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 .
35 USC 112(b) rejections
Claims 3-8 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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because of the following reasons.
1) Several claimed elements in claims 3-8 are multiple inclusion of the same claimed elements because “said” or “the” is not used after the first occurrence. Note the phrases “two elongated pillars” on lines 1-2 of claim 3, “a relative front wheel” on line 3 of claim 3, “each side exhaust duct” on line 1 of claims 4, 5, 7, 8.
2) in claim 5, line 3, and in claim 7, line 3, the phrase “in particular” is vague/indefinite and should not be used in claim language.
For examination purposes the offending limitations above will be interpreted to be
1) Those claimed elements in claims 3-8 will be treated as “said” or “the” is used.
2) The element after “in particular” is treated as not part of the claim.
35 USC 102 rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by DE 102009008799 (Friedrich).
Regarding claim 1, Friedrich discloses a road car 100 comprising a support frame 102 defining at least part of a lower floor of the road car; a passenger compartment projecting upwards from the lower floor; a front engine mounted in front of the passenger compartment; two under-door side members, which define part of the support frame and are each mounted under a relative access door of the passenger compartment (e.g. figure 1); a front axle (all cars have front axle) provided with a pair of front wheels; and an exhaust system 140 to let out the exhaust gases produced by the engine; and characterized in that the exhaust system comprises a pair of side exhaust ducts, each at least partly extending between a relative under-door side member and a relative front wheel, being at least partly aligned with the relative front wheel parallel to a travel direction of the road car and being configured to at least limit the movement of the relative front wheel following a front crash of the road car (figures 1, 11).
Regarding claim 5, wherein each side exhaust duct comprises an inlet segment, which has an inlet mouth (near 130) connected to the engine and projects between the relative front wheel and the relative under-door side member, in particular the relative elongated pillar .
Regarding claim 6, wherein the inlet segment extends (near 118) in a substantially horizontal containing plane.
Regarding claim 7, wherein each side exhaust duct further comprises an intermediate segment (near 128) extending upwards from the inlet segment between the relative front wheel and the relative under-door side member, in particular the relative elongated pillar.
Regarding claim 8, wherein each side exhaust duct further comprises an outlet segment (near 114), which is connected to the intermediate segment and extends downwards starting from the intermediate segment.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the outlet segment (note exhaust pipe 140) has an outlet mouth located under a containing plane of the lower floor.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US 5,388,408 (Lawrence).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence discloses a road car 12 comprising a support frame defining at least part of a lower floor of the road car; a passenger compartment projecting upwards from the lower floor; a front engine mounted in front of the passenger compartment; two under-door side members, which define part of the support frame and are each mounted under a relative access door of the passenger compartment (e.g. figure 1); a front axle (all cars have front axle) provided with a pair of front wheels (figure 1); and an exhaust system 10 to let out the exhaust gases produced by the engine; and characterized in that the exhaust system comprises a pair of side exhaust ducts (22a, 22b), each at least partly extending between a relative under-door side member and a relative front wheel (figure 1), being at least partly aligned with the relative front wheel parallel to a travel direction of the road car and being configured to at least limit the movement of the relative front wheel following a front crash of the road car (figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the engine is mounted in a longitudinal symmetry plane of the road car (the engine should be vertical to the ground and meets the claim language).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the support frame comprises two elongated pillars (figure 1 shows the two support pillars of the windshield which are equivalent with the claimed pillars), which extend upwards from the lower floor and are each mounted between a relative under- door side member and a relative front wheel.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the outlet segment (note exhaust pipes 22a, 22b) has an outlet mouth located under a containing plane of the lower floor.
35 USC 103 rejections
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.
Claims 3-4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 102009008799 (Friedrich). Friedrich discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the elongate pillars in claims 3-4, and two front struts in claim 10. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). The concept of using “elongate pillars” and “front struts” in these claims involves only using combination with well-known elements in the art, or the result of “routine optimization”. It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide elongate pillars and front struts as claimed in Friedrich for the purpose of providing better support for the frame.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato, Laimboeck, Nakano, Shimanaka, and Poulin disclose exhaust system having a pair of exhaust ducts.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday--Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi, can be reached on (571) 270-7878.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
1/27/2026
Prosecution Insights