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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Crash management system” in claim 1 is defined by the specification as a front or rear bumper system with a bumper cross beam, end portions and crash boxes (see Figures 1-14; page 3, line 26-page 4, line 5)
“Additional element” in claim 1 is defined by the specification as an end portion connected to an end of the cross beam
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jordan (US Pat 9,821,740).
Regarding claim 1, 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 having a crash management system length along the transverse direction (see annotated Figure 2 below) and 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, lines 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), and wherein positions in the vertical direction of said cross beam 32 and of said absorber 66 are independent relative to each other (see Figure 2; Col. 4, lines 4-17). The absorber 66 is attached to the additional element 56 and the vertical position of the absorber 66 is aligned to the frame 54, but could be higher or lower than the cross beam 32, making its vertical position independent relative to the vertical position of the cross beam 32.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said crash management system 30 has an outer face comprising the outer face 70 of said cross beam 32 and the outer face 36 of said additional element 56 (see Figures 2-3; Col. 2, line 45-Col. 3, line 24).
Regarding claim 5, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said cross beam 32 has a straight shape parallel to the transverse direction (see Figure 2; Col. 2, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 7, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 56 contribute to said crash management system length by a distance D (see annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 56 is fixed to the cross beam 32 by welding (see Col. 2, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 9, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 56 is a hollow profile having at least one chamber 44 (see Col. 1, lines 49-56; Col. 2, lines 34-38; Col. 3, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 56 is made of aluminum alloy, steel or plastic (see Col. 3, lines 5-7, 25-26).
Regarding claim 12, Jordan discloses the crash management system 30 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 56 comprises a hole 112 for a towing eye system (see Figures 1-2 and 8; Col. 4, lines 56-62).
Claims 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamaoki et al. (US Pat 9,561,824).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaoki et al. disclose a crash management system 10 for a front part of a vehicle having a longitudinal direction FR, a transverse direction LH perpendicular to the longitudinal direction FR and a vertical direction UP perpendicular to the longitudinal direction FR and to the transverse direction LH (see Col. 4, lines 44-55), said crash management system 10 having a crash management system length along the transverse direction LH and comprising: a cross beam 18M having a cross beam length along the transverse direction LH (see Figures 1-3; Col. 5, lines 31-36), at least one additional element 18R having an outer face and an inner face (see Figures 1-3 and annotated Figure 2; Col. 5, lines 31-36), wherein the additional element 18R has at least one wall which is connected to said cross beam 18M (see Col. 5, lines 31-36), at least one absorber 16 having an outer face and/or an inner face 16F (see Figures 1-3: Col. 5, lines 4-12), characterized in that said cross beam length is smaller than said crash management system length (see annotated Figure 1), said cross beam 18M is connected to said absorber 16 through said additional element 18R (see Figures 1-3; Col. 5, lines 22-36), and wherein positions in the vertical direction of said cross beam 18M and of said absorber 16 are independent relative to each other (see Figures 1-3; Col. 5, lines 4-30). The absorber 16 is attached to the additional element 18R and the vertical position of the absorber 16 is aligned to the frame member 12, but could be higher or lower than the cross beam 18M, making its vertical position independent relative to the vertical position of the cross beam 18M.
PNG
media_image2.png
540
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
394
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Tamaoki 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 of said cross beam 18M and the outer face of said additional element 18R (see Figures 1-3; Col. 5, lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 6, Tamaoki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 3, wherein said outer face of said crash management system is globally curved (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tamaoki et al. disclose the crash management system 10 according to claim 1, wherein said additional element 18R contribute to said crash management system length by a distance D (see annotated Figure 2 above).
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 35a which is connected to said cross beam 12 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 4, lines 52-63), 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), characterized in that said cross beam length L1 is smaller than said crash management system length (see Figure 1), said cross beam 12 is connected to said absorber 21 through said additional element 15 (see Figures 1-6; Col. 4, lines 26-35), and wherein positions in the vertical direction of said cross beam 12 and of said absorber 21 are independent relative to each other (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 16-35). 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.
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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of Remarks, filed November 17, 2025, Applicant asserts that Jordan does not disclose the limitation “wherein the positions in the vertical direction Z of said cross beam and of said absorber are independent relative to each other”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the absorbers 66, 68 of Jordan are aligned with the additional elements 56, 58; however, in the section referenced by Applicant, Jordan states “The crush cans 66, 68 may be attached…to the inner extension 34, 60”. There is no mention of alignment between the absorbers 66, 68 and the additional elements 56, 58. Additionally, Jordan discloses a bracket 104 used to improve the performance of the vehicle during impact and would make it possible to position the bumper beam 32 independently relative to the absorbers 66, 68 (see Col. 4, lines 33-55).
On page 7 of Remarks, filed November 17, 2025, Applicant asserts that in the Tamaoki reference, “There is no possible case where the position of the crash box, the bumper reinforcement, and the overhanging portions are independent of each other”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant relies on the spacer member 24 to assert that the vertical position of the overhanging portions 20 of the additional elements 18R must be aligned with the absorbers 16. However, to achieve the desired effect of Tamaoki, the spacer member 24 vertical dimension could be such that the additional elements 18R are positioned offset to the absorbers 16 while still allowing for contact between the spacer member 24 and the front side member 14. Given this condition, it is possible to position the bumper beam 18M independently relative to the absorbers 16.
On page 8 of Remarks, filed November 17, 2025, Applicant asserts that Suzuki et al. fail to teach or suggest an absorber and the front side member cannot be considered an absorber; however, Applicant also asserts that the front side member transmits an impact force to a vehicle frame. While the structure of the absorber of Suzuki et al. does not match the structure of Applicant’s absorber, the absorber of Suzuki et al. absorbs the energy of the impact in order to transmit said energy to the vehicle frame, meeting the qualification of “absorber”. Additionally, Applicant asserts that Suzuki et al. fail to teach or suggest that the positions in the vertical direction of the cross beam and absorber are independent, but then asserts that “Suzuki et al. envisages having independent positions for the cross beam and the side member, between which the corner member is fixed”. This would in fact support Examiner’s assertion that the positions of the cross beam and the absorber are independent relative to one another. Suzuki et al. disclose a vertical dimension L2 of the absorber (see Col. 5, lines 56-59), but no mention is made of a vertical dimension of the cross beam, making the position of the cross beam independent relative to the absorber in a vertical direction.
For at least the reasons outlined above, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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