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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US Pat 7,080,862).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al. disclose a crash management system 10 for a front part of a vehicle having a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and to the transverse direction, said crash management system 10 having a crash management system length along the transverse direction and comprising: a cross beam 12 having a cross beam length L1 along the transverse direction (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 16-25), at least one additional element 15 having an outer face 34 and an inner face 36, wherein the additional element 15 has at least one wall 35 which is connected to said cross beam 12 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 4, lines 52-63), wherein the additional element 15 has at least one chamber 57 having a wall 35 that is a connecting wall between the cross beam 12 and the additional element 15 (see Figure 3), at least one absorber 21 having an outer face 21a and/or an inner face 21b (see Figures 1-3; Col. 6, lines 11-26), wherein said cross beam length L1 is less than said crash management system length (see Figure 1), wherein said cross beam 12 is connected to said absorber 21 through said additional element 15 (see Figures 1-6; Col. 4, lines 26-35).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said crash management system 10 has an outer face comprising the outer face 31a of said cross beam 12 and the outer face 34 of said additional element 15 (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 52-63).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said absorber 21 has an outer face 21a connected to said additional element inner face 36 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 6, lines 6-26). The inner face 36 is attached to the outer face 21a by the bracket 17.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 3, wherein said outer face of said crash management system 10 is globally curved (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system according to The crash management system according to wherein said additional element 15 contributes to said crash management system length by a distance (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 15 is a hollow profile having at least one chamber 56 (see Figures 2-4; Col. 5, lines 50-59).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 15 is made of aluminum alloy (see Col. 5, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 15 is an extruded hollow profile, which extrusion direction is substantially parallel to said vertical direction (see Figures 2-4; Col. 5, lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 15 comprises an aperture 56 (see Figures 2-4; Col. 5, lines 50-59).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein the cross beam 12 and the absorber 21 are connected to the additional element 15 at different positions 42, L2 in the vertical direction Z (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 52-60; Col. 5, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein the additional element 15 comprises a first connection region 34 connected to the cross beam 12 and a second connection region 42 connected to the absorber 21 (see Figures 1-4), the first connection region 34 and the second connection region 42 being spaced apart in the vertical direction Z (see Figure 2; Col. 4, lines 52-60; Col. 5, lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein the positions in the vertical direction Z of said cross beam 12 and of said absorber 21 are independent relative to each other (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 52-60; Col. 5, lines 3-9). The absorber 21 is attached to the additional element 15 and the vertical position of the absorber 21 is aligned to a vehicle frame member, but the cross beam 12 could be higher or lower than the absorber 21, as it is able to vertically slide relative to the additional element, making its vertical position independent relative to the vertical position of the absorber 21.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimotsu et al. (US Pat 6,554,333).
Regarding claim 1, Shimotsu et al. disclose a crash management system for a front or rear part of a vehicle having a longitudinal direction X, a transverse direction Y perpendicular to the longitudinal direction X and a vertical direction Z perpendicular to the longitudinal direction X and to the transverse direction Y, said crash management system having a crash management system length along the transverse direction Y, comprising: a cross beam 7 having a cross beam length along the transverse direction Y (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 30-35), at least one additional element 34 having an outer face and an inner face (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 30-53), wherein the additional element 34 has at least one wall 35 which is connected to said cross beam 7, wherein the additional element 34 has at least one chamber having a wall 36 that is a connecting wall between the cross beam 7 and the additional element 34 (see Figures 1-3 and annotated Figure 1 below; Col. 4, lines 30-53), at least one absorber 1 having an outer face 20 and/or an inner face 37 (see Figure 2; Col. 4, line 54-Col. 5, line 22; Col. 6, lines 60-66), wherein said cross beam length is less than said crash management system length, wherein said cross beam 7 is connected to said absorber 1 through said additional element 34 (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 30-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Shimotsu et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said cross beam 7 has a straight shape parallel to the transverse direction (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 7, Shimotsu et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 34 contributes to said crash management system length by a distance (see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shimotsu et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 34 is fixed to the cross beam 7 by at least one of screwing, welding, and bonding (see Figures 1-3; Col. 6, lines 43-59).
Regarding claim 9, Shimotsu et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 34 is a hollow profile having a chamber (see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Shimotsu et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 34 comprises an aperture 19 (see Figure 2; Col. 4, lines 40-49).
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 (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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. in view of Jordan (US Pat 9,821,740).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al. disclose the crash management system according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 15 is fixed to the cross beam 12 (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 52-60).
Suzuki et al. fail to disclose that the additional element is fixed to the cross beam by at least one of screwing, welding, and bonding.
Jordan discloses a crash management system 30 for a front part of a vehicle having a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and to the transverse direction, said crash management system 30 comprising: a cross beam 32 having a cross beam length along the transverse direction (see Figures 1-2; Col. 1, lines 44-49; Col. 2, lines 45-54), at least one additional element 56 having an outer face 36 and an inner face 34, wherein the additional element 56 has at least one wall 38 which is connected to said cross beam 32 (see Figures 2-8; Col. 1, lines 44-56; Col. 2, lines 34-44), at least one absorber 66 having an outer face and/or an inner face (see Figures 2-7; Col. 4, lincs 4- 17), wherein said cross beam length is smaller than said crash management system length (see annotated Figure 2), wherein said cross beam 32 is connected to said absorber 66 through said additional element 56 (see Figures 2-7; Col. 4, lines 4-13), wherein said additional element 56 is fixed to the cross beam 32 by welding (see Col. 2, line 64-Col. 3, line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to join the additional element of Suzuki et al. to the cross beam by welding, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Jordan, to ensure a secure joint that does require additional fasteners.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed June 29, 2026, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US Pat 9,821,740) and Tamaoki et al. (US Pat 9,561,824) are persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 29, 2026, regarding the rejection under 35 US(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US Pat 7,080,862) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the additional element of Suzuki et al. does not have a chamber in which a wall of the chamber serves as a connecting wall between the cross beam and the additional element. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The chamber 57 of Suzuki et al. is found in the additional element 15 and has a wall 35 that forms a rear wall of the chamber 57 and connects to the cross beam 12. In addition, a second chamber 56 has a wall 34 that also connects to a front portion 13 of the cross beam 12, although this is not relied upon in the rejection above and is simply pointed out for consideration by Applicant. While Examiner does recognize a difference between the invention and Suzuki et al., the language of the claim does not overcome Suzuki et al. and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yotsuyanagi et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0384934) disclose a crash management system having a cross beam, an additional element, and an absorber. Yatsunami et al. (US Pat 10,654,433) disclose a crash management system having a cross beam, additional elements, and absorbers. Crismon (US Pat 10,625,696) discloses a crash management system having a cross beam, additional elements, and absorbers. Clauser et al. (US Pat 9,527,464) disclose a cross beam, additional elements, and absorbers.
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