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
In light of the amendments to the claims filed August 5, 2026, the 112b rejections set forth in the non-final office action mailed May 5, 2026 are withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kari (US 2024/0208286) in view of Warner (US 3463514).
In regards to claim 1: Kari teaches a tow hook system, comprising: a tow hook (10a and 10b), comprising:
a first attachment mechanism (12 and 62) configured to secure the tow attachment to a bumper beam (See Figure 3 where hook 10a is indirectly secured to bumper beam 48) of a vehicle (2); and
a second attachment mechanism (14) configured to secure the tow hook to a subframe (16) of the vehicle,
wherein the tow hook is configured to transfer a load from the tow hook to the subframe (See at least Figure 4).
Kari fails to teach wherein the subframe 16 is a fender apron. However, Warner teaches a bracket for connecting a hitch assembly to fender aprons (Column 2 lines 41-43) to allow for reinforcement and stiffening elements for carrying loads in an obscure place to protect aesthetic qualities (Column 1 lines 35-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the subframe member of Kari that the two hook attaches to be a fender apron as in Warner to allow for an obscure but reinforced coupling thereby increasing the durability of the tow hook connection while maintaining or increasing visual aesthetic with an obscure connection.
In regards to claim 2: The tow hook system of claim 1 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the first attachment mechanism comprises a plate (62 of Kari).
In regards to claim 3: The tow hook system of claim 1 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a mounting bracket secured to the bumper beam, wherein the first attachment mechanism is configured to be secured to the mounting bracket (See annotated Figure 3 of Kari).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4: The tow hook system of claim 1 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a gusset (See annotated Figure 12 of Kari), wherein: the second attachment mechanism is configured to be secured to the gusset (See Figure 12 of Kari) and the gusset is configured to be secured to the fender apron (Fender apron of Warner, gusset is shown secured to subframe 16 in Figures 11 and 12 of Kari), causing the second attachment mechanism to be secured to the fender apron via the gusset.
PNG
media_image2.png
665
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5: The tow hook system of claim 4 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a spacer member (See annotated Figure 12 of Kari) positioned between the gusset and the fender apron.
In regards to claim 6: The tow hook system of claim 1 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the tow hook has a laterally offset shape, having a front side and a rear side, configured to enable the tow hook to be secured to the bumper beam and the fender apron (See annotated Figure 8 of Kari).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7: The tow hook system of claim 6 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the first attachment mechanism is positioned along the front side of the tow hook, and the second attachment mechanism is positioned along the rear side of the tow hook (refer to annotated Figure 8 of Kari above as well as figures 1 and 4 of Kari).
In regards to claim 9: Kari teaches a tow hook system, comprising: a vehicle (2), comprising:
a bumper plate (48); and
a frame subassembly (16); and
a tow hook (10a and 10b), comprising:
a first attachment mechanism (12 and 62) configured to secure the tow attachment to the bumper beam (See Figure 3 where hook 10a is indirectly secured to bumper beam 48) of a vehicle (2); and
a second attachment mechanism (14) configured to secure the tow hook to a subframe (16) of the vehicle,
wherein the tow hook is configured to transfer a load from the tow hook to the subframe (See at least Figure 4).
Kari fails to teach wherein the subframe 16 is a fender apron. However, Warner teaches a bracket for connecting a hitch assembly to fender aprons (Column 2 lines 41-43) to allow for reinforcement and stiffening elements for carrying loads in an obscure place to protect aesthetic qualities (Column 1 lines 35-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the subframe member of Kari that the two hook attaches to be a fender apron as in Warner to allow for an obscure but reinforced coupling thereby increasing the durability of the tow hook connection while maintaining or increasing visual aesthetic with an obscure connection.
In regards to claim 10: The tow hook system of claim 9 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the first attachment mechanism comprises a plate (62 of Kari).
In regards to claim 11: The tow hook system of claim 9 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a mounting bracket secured to the bumper beam, wherein the first attachment mechanism is configured to be secured to the mounting bracket (See annotated Figure 3 of Kari above under the rejection of claim 3).
In regards to claim 12: The tow hook system of claim 9 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a gusset (See annotated Figure 12 of Kari above), wherein: the second attachment mechanism is configured to be secured to the gusset (See Figure 12 of Kari) and the gusset is configured to be secured to the fender apron (Fender apron of Warner, gusset is shown secured to subframe 16 in Figure 11 and 12 of Kari), causing the second attachment mechanism to be secured to the fender apron via the gusset.
In regards to claim 13: The tow hook system of claim 12 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a spacer member (See annotated Figure 12 of Kari above) positioned between the gusset and the fender apron.
In regards to claim 14: The tow hook system of claim 9 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the tow hook has a laterally offset shape, having a front side and a rear side, configured to enable the tow hook to be secured to the bumper beam and the fender apron (See annotated Figure 8 of Kari above under the rejection of claim 6).
In regards to claim 15: The tow hook system of claim 14 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches wherein the first attachment mechanism is positioned along the front side of the tow hook, and the second attachment mechanism is positioned along the rear side of the tow hook (refer to annotated Figure 8 of Kari above as well as figures 1 and 4 of Kari).
In regards to claim 17: The tow hook system of claim 1 is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination further teaches a vehicle (2 of Kari).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kari in view of Warner and further in view of Williams (US 2024/0116317 A1).
In regards to claims 8 and 16: The tow hook system and vehicle of claims 1 and 9 respectively is taught by Kari in view of Warner. The combination fails to teach wherein the tow hook is configured to bend downwardly with an application of a load above a threshold load, causing less than all of the load to be transferred to the fender apron. However, Williams teaches a tow hook 156 that is flexible and capable of folding (Paragraph 0025: “Referring again to FIGS. 1 and 2, upon a force exceeding a threshold being applied against the front end 104 of the vehicle 100 in a front end collision, the central portion 135 of the crush box 130 crushes and allows for the front bumper 108 and the vehicle frame 128 to “crush” together in a predictable manor. […] In embodiments, upon the front end collision to the vehicle 100, the attachment cord 150 may compress, fold, or otherwise collapse so as to not interfere with the crushing of the front bumper 108, the crush box 130, and the vehicle frame 128.”) during a collision to minimize damage to other vehicle components (Paragraph 0027) causing less than all of the load to be transferred (examiner notes that a flexible hook as in Williams folding down during a collision would transmit little none of the original collision load applied to it). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extending loop portion of the tow hook of Kari be flexible and capable of folding as in Williams to protect additional vehicle components or pedestrians as in Williams thereby creating a safer and more durable vehicle and tow assembly especially in the instance of collision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 7 Paragraphs 5 and 6 that the tow hook of the relied upon Kari reference is not secured to the bumper beam (relied upon 48 of the Kari reference).
The Office Action likens the recited "bumper beam" of claim 1 to the bumper beam 48 of Kari, likens the recited "tow hook" of claim 1 to the recovery hook 10 (e.g., left recovery hook 10A and right recovery hook lOB) of Kari, and likens the recited "first attachment mechanism" of claim 1 to the first fastener 12 and top portion 62 of bracket 8. However, from the foregoing, it can be appreciated that Kari couples a recovery hook 10 (e.g., 10A, lOB) to the subframe 16 via the first and second fasteners 12, 14. This is very different from a configuration in which the recovery hook 10 is attached to the bumper 48 via the first and second fasteners 12, 14.
Accordingly, Kari fails to teach or suggest "a tow hook, comprising: a first attachment mechanism configured to secure the tow hook to the bumper beam", as recited in claim 1. Warner is relied upon for other claim features and fails to remedy this deficiency.
Examiner notes that the tow hook is not directly secured to the bumper beam. However, as stated above in the rejection of claim 1, the tow hook is secured to the bumper beam indirectly (Shown in Figure 3 and seen also in Figure 2, and more generally Figure 1). The claim does not require that the tow hook be directly secured to the bumper beam.
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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights