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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 recites a broader limitation than that presented in claim 1 regarding the spacing between the rear wall of the bumper crossmember and the reinforcing plate. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0317149) in view of Baumeister et al. (DE 102004010792) and Kurogi et al. (US Pat 10,913,416).
Regarding claim 1, Höning et al. disclose a bumper crossmember 9 for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember 9 comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile 10 in cross section (see Figure 6; Paragraph 29); and a reinforcing plate 13 inserted in a middle length portion 12 of the closed hollow rectangular profile of the bumper crossmember 9, wherein a depth of the reinforcing plate 13 in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle decreases towards ends 21 of the reinforcing plate 13 in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle (see Figure 5; Paragraph 30), and the reinforcing plate 13 is not coupled to a rear wall 16 of the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 30 and 33), wherein along the transverse direction, an entirety of the reinforcing plate is free of direct contact with the rear wall of the bumper crossmember, and the ends of the reinforcing plate are tapered ends which are tapered in the transverse direction away from each other (see Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 30-33). Merriam Webster defines insert as “to set in and make fast” and in this instance, the reinforcing plate 13 is set in the crossmember 9 and made fast within the crossmember 9 (see Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 29 and 33).
Höning et al. fail to disclose the reinforcing plate extends in the transverse direction over a length between 20 and 50% of a length of the bumper crossmember and at the tapered ends, a spacing between the reinforcing plate and the rear wall of the bumper crossmember increases in the transverse direction from a middle region of the reinforcing plate toward the tapered ends, such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is 40% or less of a depth of the hollow rectangular profile.
Baumeister et al. disclose a bumper crossmember for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember 3 comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile in cross section (see Figure 1; Paragraph 26); and a reinforcing plate 14 inserted in a middle length portion B of the closed hollow rectangular profile of the bumper crossmember (see Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27), wherein the reinforcing plate extends in the transverse direction over a length between 2 and 35% of a length of the bumper crossmember (see Figure 1; Paragraph 27). The length of the reinforcing plate 14 is between 2 and 35% of the length of the bumper crossmember 3, which overlaps the range 20-50%. The length of the reinforcing plate 14 is such that it helps eliminate unnecessary weight in the bumper while also supporting the bumper walls from collapse (see Paragraph 29).
Kurogi et al. disclose a bumper crossmember for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile 12 in cross section (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 32-35; Col. 5, lines 4-14); and a reinforcing plate 16 inserted in the closed hollow rectangular profile 12 of the bumper crossmember (see Figures 1-5; Col. 4, lines 32-35; Col. 5, lines 50-60), wherein a depth of the reinforcing plate 16 in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle decreases towards ends of the reinforcing plate 16 in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, the ends of the reinforcing plate 16 are tapered ends which are tapered in the transverse direction away from each other, and wherein, at the tapered ends, a spacing between the reinforcing plate 16 and a wall 20 of the bumper crossmember increases in the transverse direction from a middle region W1 of the reinforcing plate 16 toward the tapered ends (see Figure 3; Col. 3, line 61-Col. 4, line 26), such that the depth L3 of the reinforcing plate 16 at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is less of a depth L2 of the hollow rectangular profile. The tapered ends provide a gradual collapsing margin to prevent a collision from rupturing the bumper crossmember (see Col. 6, lines 21-36).
Section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reinforcing plate of Höning et al. to extend in the transverse direction over a length between 20 and 50% of a length of the bumper crossmember, with a reasonable expectation of success, to eliminate unnecessary weight in the bumper while also supporting the bumper walls from collapse, as taught by Baumeister et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct tapered ends of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al., having a spacing between the reinforcing plate and the rear wall of the bumper crossmember that increases in the transverse direction from a middle region of the reinforcing plate toward the tapered ends, such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is less than a depth of the hollow rectangular profile, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a gradual collapsing margin that allows for a concentration of a collision load to be spread out along the boundary portion and prevents rupturing of the bumper crossmember, as taught by Kurogi et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the spacing of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., to increase such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at the outer end region of each of the tapered ends is 40% or less of the depth of the hollow rectangular profile, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the spacing of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., would not perform differently by increasing to 40% or less of the depth of the hollow rectangular profile.
Regarding claim 2, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein the hollow rectangular profile 10 is configured as a top hat profile with a striking plate 11 (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 3, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 2, wherein the striking plate 11 points toward a front of the bumper crossmember 9 in the motor vehicle longitudinal direction (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 6, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein, in cross-section, the reinforcing plate 13 has at least two limbs 18, 20 which are arranged in parallel with respect to an upper flange 14 and a lower flange 15 of the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 7, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember according to claim 1, wherein tapering of a cross section of the reinforcing plate 13 configures a greater spacing from the rear wall of the bumper crossmember in relation to the middle length portion, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember according to claim 1, wherein the ends 21 of the reinforcing plate 13 are tapered ends (see Figure 5; Paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 9, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate 13 is coupled to a front wall 11 of the bumper crossmember 9 in length portions of the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 30 and 32-33).
Regarding claim 11, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 3, the reinforcing plate 13 is coupled to the closing striking plate 11 (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 30 and 32-33).
Regarding claim 12, Höning et al. disclose a bumper crossmember arrangement for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember arrangement comprising: a bumper crossmember 9; and crash boxes 17 coupled to the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figures 5 and 9; Paragraph 29), the bumper crossmember 9 comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile 10 in cross section (see Figure 6; Paragraph 29); and a reinforcing plate 13 inserted in a middle length portion 12 of the closed hollow rectangular profile of the bumper crossmember 9, wherein a depth of the reinforcing plate 13 in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle decreases towards ends 21 of the reinforcing plate 13 in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle (see Figure 5; Paragraph 30), and the reinforcing plate 13 is not coupled to a rear wall 16 of the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 30 and 33), wherein along the transverse direction, an entirety of the reinforcing plate is free of direct contact with the rear wall of the bumper crossmember, and the ends of the reinforcing plate are tapered ends which are tapered in the transverse direction away from each other (see Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 30-33.
Höning et al. fail to disclose the reinforcing plate extends in the transverse direction over a length between 20 and 50% of a length of the bumper crossmember and at the tapered ends, a spacing between the reinforcing plate and the rear wall of the bumper crossmember increases in the transverse direction from a middle region of the reinforcing plate toward the tapered ends, such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is 40% or less of a depth of the hollow rectangular profile.
Baumeister et al. disclose a bumper crossmember for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember 3 comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile in cross section (see Figure 1; Paragraph 26); and a reinforcing plate 14 inserted in a middle length portion B of the closed hollow rectangular profile of the bumper crossmember (see Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27), wherein the reinforcing plate extends in the transverse direction over a length between 2 and 35% of a length of the bumper crossmember (see Figure 1; Paragraph 27). The length of the reinforcing plate 14 is between 2 and 35% of the length of the bumper crossmember 3, which overlaps the range 20-50%. The length of the reinforcing plate 14 is such that it helps eliminate unnecessary weight in the bumper while also supporting the bumper walls from collapse (see Paragraph 29).
Kurogi et al. disclose a bumper crossmember for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember comprising: a closed hollow rectangular profile 12 in cross section (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 32-35; Col. 5, lines 4-14); and a reinforcing plate 16 inserted in the closed hollow rectangular profile 12 of the bumper crossmember (see Figures 1-5; Col. 4, lines 32-35; Col. 5, lines 50-60), wherein a depth of the reinforcing plate 16 in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle decreases towards ends of the reinforcing plate 16 in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, the ends of the reinforcing plate 16 are tapered ends which are tapered in the transverse direction away from each other, and wherein, at the tapered ends, a spacing between the reinforcing plate 16 and a wall 20 of the bumper crossmember increases in the transverse direction from a middle region W1 of the reinforcing plate 16 toward the tapered ends (see Figure 3; Col. 3, line 61-Col. 4, line 26), such that the depth L3 of the reinforcing plate 16 at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is less of a depth L2 of the hollow rectangular profile. The tapered ends provide a gradual collapsing margin to prevent a collision from rupturing the bumper crossmember (see Col. 6, lines 21-36).
Section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reinforcing plate of Höning et al. to extend in the transverse direction over a length between 20 and 50% of a length of the bumper crossmember, with a reasonable expectation of success, to eliminate unnecessary weight in the bumper while also supporting the bumper walls from collapse, as taught by Baumeister et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct tapered ends of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al., having a spacing between the reinforcing plate and the rear wall of the bumper crossmember that increases in the transverse direction from a middle region of the reinforcing plate toward the tapered ends, such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at an outer end region of each tapered end of the tapered ends is less than a depth of the hollow rectangular profile, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a gradual collapsing margin that allows for a concentration of a collision load to be spread out along the boundary portion and prevents rupturing of the bumper crossmember, as taught by Kurogi et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the spacing of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., to increase such that the depth of the reinforcing plate at the outer end region of each of the tapered ends is 40% or less of the depth of the hollow rectangular profile, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the spacing of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., would not perform differently by increasing to 40% or less of the depth of the hollow rectangular profile.
Regarding claim 14, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate 13 extends in the transverse direction over a length between 20 and 40% of the length of the bumper crossmember 9. The length of the reinforcing plate 14 is between 2 and 35% of the length of the bumper crossmember 3, which overlaps the range 20-40%.
Regarding claim 15, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein, in cross-section, the reinforcing plate 13 has at least two limbs 18, 20 which are arranged in parallel with respect to an upper flange 14 and a lower flange 15 of the bumper crossmember 9 (see Figures 5-6; Paragraph 30), making the limbs 18, 20 arranged at an angle no more than ±20° with respect to the upper flange 14 and the lower flange 15.
Regarding claim 17, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing plate 13 is welded to a front wall 11 of the bumper crossmember 9 in welded length portions 23, 24 of the bumper crossmember (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 32-34), the reinforcing plate 13 is not directly welded to the front wall 11 of the bumper crossmember 9 in a non-welded portion of the bumper crossmember 9, and the non-welded portion is arranged between the welded length portions, and is configured to, in a crash, be deformed or permit the front wall 11 and the reinforcing plate 13 to move relative to one another (see Figure 6; Paragraphs 32-34).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., in view of Henseleit (US PG Pub 2006/0028032).
Regarding claim 4, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember according to claim 1.
Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., fail to disclose the reinforcing plate is profiled in cross section in a W-shape.
Henseleit discloses a vehicle bumper crossmember 12 having a reinforcing insert 14 (see Figures 1-10; Paragraph 22). The bumper crossmember 12 has a W-shape to help stabilize the member and absorb energy in the center portion and not just at mounting points (see Figures 9-10; Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reinforcing plate of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., profiled in cross section in a W-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success, to help stabilize the member and absorb energy in the center portion and not just at mounting points, as taught by Henseleit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., in view of Torke (US Pat 3,983,962).
Regarding claim 10, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember 9 according to claim 1, the bumper crossmember 9 has a notch or embossment provided in the upper or lower flange 14, 15 of the bumper crossmember 9.
Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., fail to disclose the bumper crossmember has a soft zone in the middle length portion in at least one of an upper flange and/or in of a lower flange of the bumper crossmember.
Torke discloses a frame member for a vehicle having a rectangular cross section formed by a U-shaped channel 1 and a cover 2 having a strain-free annealed zone 3, or “soft zone”, to permit controlled deformation of the frame member without reducing buckle resistance (see Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 32-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the bumper crossmember of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., with a soft zone in the middle length portion in at least one of an upper flange and/or in of a lower flange of the bumper crossmember, with a reasonable expectation of success, to control deformation of the bumper crossmember without reducing buckle resistance, as taught by Torke.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., in view of Hisada et al. (US Pat 11,040,679).
Regarding claim 13, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember according to claim 12.
Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., fail to disclose the crash boxes have relieving elements in sidewalls in front regions of the crash boxes, and the relieving elements point toward one another.
Hisada et al. disclose a bumper crossmember arrangement 10 for a motor vehicle, the bumper crossmember arrangement 10 comprising: a bumper crossmember 20 (see Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 24-39); and crash boxes 24 coupled to the bumper crossmember 20 (see Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 40-52). The crash boxes have relieving elements 26 in sidewalls in front regions of the crash boxes 24, and the relieving elements 26 point toward one another (see Figures 1-3; Col. 6, lines 53-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the crash boxes of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., with relieving elements in sidewalls in front regions of the crash boxes that point toward one another, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Hisada et al., to more effectively absorb energy in the event of an impact against the bumper crossmember.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., in view of Heatherington et al. (US Pat 6,986,536).
Regarding claim 16, Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., disclose the bumper crossmember according to claim 8.
Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., fail to disclose the ends of the reinforcing plate are tapered by flattening, stamping or press molding.
Heatherington et al. disclose a bumper crossmember 20 having a hollow rectangular cross section and a reinforcing section 28 that is tapered in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle at each end 31, 32. The bumper crossmember 20 is formed by stamping to increase stiffness (see Figure 2; Col. 6, lines 11-26; Col. 8, lines 49-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to taper the ends of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al., by stamping, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase the stiffness and increase the energy absorption in the event of a collision, as taught by Heatherington et al..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Remarks, filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Höning et al. in view of Baumeister et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Höning et al., as modified by Baumeister et al. and Kurogi et al..
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed March 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 12, 14-15 and 20 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. in view of Baumeister et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubo et al. (US Pat 10,773,755) disclose a vehicle support structure having a hat shaped crossmember with a soft zone in a flange of the structure. Kuwabara et al. (US Pat 10,604,092) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate having tapered ends with a spacing between the reinforcing plate and a wall of the bumper crossmember that increases in the transverse direction from a middle region of the reinforcing plate toward the tapered ends. Arns (US PG Pub 2015/0102614) discloses a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile configured as a top hat profile with a striking plate. Ashiya et al. (US Pat 8,939,479) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate with tapered ends. Inoue (US Pat 8,936,285) discloses a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate with tapered ends. Shimotsu (US PG Pub 2014/0070552) discloses a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and tapered ends with a soft zone to control deformation of the bumper crossmember. Buschsieweke et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0291431) disclose a crash box for a bumper crossmember having relieving elements in a front portion of the crash box pointing toward one another. Wakabayashi et al. (US Pat 8,061,743) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate. Hama et al. (US PG Pub 2010/0078949) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate having tapered ends. Omura et al. (US Pat 7,025,396) disclose a vehicle bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate in a middle length portion of the closed hollow rectangular profile. Reutlinger et al. (US Pat 6,908,130) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow profile and a reinforcing plate inserted in a middle length portion of the closed hollow profile. Goto et al. (US Pat 6,726,261) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate inserted in a middle length portion of the closed hollow rectangular profile. Baumeister et al. (DE 10205627) disclose a bumper crossmember having a closed hollow rectangular profile and a reinforcing plate inserted in a middle length portion of the closed hollow rectangular profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights