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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, EP 3 040 480 B1 in view of Albritton, US 7,306,397 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a crash attenuator system capable of being used for deployment in front of a fixed structure, the system comprising:
first and second outer rails (pair of rails 110; Figures 19-20) spaced apart in a widthwise direction, extending along a length of the crash attenuator system;
a plurality of diaphragms (120; Figure 21) initially disposed in spaced relation along the length of each of the first and second outer rails, each of the plurality of diaphragms having a base end adapted to be movably engaged with the first and second rails so that when a front end of the crash attenuator system receives an impact force from an errant vehicle, a first one of the plurality of diaphragms moves rearwardly along the first and second outer rails and impacts a second one of the plurality of diaphragms so that both the first and second ones of the plurality of diaphragms move further rearwardly along the first and second outer rails, this process continuing with additional ones of the plurality of diaphragms until the impact forces have been fully attenuated (“sliding panels 160”, rear end of each preceding panel 160 partially overlaps the front end of the following sliding panel 160; [0040] and [0050]); and
a sole tearable member (pipe 144) of the crash attenuator system, the sole tearable member comprising a center rail disposed between and extending parallel to the first and second outer rails (Figure 20), relative motion occurring between a tearing member and the tearable member when an impact force strikes the crash attenuator system so that the tearing member tears the tearable member (tearing shown in Figure 16), thereby increasing attenuation of the impact force; and
wherein the sole tearable member extends along at least a portion of the length of the crash attenuator.
While Cho discloses a tearing member to engage material forming the tearable member but fails to disclose the sole tearable member being tuned or including a plurality of holes disposed therein, Albritton teaches a crash attenuator system and discloses a tearable member being tuned to optimize tearing of the tearable member, being tuned so that portions of the tearable member toward the front end of the crash attenuator are softer than portions of the tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator, and including a plurality of holes disposed therein (holes 110 as shown in Figure 1), the plurality of holes extending along a length of the tearable member and spaced lengthwise from one another (Figure 1; column 3 lines 24-36; column 9 lines 32-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cho by substituting the tearing member and its location by using a shredder bolt (Albritton’s 116) toward the front end of the crash attenuator system and have the sole tearable member be tuned so that portions of the sole tearable member toward the front end of the crash attenuator system are softer, and thus capable of less force attenuation, than portions of the sole tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator system, wherein the sole tearable member includes a plurality of holes disposed therein, the plurality of holes extending along a length of the sole tearable member and spaced lengthwise from one another in view of Albritton’s disclosure to be able to tear the tearable member in a way to have multiple stages of stopping force to optimize deceleration depending on the size of the impacting vehicle (column 3 lines 24-36). The resulting combination yields the tearing member on the crash attenuator system being adapted to engage material forming the sole tearable member of the crash attenuator system, the tearing member being engaged with one of the plurality of holes so that when an impact force is applied to the crash attenuator, relative motion occurs between the sole tearable member and the tearing member and causes the tearing member to tear the tearable member between adjacent ones of the plurality of holes, thereby creating a continuous slot, the tearing of the material functioning to attenuate the impact force.
Regarding claim 3, since Albritton shows shredder 116 to be a bolt and disposed at the front end, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tearing member be disposed on one of the plurality of diaphragms (first/front diaphragm) and comprises a bolt in view of Albritton’s explicit suggestion.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination from claim 3 includes the tearing member being on the first one of the plurality of diaphragms. Looking at a side view of Cho’s Figure 16, since the pipe is not at the top end, it would be an obvious modification to have the tearing member be disposed on a base end of the first one of the plurality of diaphragms to be able to tear the tearable member.
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the tearing member comprises a plurality of tearing members, it has been held that duplication of parts for a multiplied effect is old and well-known; mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tearing member to comprise a plurality of tearing members to be able to shred more portions of the tearable member at a time based on the attenuation requirements desired.
Regarding claim 7, Albritton shows in Figure 16 the tearable member is tuned by arranging the plurality of holes so that the plurality of holes are not evenly spaced along the length of the tearable member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to tune the sole tearable member by arranging the plurality of holes so that the plurality of holes are not evenly spaced along the length of the tearable member in view of Albritton's suggestion (column 3 lines 24-36) based on the amount of attenuation required.
Regarding claim 8, since the resulting combination from claim 1 includes portions of the tearable member toward the front end being tuned to be softer than portions toward a back end of the crash attenuator system, and since Albritton suggests in Figure 16 that holes nearer the front end are more closely spaced than adjacent ones of the plurality of holes closer to the back end of the attenuator (holes 110 at the left side of stage 2 are more closely spaced than the holes at the right side of stage 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjacent ones of the plurality of holes nearer to the front end of the crash attenuator be more closely spaced than adjacent ones of the plurality of holes closer to the back end of the crash attenuator as one way to have stages of attenuation that is softer toward the front end than the back end.
Regarding claim 9, Albritton further discloses that the dimensions of the holes may be varied to control the amount of force or energy required to move the shredder bolt therethrough (column 9 lines 40- 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination by tuning the sole tearable member so that the holes are not uniform in size, respective to one another based on the desired attenuating needs in view of Albritton's disclosure.
Regarding claim 10, the resulting combination already includes the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (Albritton’s column 3 lines 24-36), and thus capable of less force attenuation, than portions of the tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator system as required in claim 1. Albritton further discloses that the dimensions of the holes 110 may be varied to control the amount of force or energy required to move the shredder bolt therethrough (column 9 lines 40-44) and that the holes "110 may have a generally circular, oval, slot, rectangular, star, or any other suitable geometric configuration" (column 9 lines 58-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have ones of the plurality of holes nearer to the front end of the crash attenuator be larger and more elongated than those of the plurality of holes which are located closer to the back end of the crash attenuator based on obvious design choice to maintain the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (since areas of the rail with larger holes would mean it is easier to tear, thus capable of less force attenuation) in view of Albritton's further disclosure.
Regarding claim 11, Albritton further discloses that the crash cushion may include a first, relatively soft portion, that the size of the openings may be varied along each energy absorbing element in a middle portion, and a final portion designed to absorb heavy, high speed vehicles (column 3 lines 24-36) and that the thickness of the tearable member can be varied and that increasing thickness will allow the resulting energy absorbing assembly to dissipate an increased amount of kinetic energy (column 10 lines 15-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sole tearable member so that it is tuned with the material forming the tearable member being thinner toward the front end of the crash attenuator, and thicker toward the back end of the crash attenuator in view of Albritton's explicit disclosure of a relatively soft portion toward the front end and a final portion (which is toward the back end) to absorb heavy, high speed vehicles.
Regarding claim 12, the resulting combination includes the limitation of the claim as part of the selection of hole size and placement to achieve a desired softness.
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination already includes the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (Albritton’s column 3 lines 24-36), and thus capable of less force attenuation, than portions of the tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator system as required in claim 1. Albritton further discloses that the thickness of the tearable member can be varied and that increasing thickness will allow the resulting energy absorbing assembly to dissipate an increased amount of kinetic energy (column 10 lines 15-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tearable member of the resulting combination so that it is tuned with the material forming the tearable member being thinner toward the front end which is the first stage of the crash attenuator, and thicker toward the back end which is the second stage of the crash attenuator in view of Albritton's explicit disclosure of a relatively soft portion toward the front end and a final portion (which is toward the back end) to absorb heavy, high speed vehicles.
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination already includes the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (Albritton’s column 3 lines 24-36), and thus capable of less force attenuation, than portions of the tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator system as required in claim 1. Albritton further discloses that the spacing of holes may be varied to control the amount of attenuation (column 9 lines 40-44), and shows in Figure 16 the tearable member is tuned by arranging the plurality of holes so that holes 110 at the left side of stage 2 are more closely spaced than the holes at the right side of stage 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the first stage which is closer to the front end of the crash attenuator be softer because the holes of the plurality of holes which are disposed in the first stage are closer together (thus the tearable member is easier to tear) than the holes of the plurality of holes which are disposed in the second stage which is closer to the back end of the crash attenuator in view of Albritton's further disclosure based on the attenuation desired.
Regarding claim 16, the resulting combination already includes the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (Albritton’s column 3 lines 24-36), and thus capable of less force attenuation, than portions of the tearable member toward a back end of the crash attenuator system as required in claim 1. Albritton further discloses that the dimensions of the holes may be varied to control the amount of force or energy required to move the shredder bolt therethrough (column 9 lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have ones of the plurality of holes nearer to the front end which is the first stage of the crash attenuator be larger in size than those of the plurality of holes which are disposed closer to the back end which is the second stage of the crash attenuator based on obvious design choice to maintain the front end of the crash attenuator system being softer (since areas of the rail with larger holes would mean it is easier to tear, thus capable of less force attenuation) in view of Albritton's further disclosure.
Regarding claim 18, the resulting combination includes the crash attenuator further comprising a plurality of fender panels (Cho’s 160; Figure 21) disposed along each side of the crash attenuator along its length, wherein frontmost ones of the plurality of fender panels are adapted to slide alongside of rearmost ones of the plurality of fender panels when the crash attenuator is impacted by a vehicle (“sliding panels 160”; crash shown in Figure 15; sliding shown in Figure 15).
Regarding claim 19, the resulting combination includes the claim since Cho discloses a nose box (Figures 17 and 20) disposed at the frontmost end of the crash attenuator.
Regarding claim 20, the resulting combination includes the sole tearable member and makes obvious the claim limitation since Albritton discloses that the tearable member is stationary and the tearing member (shredder bolt 116) moves responsive to the impact force (column 11 lines 7-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cho, EP 3 040 480 B1 and Albritton, US 7,306,397 B2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights