DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
3. The applicant’s amendment filed on 13 February 2026 have been entered into the record. The examiner finds that no new matter has been added in the amendments. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are currently pending and under examination. Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 were cancelled by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belpaire in view Gebregiorgis
Belpaire (US Pub. No. 2011/0236616A1 – previously presented) is directed toward bonding with adhesive beads (Title and Abstract). Gebregiorgis (US Pub. No. 2016/0177022 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward electrocoat compositions and processes for forming a layer of an electrocoat composition on a surface of a substrate (Title and Abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Belpaire discloses an automotive part (analogous to reinforcer 100; ¶24-36 and Fig. 1-4) shown in FIG. 4 below. Belpaire further discloses that the structural reinforcer 100 compensates for the lower strength or reduced energy absorbing characteristics of cavities within the members (¶2-3) and the structural reinforcer 100 is applicable to a front or a rear part of an automotive body to absorb energy by axial crushing when a load is input from the front or rear of the automotive body. Belpaire also teaches a tubular member (base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4) with a trapezoidal cross-section and formed using a hat-shaped section part (depicted in FIG. 4) including a top portion (part of structural member 160 labeled in FIG. 4) and a side-wall portion (part of structural member 160 labeled in FIG. 4). Belpaire discloses a coating part (carrier 120) configured to form a coating film (during the electrodeposition process as described in ¶24-5 and Claim 13) arranged with a gap (element 185 in FIG. 4). The gap 185 in Belpaire ranges in width from less than 0.5 mm to less than 6.0 mm (¶18 and ¶27; Claims 1, 7, and 8) from an inner surface of the top portion, an inner surface of the side-wall portion, and an inner surface of a corner portion, on a portion including the corner portion connecting the top portion to the side-wall portion in the inner surfaces of the top portion and the side-wall portion as depicted in FIG. 4 below. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art (i.e.: 0.2 mm < gap < 0.3 mm in the instant application; see MPEP 2144.05(I) – OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS).
Additionally, Belpaire discloses the coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) is made of materials such as plastic, nylon, glass-reinforced nylon, metal or an organic structure, which is necessarily of a lower strength (¶3 and ¶18) than the tubular member (e.g.: base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4). The structural member 160 is made of carbon-fiber or metal (higher strength materials) as disclosed in Claim 1 of Belpaire. The (metal) coating part necessarily has lower strength than the tubular member because applying a compressive force to the reinforcer so that both parts crumple under the applied force. In the alternate case, where the (metal) carrier has a higher strength than the tubular member, said carrier would be unable to absorb the axial crushing force because it would not crumple under that applied strain. Rather, the force would rebound and be dissipated in the tubular member which would likely fracture apart under the force.
In ¶24-5, Belpaire describes the e-coat fluid can flow through the interior channels of reinforcer 100 thereby allowing the electrodeposition paint to deposit in gap 185 (¶18, ¶27, Claims 1, 7, and 8 in Belpaire and FIG. 4), but does not discuss in detail the deposition of e-coat. Gebregiorgis is directed toward an electrocoat composition tailored to extend coatings of uniform film thickness into recessed areas (i.e.: the gap in the present application or gap 185 of Belpaire attached to an automotive body) effectively by the use of a specific crosslinking component (¶29) and consequently these compositions exhibit improved throw power (i.e.: the ability to coat highly recessed areas; ¶30). Improved throw power is important for coating in the gap element 185 since this area is highly recessed. Gebregiorgis discloses a process of electrodepositing the coating composition to result in a smooth, durable finish (¶99). Since the structure of reinforcer 100 of Belpaire (FIG. 4) allows the facile flow of electrocoat into the gaps, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating composition and e-coating process of Gebregiorgis with the reinforcer of Belpaire with the reasonable expectation of filling the gap with a uniform, continuous electrocoat film as the composition of Gebregiorgis is demonstrated to have high throwing power (65-67%) (Table 13 and ¶265 in Gebregiorgis).
Regarding the first amendment to Claim 1, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis discloses the automotive, wherein the tubular member is configured to repeatedly buckle and deform in a bellows shape, in a course of the tubular member being axially crushed with a load exceeding the buckling strength given the shape of the reinforcer in FIG. 4. Given the shape of the reinforcer (i.e.: automotive part), repeated deformation of said part would be capable of forming a bellows shape as successive application of axial stress would cause the carrier 120 of lower strength to deform as the tubular member as deforms. Buckling of the tubular member is prevented because the axial stress is transmitted into the carrier, thus preventing fracturing.
Further regarding the amendments to Claim 1, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis also disclose the automotive part according, wherein the coating film is configured such that, when the tubular member is being buckled and deformed during the collision, the coating film is interposed inside a convex-shaped bending portion formed in a bellows shape and a bending radius is increased as per the following explanation. Taking into account the broadest reasonable interpretation, a bending radius can be any curved or bent part of the tubular member. For example, the corner of the structural member 160 of Belpaire may be regarded as a curved or bent part and carrier 120 of Belpaire, which corresponds to the claimed coating film) is already interposed inside the corner of structural member 160 (FIG. 4).
Regarding the limitation “a bending radius is increased”, the corner of structural member 160 has a bending radius. During a collision, many different forces can be applied to various parts that can cause the parts to crumple, deform, and/or bend. For example, the bending radius can increase or decrease depending on the angle and nature of the forces applied. Therefore, the bending radius of the corner is capable of increasing the bending radius during a collision as claimed.
Regarding the last limitations “the tubular member and the coating part define a hollow space inside of the coating is disclosed by Belpaire and Gebregiorgis as per the following explanation. Belpaire specifically teaches that the base structure 110 may have other forms than the depiction in FIG. 1, 3, or 4 (i.e.: a flat plate). In ¶24, Belpaire indicates that the base structure 110 may have multiple faces that are coplanar with structural member 160. Given such a description of the geometric arrangements of the base structure 110, such an arrangement is capable of being hollow. Base structure 110 in a geometric arrangement that is not flat, would further limit the penetration depth of the carrier portion within the cavity 170 (see FIG. 3 for depiction) which also forms a hollow inside of the reinforcer 100.
Regarding Claim 2, Belpaire discloses a manufacturing method of making an automotive part (analogous to reinforcer 100; ¶24-36 and FIG. 4). Belpaire further discloses that the structural reinforcer 100 compensates for the lower strength or reduced energy absorbing characteristics of cavities within the members (¶2-3) and the structural reinforcer 100 is applicable to a front or a rear part of an automotive body to absorb energy by axial crushing when a load is input from the front or rear of the automotive body. In ¶24, Belpaire further teaches a part manufacturing step of producing a pre-coated part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) including a tubular member (base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4) formed using a hat-shaped section part (depicted in FIG. 4) including a top portion (part of structural member 160 labeled in FIG. 4) and a side-wall portion (part of structural member 160 labeled in FIG. 4) and a coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) configured to form a coating film (e.g.: electrocoat film) arranged with a gap (element 185 in FIG. 4). As depicted in FIG. 4 modified from Belpaire, the gap element 185 is uniform in thickness and structure from the inner surface of the top portion, the inner surface of the side-wall portion, and the inner surface of a corner portion, on the portion including the corner portion connecting the top portion to the side-wall portion in the inner surface of the tubular member (base structure 110 and structural member 160) with a gap 185. The gap element 185 ranges in thickness ranging from 0.5 mm to 6.0 mm (¶18 and ¶27; Claims 1, 7, and 8. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art (i.e.: 0.2 mm < gap < 0.3 mm in the instant application; see MPEP 2144.05(I) – OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS).
Further pertaining to Claim 2, Belpaire teaches the coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) is made of materials such as plastic, nylon, metal, glass-reinforced nylon, or an organic structure, which is lower strength (¶3 and ¶18) than the tubular member (e.g.: base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4). The structural member 160 is made of carbon-fiber or metal (higher strength materials) as disclosed in Claim 1 of Belpaire. The (metal) coating part necessarily has lower strength than the tubular member because applying a compressive force to the reinforcer so that both parts crumple under the applied force. In the alternate case, where the (metal) carrier has a higher strength than the tubular member, said carrier would be unable to absorb the axial crushing force because it would not crumple under that applied strain. Rather, the force would rebound and be dissipated in the tubular member which would likely fracture apart under the force.
In ¶24-5, Belpaire describes the e-coat fluid can flow through the interior channels of reinforcer 100 thereby allowing the electrodeposition paint to deposit in gap 185 (¶18, ¶27, Claims 1, 7, and 8 in Belpaire and FIG. 4), but does not discuss in detail the deposition of e-coat. Gebregiorgis is directed toward an electrocoat composition tailored to extend coatings of uniform film thickness into recessed areas (i.e.: the gap in the present application or gap 185 of Belpaire attached to an automotive body) effectively by the use of a specific crosslinking component (¶29) and consequently these compositions exhibit improved throw power (i.e.: the ability to coat highly recessed areas; ¶30). Improved throw power is important for coating in the gap element 185 since this area is highly recessed. Gebregiorgis discloses a process of electrodepositing the coating composition to result in a smooth, durable finish (¶99). The process of electrodeposition taught by Gebregiorgis is immersion of the article in the coating composition, applying voltage to deposit a continuous film of 10 µm to 40 µm, rinsing the article, and then baking the article for a sufficient time to cure the coating (e.g.: thermoset) thus allowing the resin and the cross linker to chemically react (¶108). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating composition and e-coating/baking process of Gebregiorgis with reinforcer of Belpaire with the reasonable expectation of filling the gap with a uniform, continuous electrocoat film since the composition of Gebregiorgis is demonstrated to have high throwing power (65-67%) (Table 13 and ¶265 in Gebregiorgis).
Regarding the amendment to Claim 2, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis also disclose the method, wherein the tubular member is configured to repeatedly buckle and deform in a bellows shape, in a course of the tubular member being axially crushed with a load exceeding the buckling strength given the shape of the reinforcer in FIG. 4. With the shape of the reinforcer (i.e.: automotive part ), repeated deformation of said part would be capable of forming a bellows shape as successive application of axial stress would cause the carrier 120 of lower strength to deform as the tubular member as deforms. Buckling of the tubular member is prevented because the axial stress is transmitted into the carrier, thus preventing fracturing.
Further pertaining to amended Claim 2, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis disclose the manufacturing method wherein the coating film is configured such that, when the tubular member is being buckled and deformed during collision, the coating film is interposed inside a convex-shaped bending portion formed in a bellows shape and a bending radius is increased as per the following explanation. Taking into account the broadest reasonable interpretation, a bending radius can be any curved or bent part of the tubular member. For example, the corner of the structural member 160 of Belpaire may be regarded as a curved or bent part and carrier 120 of Belpaire, which corresponds to the claimed coating film) is already interposed inside the corner of structural member 160 (FIG. 4).
Regarding the limitation “a bending radius is increased”, the corner of structural member 160 has a bending radius. During a collision, many different forces can be applied to various parts that can cause the parts to crumple, deform, and/or bend. For example, the bending radius can increase or decrease depending on the angle and nature of the forces applied. Therefore, the bending radius of the corner is capable of increasing the bending radius during a collision as claimed.
Regarding the last limitation “the tubular member and the coating part define a hollow space inside of the coating is disclosed by Belpaire and Gebregiorgis as per the following explanation. Belpaire specifically teaches that the base structure 110 may have other forms than the depiction in FIG. 1, 3, or 4 (i.e.: a flat plate). In ¶24, Belpaire indicates that the base structure 110 may have multiple faces that are coplanar with structural member 160. Given such a description of the geometric arrangements of the base structure 110, such an arrangement is capable of being hollow. Base structure 110 in a geometric arrangement that is not flat, would further limit the penetration depth of the carrier portion within the cavity 170 (see FIG. 3 for depiction) which also forms a hollow inside of the reinforcer 100.
Regarding Claim 3, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis discloses the automotive part according to Claim 1, wherein the coating part is hollow as per the following explanation. Belpaire specifically teaches that the base structure 110 may have other forms than the depiction in FIG. 1, 3, or 4 (i.e.: a flat plate). In ¶24, Belpaire indicates that the base structure 110 may have multiple faces that are coplanar with structural member 160. Given such a description of the geometric arrangements of the base structure 110, such an arrangement is capable of being hollow. Base structure 110 in a geometric arrangement that is not flat, would further limit the penetration depth of the carrier portion within the cavity 170 (see FIG. 3 for depiction) which also forms a hollow inside of the reinforcer 100.
Regarding Claim 4, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis discloses the automotive part according to Claim 1, wherein the coating part is attached to the side wall-portion at a joining portion as depicted in FIG. 4 as evidenced by carrier 120 being in direct contact with side walls 160.
Regarding Claim 7, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis disclose the automotive part according to Claim 1, wherein a strength of the metal is such that the coating part does not disturb a smooth deformation in the bellow shape. The limitations of Claim 7 are met by the combination of Belpaire and Gebregiorgis. As explained above, Belpaire discloses the coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) is made of materials such as plastic, nylon, glass-reinforced nylon, metal or an organic structure, which is necessarily of a lower strength (¶3 and ¶18) than the tubular member (e.g.: base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4). The structural member 160 is made of carbon-fiber or metal (higher strength materials) as disclosed in Claim 1 of Belpaire. The (metal) coating part necessarily has lower strength than the tubular member because applying a compressive force to the reinforcer so that both parts crumple under the applied force. In the alternate case, where the (metal) carrier has a higher strength than the tubular member, said carrier would be unable to absorb the axial crushing force because it would not crumple under that applied strain. Rather, the force would rebound and be dissipated in the tubular member which would likely fracture apart under the force.
Regarding Claim 8, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis disclose the automotive part as per Claim 1, wherein the coating film is formed in a solid state across an entire region in the gap, and the coating film is formed as a flexible coating film by using electrodeposition as explained in the forgoing paragraph. In ¶24-5, Belpaire describes the e-coat fluid can flow through the interior channels of reinforcer 100 thereby allowing the electrodeposition paint to deposit in gap 185 (¶18, ¶27, Claims 1, 7, and 8 in Belpaire and FIG. 4), and the specifics of said flow is provided by Gebregiorgis. Gebregiorgis teaches an electrocoat composition tailored to extend coatings of uniform film thickness into recessed areas (i.e.: the gap in the present application or gap 185 of Belpaire attached to an automotive body) effectively by the use of a specific crosslinking component (¶29) and consequently these compositions exhibit improved throw power (i.e.: the ability to coat highly recessed areas; ¶30). Improved throw power is important for coating in the gap element 185 since this area is highly recessed. Gebregiorgis discloses a process of electrodepositing the coating composition to result in a smooth, durable finish (¶99). Since the structure of reinforcer 100 of Belpaire (FIG. 4) allows the facile flow of electrocoat into the gaps and Gebregiorgis provides an e-coat with high throwing power and uniform thickness (Table 13 and ¶265 in Gebregiorgis), the entire gap region would be coated with a flexible electrocoat film.
Regarding Claim 9, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis discloses the manufacturing method according to Claim 2, wherein the coating part is hollow as per the following explanation. Belpaire specifically teaches that the base structure 110 may have other forms than the depiction in FIG. 1, 3, or 4 (i.e.: a flat plate). In ¶24, Belpaire indicates that the base structure 110 may have multiple faces that are coplanar with structural member 160. Given such a description of the geometric arrangements of the base structure 110, such an arrangement is capable of being hollow. Base structure 110 in a geometric arrangement that is not flat, would further limit the penetration depth of the carrier portion within the cavity 170 (see FIG. 3 for depiction) which also forms a hollow inside of the reinforcer 100.
Regarding Claim 10, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis discloses the method of manufacturing according to Claim 2, wherein the coating part is attached to the side wall-portion at a joining portion as depicted in FIG. 4 above as evidenced by carrier 120 being in direct contact with side walls 160.
Regarding Claim 13, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis disclose the method of manufacturing according to Claim 2, wherein a strength of the metal is such that the coating part does not disturb a smooth deformation in the bellow shape. The limitations of Claim 13 are met by the combination of Belpaire and Gebregiorgis. As explained above, Belpaire discloses the coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) is made of materials such as plastic, nylon, glass-reinforced nylon, metal or an organic structure, which is necessarily of a lower strength (¶3 and ¶18) than the tubular member (e.g.: base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4). The structural member 160 is made of carbon-fiber or metal (higher strength materials) as disclosed in Claim 1 of Belpaire. The (metal) coating part necessarily has lower strength than the tubular member because applying a compressive force to the reinforcer so that both parts crumple under the applied force. In the alternate case, where the (metal) carrier has a higher strength than the tubular member, said carrier would be unable to absorb the axial crushing force because it would not crumple under that applied strain. Rather, the force would rebound and be dissipated in the tubular member which would likely fracture apart under the force
Regarding Claim 14, Belpaire and Gebregiorgis disclose the method of manufacturing as per Claim 2, wherein the coating film is formed in a solid state across an entire region in the gap, and the coating film is formed as a flexible coating film by using electrodeposition as explained in the forgoing paragraph. In ¶24-5, Belpaire describes the e-coat fluid can flow through the interior channels of reinforcer 100 thereby allowing the electrodeposition paint to deposit in gap 185 (¶18, ¶27, Claims 1, 7, and 8 in Belpaire and FIG. 4), and the specifics of said flow is provided by Gebregiorgis. Gebregiorgis teaches an electrocoat composition tailored to extend coatings of uniform film thickness into recessed areas (i.e.: the gap in the present application or gap 185 of Belpaire attached to an automotive body) effectively by the use of a specific crosslinking component (¶29) and consequently these compositions exhibit improved throw power (i.e.: the ability to coat highly recessed areas; ¶30). Improved throw power is important for coating in the gap element 185 since this area is highly recessed. Gebregiorgis discloses a process of electrodepositing the coating composition to result in a smooth, durable finish (¶99). Since the structure of reinforcer 100 of Belpaire (FIG. 4) allows the facile flow of electrocoat into the gaps and Gebregiorgis provides an e-coat with high throwing power and uniform thickness (Table 13 and ¶265 in Gebregiorgis), the entire gap region would be coated with a flexible electrocoat film.
Response to Arguments
7. The examiner withdraws the clarity rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) as the applicant has removed the terms “crashworthiness energy,” “crashworthiness energy absorbing,” and “hat-shaped section part”
8. Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive pertaining to the rejection under 35 USC § 103. The applicant has argued that the combination of Belpaire and Gebregiorgis does not teach a metal as the lower strength material (regarding the bending to form a bellows shape). However, the applicant is reminded that the entire disclosure must be considered. As such, the disclosure of Belpaire clearly list a metal as one of the materials that is used to make the coating part (¶3 and ¶18). As explained above, Belpaire discloses the coating part (carrier 120 in FIG. 4) is made of materials such as plastic, nylon, glass-reinforced nylon, metal or an organic structure, which is necessarily of a lower strength (¶3 and ¶18) than the tubular member (e.g.: base structure 110 and structural member 160 in FIG. 4). The structural member 160 is made of carbon-fiber or metal (higher strength materials) as disclosed in Claim 1 of Belpaire. The (metal) coating part necessarily has lower strength than the tubular member because applying a compressive force to the reinforcer so that both parts crumple under the applied force. In the alternate case, where the (metal) carrier has a higher strength than the tubular member, said carrier would be unable to absorb the axial crushing force because it would not crumple under that applied strain. Rather, the force would rebound and be dissipated in the tubular member which would likely fracture apart under the force. Therefore the rejection under 35 USC § 103 of Claims 1 and 2 as being obvious over Belpaire and Gebregiorgis is maintained.
9. The rationale for the continued rejection of Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 USC § 103 is explained in detail above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794