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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monde (US-20230278642-A1), henceforth referred to as Monde, in view of Anzai (JP-2006347253-A), henceforth referred to as Anzai.
Regarding claim 1, Monde discloses a suspension member structure comprising a suspension member (Figures 2 and 3: vehicle frame 3, comprising lower frames 22, forms a suspension member), and a rigid member that is plate-shaped and that is attached to the suspension member to reinforce the suspension member (Figures 2 and 3: skid plate 32 attached to lower frames 22), wherein a rib that suppresses deformation in a thickness direction of the rigid member is provided in the rigid member (Paragraph [0043]: "The skid plate 32 includes reinforcing ribs 41 (each of which corresponds to a “reinforcement section”) for increasing the rigidity of the skid plate 32. The reinforcing ribs 41 linearly extend in the front-back direction and the left-right direction of the body. Each reinforcing rib 41 has a protruding shape that rises upward from an upper face portion of the skid plate 32"), and an opening is provided in the rigid member in a portion that is different from a portion in which the rib is provided (Figure 3: opening 43 provided in skid plate 32, provided in a portion different from rib 41), the opening penetrating the rigid member (Figure 3: opening 43 penetrates skid plate 32).
However, Monde does not teach the rigid member covering a front cross member portion. Anzai discloses the rigid member covers a front portion of an opening enclosed by the suspension member as viewed in the up-down direction (Figure 3: rigid member formed by center bar 8 covers a front portion of the opening formed by suspension member 1), and a front end of the rigid member overlaps a front cross member portion of the suspension member when the rigid member covers the front portion of the suspension member (Figures 1 and 3: front end of center bar 8 overlaps with front cross member 12 of suspension member 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid member location of Monde with the rigid member location of Anzai in order to strengthen the suspension cross member. Further, it would have been obvious since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Monde as modified discloses the rib is provided along an edge of the opening (Figure 3: rib 41 comprises spread prevention section 43 surrounding opening 42).
Regarding claim 4, Monde as modified discloses the opening is a clearance portion for avoiding interference with a member supported by the suspension member (Figure 3: opening 43 provides clearance for drain 45, which is a portion of engine 8, which is supported by the vehicle frame 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monde and Anzai as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Natusme (US-20160207572-A1), henceforth referred to as Natsume.
Regarding claim 3, Monde discloses the rigid member is rectangular shaped when viewed in the thickness direction (Figure 2: skid plate 32 is generally rectangularly shaped). However, Monde does not teach the rib being disposed diagonally. Natsume discloses the rib is provided along a diagonal line of the rigid member (Figure 2: bead portions 21A are provided along diagonal lines of rigid member panel 23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rib shape of Monde and Anzai with the rib shape of Natsume in order to improve the load-transmission performance (Paragraph [0086]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monde in view of Natsume.
Regarding claim 5, Monde discloses a suspension member structure comprising: a suspension member (Figures 2 and 3: vehicle frame 3, comprising lower frames 22, forms a suspension member), and a rigid member that is plate-shaped and that is attached to the suspension member to reinforce the suspension member (Figures 2 and 3: skid plate 32 attached to lower frames 22), the rigid member being rectangular-shaped when viewed in the thickness direction (Figure 2: skid plate 32 is generally rectangularly shaped), wherein a rib that suppresses deformation in a thickness direction of the rigid member is provided in the rigid member (Paragraph [0043]: "The skid plate 32 includes reinforcing ribs 41 (each of which corresponds to a “reinforcement section”) for increasing the rigidity of the skid plate 32. The reinforcing ribs 41 linearly extend in the front-back direction and the left-right direction of the body. Each reinforcing rib 41 has a protruding shape that rises upward from an upper face portion of the skid plate 32"), and an opening is provided in the rigid member in a portion that is different from a portion in which the rib is provided (Figure 3: opening 43 provided in skid plate 32, provided in a portion different from rib 41), the opening penetrating the rigid member (Figure 3: opening 43 penetrates skid plate 32), the rib protrudes downward from a main body of the rigid member (Figure 3: ribs 41 protrude downwards).
However, Monde does not teach the rib being provided diagonally. Natsume discloses the rib is provided along a diagonal line of the rigid member (Figure 2: bead portions 21A are provided along diagonal lines of rigid member panel 23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rib shape of Monde and Anzai with the rib shape of Natsume in order to improve the load-transmission performance (Paragraph [0086]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
