DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 05/13/26 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 20-24 are currently pending, with claim 25 being moved up into the independent claims. Despite Applicant’s arguments, the previous 102 rejection is maintained. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 20-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: All pending claims are objected to because the two independent claims recite that the second layer comprises a multitude of “three-dimensional elements and/or openings” and now further recites that the “openings are through-holes” but it is unclear if this new limitation is actually required or not since the “openings” are recited in the alternative. In other words, if a prior art reference discloses three-dimensional elements, it need not disclose openings, let alone openings that are through-holes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Maurer
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurer et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0200062) (previously cited). Maurer is directed to an impact absorption structure. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Maurer discloses a member to absorb energy [Figs. 3A-5B], particularly impact-energy comprising: a first layer (202); and a second layer (204); wherein the first layer comprises a multitude of three-dimensional elements (206), each being interconnected to a first base (106, ends of 202), and the second layer comprises a multitude of three-dimensional elements and/or openings (208), each being interconnected to a second base (106, ends of 204); wherein the openings are through-holes [see para. 0022 (holes for screw fastener in base of floor); see also claim objection rejection above); wherein for energy-dissipation: the three-dimensional elements of the first layer are inserted into the openings of the second layer [see Figs. 4A-4E]; and/or (ii) the three-dimensional elements of the first layer are inserted into a hollow space provided between two or more of the three-dimensional elements of the second layer and/or vice versa; and wherein the multitude of three-dimensional elements respectively of the first and second layers each have a sidewall and the sidewall of the multitude three-dimensional elements of the first layer has, at least locally, a different shape and/or size than the sidewall of the multitude of three-dimensional elements of the second layer [see, e.g., Fig. 4C (compare 242 and 244)]. See Figs. 3A-5B.
Claim 2: Maurer discloses that the three-dimensional elements of one or both of the layers are tapered. See Figs. 4A-4E.
Claim 4: Maurer discloses that at least one of the first or second layer comprises a connecting means in a form of an adhesive layer; wherein the first layer and the second layer each comprise a first surface and a second surface in opposing relationship to the first surface; wherein the first surface of the first layer is oriented away from the second layer and the first surface of the second layer is oriented away from the first laver; and wherein the adhesive layer is located on the first surface of at least one of the first layer or the second layer. See para. 0023-25; 0031 (substrate layer added using adhesive).
Claim 5: Maurer discloses that the thickness of the sidewall of the three-dimensional elements of one or both of the layers is not constant. See para. 0016 (“thicknesses of the base portion, walls, and/or floor may vary along the cross-section of the structure”); see also para. 0029, 0038, 0040-42.
Claim 6: Maurer discloses that the three-dimensional elements of one or both of the layers comprise a reinforcement element in a form of one or more ribs and/or a foam layer. See para. 0039, 0054 (“foam”); 0044 (“protrusions”).
Claim 7: Maurer discloses that the first and the second layer are provided as one piece. See Figs. 5A-5B; para. 0052 (formed in a single step via molding).
Claim 8: Maurer discloses a system comprising a structure and a member according to claim 1. See para. 0022.
Claim 9: Maurer discloses that the structure comprises a cavity in which the member is located. See para. 0022; 0057.
Claim 10: Maurer discloses that one or both of the layers is attached to the structure via an adhesive layer; wherein the first layer and the second layer each comprise a first surface and a second surface in opposing relationship to the first surface; wherein the first surface of the first layer is oriented away from the second layer and the first surface of the second layer is oriented away from the first laver; and wherein the adhesive layer is located on the first surface of at least one of the first layer or the second layer. See para. 0023-25; 0031 (substrate layer added using adhesive).
Claim 11: see claim 1 above. Maurer further discloses that friction between the three-dimensional elements of the first and second layers takes place and the three-dimensional elements and/or the openings of at least one layer are deformed plastically and/or elastically. See para. 0043-46 (friction), 0051 (elastic deformation).
Claim 12: Maurer discloses that the three-dimensional elements and/or the openings are expanded and/or compressed and/or tangentially stressed, each reversibly and/or irreversibly. See para. 0051.
Claim 14: Maurer discloses that the cross section of the three-dimensional elements and/or the openings of the layers is increased and/or decreased. See para. 0016 (“thicknesses of the base portion, walls, and/or floor may vary along the cross-section of the structure”).
Claim 15: Maurer discloses that the three-dimensional elements of the two layers interlock during their plastic deformation. See Figs. 4A-4E; para. 0032.
Claim 20: Maurer discloses that the three-dimensional elements of the one or both of the layers are formed as truncated cones. See Figs. 4A-4E.
Claim 21: Maurer discloses that the truncated cones of the first layer and the truncated cones of the second layer are oriented in opposing directions. See Figs. 4A-5B.
Claim 22: Maurer discloses that the multitude of three-dimensional elements of the first layer are arranged spaced apart from one another. See Fig. 3A-4E.
Claim 23: Maurer discloses that the multitude of three-dimensional elements of one or both of the first layer and the second layer include one or more steps and/or the taper is non-constant. See para. 0016 (“thicknesses of the base portion, walls, and/or floor may vary along the cross-section of the structure”); see also para. 0029, 0038, 0040-42.
Claim 24: Maurer discloses that the reinforcement element is in the form of one or more ribs, which are connected to a top base of the multitude of three-dimensional elements of one or both of the first layer and the second layer. See para. 0044 (“protrusions”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, regarding claim 1, Applicant goes to great lengths to contend that relying on both Figures 3A and Figures 4A-4C is impermissible and that the citations in the rejection referring to both “106” and “ends of 202”) are “confusing.” See Remarks, pages 6-7. In response, Figure 3A provides a geometric-3D view and Figures 4A-4C show a cross-section with a side view of two layers of essentially the same embodiment of Figure 3A. The reference to both figures is purely to provide clarity to Figures 4A-4C, which does not depict the geometric view. The “ends of 202” do not adequately show that there is depth to that structure, and that all of the various truncations are connected via a base, more clearly seen in Figure 3A as 106.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant makes the conclusory argument that holes for a screw in the base floor of the layers, which is explicitly discussed in paragraph [0022], is somehow insufficient to constitute an “opening.” See Remarks, pages 7-8. It is unclear why. A hole for a fastener is an “opening.” While these openings may differ from the instant application, this broadly recited limitation is properly disclosed. Importantly, it is unclear if “openings” are even required, given that claim 1 recites that the second layers comprises “three-dimensional elements and/or openings.”
Regarding claim 5, varying thickness is explicitly discussed with regard to a single layer, and the embodiments disclosed in Figures 3A-5B employ multiple layers, hence the disclosure is adequate. See para. 0016. But it is also explicitly discussed with these multiple layer embodiments as well. See para. 0029, 0038, 0040-42.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant seems to take issue with a layer with a foam-filled space qualifying as a layer comprising a foam. See Remarks, page 8. It’s unclear why Applicant believes this to be insufficient. If a layer has foam, it comprises foam. It’s a simple as that.
Regarding claim 7, the “one piece” limitation is most clearly discussed in paragraph [0052] and depicted in Figures 5A-5B, which show the various layers being made in a single molding step and then folded on top of itself. This clearly meets the “one piece” limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant seems to take issue with the Maurer layers being embedded in seats, seat backs, doors, floor panels, body panels, etc. and that this means the components have a “cavity” for doing so. See Remarks, pages 8-9. Clearly, if the Maurer apparatus is within a door, the apparatus is in a “cavity” of the door. Again, unclear why Applicant is traversing the rejection here.
Regarding claim 21, Figure 5B shows truncated cones in opposing directions. By looking at Figure 5A, prior to folding, the cones are both facing upward, but after folding so they are ready for use, they are in opposite directions. Hence, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 22, Figure 3A clearly shows how the various three-dimensional elements are spaced apart from each other, separated by portions of the base. Figures 4A-4E does not show the base because this is a cross-section and does not provide depth here, but is effectively employing two of the layers depicted in Figure 3A.
Regarding claim 23, a “non-constant” taper in a wall can be achieved through a varying wall thickness. Maurer achieves this for all embodiments. See para. 0016, 0029, 0038, 0040-42. Hence, the limitation is properly disclosed.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant takes a narrow interpretation of the claim limitation “ribs” and contends that a series of “protrusions” on the surface of the layers is insufficient. See Remarks, page 10 (referring to citation to paragraph 0044). Without any specific detail regarding these “ribs” (i.e., their location, shape, size, etc.), the Maurer disclosure is enough to meet the broadly recited feature.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights