300 degrees to approximately 330 degrees since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 18, Yamakawa a vehicle (fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (the lower mechanical foundation of the vehicle of fig. 1) including:
a first longitudinal support and a second longitudinal support each extending along a length of the vehicle (taught by Garimella et al. (U.S. 2024/0262422A1)
; and
a crossbeam extending between the first longitudinal support and the second longitudinal support (taught by Garimella et al. (U.S. 2024/0262422A1);
rear wheels supported by the chassis (as shown in fig. 1);
an air conditioning module (22; also, the “refrigerant” located in chamber 12 can be considered the air conditioning module; refer to para 0034: “cooling object 12 is cooled by refrigerant”; see figs. 1 and 5-6, refer to para 0028 and 0031);
a vehicle body connected to the floor panel (as shown in fig. 1);
a guard-drafter (14, figs. 1-2) connected to the floor panel; and
a splash shield (16; refer to para 0029) configured to at least partially cover the air conditioning module to inhibit corrosion thereof as a result of tiresplash from the rear wheels (see fig. 1), wherein the splash shield includes:
an upper panel (16, figs. 2 and 5);
a lower panel (14, figs. 2 and 5) extending from the upper panel at a first angle substantially within a range of approximately 340 degrees to approximately 350 degrees; a side panel (20, figs. 2 and 5) extending outboard from at least one of the upper panel and the lower panel at a second angle substantially within a range of approximately 300 degrees to approximately 330 degrees; and a lower flange extending from the lower panel and connected to the guard-drafter (see figs. 2 and 5).
However, Yamakawa fails to teach a floor panel connected to the chassis, wherein the floor panel defines a window extending therethrough; the air conditioning module connected to the floor panel such that the air conditioning module extends through the window; and an upper flange extending from the upper panel and connected to the first longitudinal support.
Claims 7 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thomas (U.S. 2022/0073149A1), Vu (U.S. 2021/0094620A1), Murata (U.S. 2018/0093562A1), Nowka (U.S. 2015/0136515A1), and Suzuki (U.S. 2021/0053416A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights