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(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are not clearly understood because the claims reference the RCAR low-speed structural crash test. This test changes with time so the claimed limitation can change with time. Further, it is not specified which low-speed structural crash test is being referenced since this could apply to a front impact or a rear impact test.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 14 recite the broad recitation “the bumper beam is configured to absorb at least 35%” and the claim also recites “preferably at least 40%...45%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. A similar limitation is present for the crash box. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 is not clearly understood because it claims a fill ratio without stating what fills the bumper beam. As claimed, any solid bumper beam meets this limitation since it is completely filled. The examiner has examined this application in two manners. The first is as the claim is written and the second is applicant likely intended to refer to a fill of foam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guinehut (US 2006/0071488).
Guinehut. discloses an automotive vehicle comprising a distal end from which a crash rail (6) extends in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle towards the distal end, as shown in Figure 1. The crash rail (6) comprises a free end (8), as shown in Figure 1. A bumper system is provided at the distal end and configured to limit damage to the automotive vehicle in a low speed collision, as shown in Figure 1. The bumper system comprises a bumper beam (2) extending substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the automotive vehicle and at least one crash box (4) extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the automotive vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. The crash box (4) comprises a first end and an opposite second end, as shown in Figure 1. The first end is connected to the bumper beam (2) and the second end is connected to the free end (8) of the at least one crash rail (6) of the automotive vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. The bumper beam is configured to absorb at least 35%, preferably at least 45%, in RCAR low speed structural crash test and the crash box is configured to absorb at least 35%, preferably at least 45% of the collision energy in the RCAR low speed structural crash test for limiting a maximum intrusion distance of the object since all of the claimed structure is disclosed. In reference to claim 5, the bumper system comprises two crash boxes located at a distance from each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the automotive vehicle, as disclosed in paragraph [0003] and is standard practice in the art. In reference to claim 8, the crash box (4) is made from an aluminum material, as disclosed in paragraph [0017]. In reference to claim 9, the bumper beam is a solid bumper in cross section so the fill ratio of material is 100%, as shown in Figure 1. In reference to claim 13, the bumper beam and the crash box are configured to absorb the collision energy by plastic deformation since plastic deformation is inherent to the materials disclosed to form the bumper beam and the crash box. In reference to claim 14, the bumper system is disclosed as discussed above.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Bohm et al. (US 2011/0226312).
Guinehut inherently discloses the automotive vehicle comprises an outer body work provided on a chassis, as is standard practice in the industry. However, Guinehut does not discloses a solar panel on an upper surface of the outer body work.
Bohm et al. teaches providing a solar panel (16) on an upper surface (6b-6f), as shown in Figure 18 and disclosed in paragraph [0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a solar cell on an upper surface of the outer body of Guinehut, as taught by Bohm et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide an environmentally friendly manner of charging/powering vehicle electronics/batteries.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Bohm et al. (US 2011/0226312).
Guinehut, as modified, does not disclose the location of the solar panels.
Applicant states the main concern of a low speed collision is to reduce damage and cost to repair the vehicle, see applicant’s background of the invention
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of to place the solar panel of Guinehut, as modified, in a safe location as defined by the maximum intrusion line or the joint between the crash rail and the crash box with a reasonable expectation for success to minimize damage and repair cost of the vehicle by locating the solar panel in a location that will not be damaged in a low speed structural crash test based on a long standing industry goal.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Renegar (US 2019/0152413).
Guinehut discloses crash box comprises a hollow beam (4) filled with metal foam, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0020]. In reference to claim 7, the hollow beam has a wall thickness of 2.9 mm, as disclosed in paragraph [0018]. However, Guinehut does not disclose the metal foam is aluminum foam.
Renegar teaches aluminum foam in a crash box, as disclosed in paragraph [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal foam of Guinehut from aluminum foam, as taught by Renegar, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious material choice that provide a specific material to form the foam with known properties that are well understood in the art to meet required crash safety standards.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Tan et al. (6,308,999).
Guinehut does not disclose filling the bumper beam with foam with at least 25% fill ratio.
Tan et al. teaches completely filling a bumper beam (12) with foam (14), as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the bumper beam of Guinehut with foam with at least 25% fill ratio, as taught by Tan et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to increase energy absorption with minimal weight gain to improve passenger safety without hindering vehicle dynamics.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Matecki et al. (US 2015/0307045).
Guinehut does not disclose the claimed thickness.
Matecki et al. teaches forming the bumper beam with wall thickness of 2-5 mm, as disclosed in paragraph [0049]. This meets the limitation of a wall thickness of 3-5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bumper beam of Guinehut with wall thickness of 3-5 mm, as taught by Matecki et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide sufficient strength for safety without increasing weight to a point where fuel economy and driving dynamics are significantly impacted.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Tan et al. (US 2015/0307045).
Guinehut does not disclose the bumper beam is curved in top view.
Tan et al. teaches curving (i.e.sweeping) the bumper beam in a top view, as disclosed in paragraphs [0005] and [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to curve in a top view the bumper beam of Guinehut, as taught by Tan et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to curve the bumper to fit within the shape of an aerodynamic bumper fascia.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinehut (US 2006/0071488) in view of Farooq et al. (US 2020/0122662).
Guinehut does not disclose the claimed relative dimensions.
Farooq et al. teaches forming a bumper beam (14) with a length that is greater than a distance between two crash cans and smaller than a width of the distal end of the automotive vehicle since the bumper fascia (48) wraps around the bumper beam, as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bumper beam of Guinehut with a length that is greater than a distance between two crash cans and smaller than a width of the distal end of the automotive vehicle, as taught by Farooq et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a bumper beam that meets the required safety standards and is contained within the vehicle exterior panels to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 28, 2025