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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US Pat 6,746,061) in view of Matecki et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0159300).
Regarding claim 1, Evans discloses a reinforcement structure comprising: an inner member 12 at least partially secured within a shell 11 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 31-43); wherein the inner member 12 includes one or more cavities formed by one or more walls 15-19, 25-26 of the inner member 12 wherein the one or more cavities extend along an entire length of the inner member 12 and are open at each terminal end of the inner member 12 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 44-59), and wherein at least one cavity is enclosed along its entire length and open at each terminal end of the inner member 12; wherein the inner member 12 is secured within the shell 11 so that one or more abutment portions 13, 14 of the inner member 12 are positioned in receiving portions 22, 23 of the shell 11, respectively, to create at least a partial press-fit condition between the inner member 12 and the shell 11 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 20-34); and wherein the shell 11 and the inner member 12 are adapted to be secured to one another free of secondary fasteners, welds, adhesive, or combination thereof (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 20-34).
Evans fails to disclose the shell, the inner member, or both are a fiber-reinforced composite material and the shell and/or the inner member are pultruded.
Matecki et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell 60 and an inner member 70 (see Paragraph 32). The inner member 70 is made from composite fiber-reinforced material and can be pultruded so that the fibers can be longer and extend over a greater area of the component and be arranged in an optimal pattern for optimal reinforcement properties (see Paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to pultrude the inner member of Evans from fiber reinforced composite, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the inner member to be formed with fibers in an optimal pattern having optimal reinforcement properties, as taught by Matecki et al..
Regarding claim 3, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1, wherein the inner member 12 includes one or more ribs 27-32 projecting from the one or more walls 15-19 to further define the one or more cavities (see Figures 1-3; Col. 3, lines 44-59).
Regarding claim 4, Evans discloses a reinforcement structure 10 comprising: an inner member 12 entirely received within a shell 11 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 31-43); wherein the inner member 12 is each extruded (see Col. 4, lines 12-15); wherein the inner member 12 is secured within the shell 11 so that one or more abutment portions 13, 14 of the inner member 12 are positioned in receiving portions 22, 23 of the shell 11, respectively (see Figures 1-3; Col. 4, lines 20-34); wherein the inner member 12 includes one or more cavities formed by one or more walls 15-19, 25-26 of the inner member 12 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 37-59); wherein the reinforcement structure 10 further includes one or more brackets 43’, 44’ secured to the shell 11, the one or more brackets 43’, 44’ including one or more projections 45’ configured to mount the reinforcement structure 10 to one or more additional structures 40 (see Figure 1; Col. 5, lines 6-20).
Evans fails to disclose that the shell is extruded or pultruded.
Matecki et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell 60 and an inner member 70 (see Figures 1-2; Paragraph 32). The inner member 70 is made from composite fiber-reinforced material and can be pultruded so that the fibers can be longer and extend over a greater area of the component and be arranged in an optimal pattern for optimal reinforcement properties (see Paragraph 26). The shell 52 is made from extruded aluminum because of its lightweight properties, strength, and efficiency in manufacturing (see Paragraphs 18, 25, and 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the shell of Evans from extruded aluminum, with a reasonable expectation of success, because of its lightweight properties, strength, and efficiency in manufacturing, as taught by Matecki et al..
Regarding claim 5, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure 10 according to claim 1, wherein the inner member 12 includes a plurality of retaining features 14 that contact an inner surface of the shell 11 to maintain the at least partial press-fit condition between the shell 11 and the inner member 12 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 20-34).
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose that the plurality of retaining features are positioned on the shell to contact an outer surface of the inner member.
However, it has been held by In re Japikse 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) that shifting the position of a starting switch was held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the retaining features of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., on the shell in order to contact an outer surface of the inner member to maintain the at least partial press-fit condition between the shell and the inner member, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the particular placement of the retaining features is an obvious matter of design choice and would serve to protect the retaining features from being broken off or damaged prematurely during the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 8, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure 10 according to claim 1, wherein the shell 11 is a monolithically formed, enclosed structure having opposing openings at terminal ends of the shell 11 (see Figure 1; Col. 3, lines 31-59; Col. 4, lines 20-59).
Regarding claim 10, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure 10 according to claim 4, wherein the shell 11 and the inner member 12 are extruded separately and the inner member 12 is inserted into the shell 11 to create the press-fit condition (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 20-59).
Regarding claim 16, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 4.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose the shell, the inner member, or both are a fiber-reinforced composite material and the shell and/or the inner member.
Matecki et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell 60 and an inner member 70 (see Paragraph 32). The inner member 70 is made from composite fiber-reinforced material and can be pultruded so that the fibers can be longer and extend over a greater area of the component and be arranged in an optimal pattern for optimal reinforcement properties (see Paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to pultrude the inner member of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., from a fiber-reinforced composite, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the inner member to be formed with fibers in an optimal pattern having optimal reinforcement properties, as taught by Matecki et al..
Regarding claim 18, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 4, wherein the shell 11 and the inner member 12 are secured to one another free of secondary fasteners, welds, adhesive, or combination thereof (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 20-59).
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Czopek et al. (US Pat 8,505,990).
Regarding claim 5, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fail to disclose the shell includes a plurality of retaining features that contact an outer surface of the inner member to maintain the at least partial press-fit condition between the shell and the inner member.
Czopek et al. disclose a reinforcement structure 12 having a shell 14 and an inner member 16 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 1-6). The inner member 16 has plurality of retaining features 56, 57 that contact an inner surface of the shell 14 to maintain at least a partial press-fit condition between the shell 14 and the inner member 16 (see Figures 3-5; Col. 3, lines 52-67). The reinforcement structure 12 uses a connection feature that allows the inner member 16 to be connected to another component of the bumper system (see Col. 1, lines 54-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the shell of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., with a plurality of retaining features that contact an outer surface of the inner member and maintain the partial press-fit condition between the shell and the inner member, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a versatile connection feature that does not require additional fasteners, as taught by Czopek et al..
Regarding claim 21, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 4.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose that the inner member is at least partially secured to the shell by a male portion of the shell or inner member being positioned within a female portion of the inner member or shell, respectively.
Czopek et al. disclose a reinforcement structure 12 having a shell 14 and an inner member 16 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 1-6). The inner member 16 has plurality of retaining features 56, 57 that contact an inner surface of the shell 14 to maintain at least a partial press-fit condition between the shell 14 and the inner member 16 (see Figures 3-5; Col. 3, lines 52-67). The retaining features are a male portion 56, 57 of the inner member 16 being positioned in a female portion 60, 61 of the shell 14 (see Figures 3-5; Col. 4, lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to at least partially secure the inner member to the shell of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., with a male portion of the inner member being positioned within a female portion of the shell, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a versatile connection feature that does not require additional fasteners, as taught by Czopek et al..
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Russell et al. (US Pat 8,672,371).
Regarding claim 6, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 5.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose the retaining features are a plurality of undulations along an inner surface of the shell.
Russell et al. disclose a reinforcement structure comprising: an inner member 10 at least partially secured within a shell 30 (see Figures 1 and 11; Col. 2, lines 43-51); wherein the inner member 30 includes one or more cavities 15 formed by one or more walls 16 of the inner member 10 (see Figure 5; Col. 3, lines 1-8); wherein the inner member 10 is secured within the shell 30 so that one or more abutment portions 18 of the inner member 10 are positioned in receiving portions 33 of the shell 30, respectively, to create at least a partial press-fit condition between the inner member 10 and the shell 30 (see Col. 3, lines 30-41). The shell further includes a plurality of retaining features 18 that contact an outer surface 17 of the inner member 10 to maintain the at least partial press-fit condition between the shell 30 and the inner member 10 (see Figures 1 and 11; Col. 3, lines 30-41). The retaining features 18 are in contact with an outer surface 17 of the inner member 10 because they are formed on the outer surface 17 (see Figures 5-10). The retaining features 18 are a plurality of undulations along an inner surface 34 of the shell 30 (see Figures 1 and 5-11; Col. 3, lines 16-41). When in use, the retaining features 18 are provided along the inner surface 33 of the shell 30 to form a frictional, or "press-fit", condition between the shell 30 and inner member 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the retaining features of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., as a plurality of undulations along an inner surface of the shell, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a frictional condition between the shell and inner member and retain the inner member in position, as taught by Russell et al..
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Crespo et al. (US Pat 9,139,319).
Regarding claim 8, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose the shell includes one or more notches recessed from an outer surface of the shell.
Crespo et al. disclose a reinforcement structure 1 for a vehicle having a shell 2 in which a notch 4 is recessed from an outer surface of the shell 2 and an inner member 12 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 4, lines 11- 22; Col. 5, lines 3-15). The notch 4 of the shell 2 ensures that deformation resulting from a collision is more localized and deceleration peaks are lessened (see Figure 1; Col. 3, lines 31-38; Col. 5, lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the shell of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., having one or more notches recessed from an outer surface of the shell, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that deformation resulting from a collision is more localized and deceleration peaks are lessened, as taught by Crespo et al..
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Molnar (US Pat 4,671,550).
Regarding claim 11, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1, wherein the inner member is pultruded.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose that the shell is pultruded.
Molnar discloses a bumper beam 10 that is formed from a composite fiber-reinforced material by the use of a conventional pultrusion process and later filled with an energy absorber, or inner member (see Figures 1-6; Col. 2, lines 21-28; Col. 3, line 25-Col. 4, line 10). The composite material is used for its strength and resistance to bending and plastic deformation (see Col. 4, lines 10-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to pultrude the shell of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., from a composite fiber-reinforced material, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a strong beam that resists bending and plastic deformation, as taught by Molnar.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Pedersen (US Pat 6,343,820).
Regarding claim 15, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 3.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose the one or more ribs is a single rib extending between opposing walls of the inner member to form a pair of cavities.
Pedersen discloses a bumper beam having a cross section with a dividing wall 1d, or “rib”, that extends perpendicularly from an inner wall portion 1b, dividing the interior section of the beam into two chambers 1e, 1f (see Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the inner member of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., with a single rib extending between opposing walls of the inner member to form a pair of cavities, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Pedersen, to provide a reinforcing member that is lightweight and doesn’t require a significant amount of extra material.
Claims 17, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Khan et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0281711).
Regarding claim 17, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 4.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose the fiber-reinforced composite material contains one or more adhesive components.
Khan et al. disclose a bumper beam 30 made from a fiber-reinforced composite material (see Paragraphs 23). The fiber-reinforced composite can include additives such as maleric anhydrate, an adhesive, to enhance interlaminar strength (see Paragraph 36). The fiber-reinforced composite material is coated with an adhesive to keep form while being heated, giving the fiber-reinforced composite material an adhesive component (see Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more adhesive components in the fiber-reinforced composite material of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase interlaminar strength and ensure the beam keeps form while being heated, as taught by Khan et al..
Regarding claim 20, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure of claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose that the inner member is a thermoactivated composite material.
Khan et al. disclose a bumper beam 30 made from a fiber-reinforced composite material (see Paragraphs 23). The fiber-reinforced composite material is made from a thermoplastic resin or thermoset resin coated with an adhesive to keep form while being heated, giving the fiber-reinforced composite material an adhesive component (see Paragraphs 26, 35 and 38). The use of a thermoactivated composite material allows for versatility in the form and strength of the beam, as well as simplicity of formation (see Paragraph 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermoactivated composite material as the fiber-reinforced composite material of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al.,, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide flexibility in the form and strength of the beam, as taught by Khan et al..
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Carpenter et al. (US Pat 5,139,297).
Regarding claim 24, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose at least the cavity that is enclosed along its length includes an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure.
Carpenter et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having an inner member 16, a shell 8, and an insert 10 (see Figure ; Col. 3, lines 33-55). The insert 10 fills a cavity 37 formed by the inner member 16 (see Figure 3; Col. 4, lines 11-20). The insert 10 can be a single block or can extend the entire length of the reinforcement structure (see Col. 3, lines 58-63). The insert 10 is used to absorb energy of an impact load by putting the energy absorbing material in compression and decreasing overall deformation of the reinforcement structure (see Col. 4, lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct at least the cavity of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., enclosed along its length to include an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase resistance to deformation of the reinforcement member and absorb energy of an impact load, as taught by Carpenter et al..
Regarding claim 25, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Carpenter et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 24.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Carpenter, fails to disclose that the insert extends along a length of the reinforcement structure.
Carpenter et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having an inner member 16, a shell 8, and an insert 10 (see Figure ; Col. 3, lines 33-55). The insert 10 fills a cavity 37 formed by the inner member 16 (see Figure 3; Col. 4, lines 11-20). The insert 10 can be a single block or can extend the entire length of the reinforcement structure (see Col. 3, lines 58-63). The insert 10 is used to absorb energy of an impact load by putting the energy absorbing material in compression and decreasing overall deformation of the reinforcement structure (see Col. 4, lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the insert of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al and Carpenter et al., to extend along a length of the reinforcement structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase resistance to deformation of the reinforcement member and absorb energy of an impact load, as taught by Carpenter et al..
Regarding claim 26, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Carpenter et al. twice, discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 25.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Carpenter et al. twice, fails to disclose that the insert extends along an entire length of the reinforcement structure.
Carpenter et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having an inner member 16, a shell 8, and an insert 10 (see Figures 1-3; Col. 3, lines 33-55). The insert 10 fills a cavity 37 formed by the inner member 16 (see Figure 3; Col. 4, lines 11-20). The insert 10 can be a single block or can extend the entire length of the reinforcement structure (see Figures 2 and 5; Col. 3, lines 58-63). The insert 10 is used to absorb energy of an impact load by putting the energy absorbing material in compression and decreasing overall deformation of the reinforcement structure (see Col. 4, lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the insert of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al and Carpenter et al. twice, to extend along an entire length of the reinforcement structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase resistance to deformation of the reinforcement member and absorb energy of an impact load along the entire reinforcement structure, as taught by Carpenter et al..
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Czaplicki et al. (US Pat 7,318,873).
Regarding claim 24, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose at least the cavity that is enclosed along its length includes an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure.
Czaplicki et al. disclose a reinforcement member having an inner member 72, a shell 82, and an insert 70 positioned in a cavity 76 formed by the inner member and enclosed along an entire length of the reinforcement member (see Figures 3-5; Col. 8, lines 29-66). The insert 72 provides increased resistance to deformation for the reinforcement member 90 (see Col. 8, lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct at least the cavity of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., enclosed along its length to include an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, to increase resistance to deformation of the reinforcement member, as taught by Czaplicki et al..
Regarding claim 28, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Czaplicki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 24.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Czaplicki et al., fails to disclose the insert is co-extruded, co-pultruded, or both with the shell, the inner member, or both.
Czaplicki et al. disclose a reinforcement member 10 having an inner member 12, a shell 14, and an insert 22 positioned along an entire length of the reinforcement member (see Figures 3-5; Col. 8, lines 29-66). The insert 22 is formed by co-extrusion with the inner member 12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the insert of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al. and Czaplicki et al., by co-extrusion with the shell or inner member, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Czaplicki et al., to reduce the number of steps and amount of time required for manufacturing.
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., in view of Belpaire et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0206890).
Regarding claim 24, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., disclose the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose at least the cavity that is enclosed along its length includes an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure.
Belpaire et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell 19 and an inner member 24 forming a cavity 22 that includes an insert 30 that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure (see Figures 7-11; Paragraphs 33-36). The insert 30 functions to better address stresses applied to the reinforcement structure (see Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct at least the cavity of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., enclosed along its length to include an insert that locally reinforces the reinforcement structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, to better addresses stresses applied to the reinforcement structure, as taught by Belpaire et al..
Regarding claim 29, Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., discloses the reinforcement structure according to claim 1.
Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., fails to disclose that the reinforcement structure includes an insert positioned between the shell and the inner member prior to securing the inner member to the shell.
Belpaire et al. disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell 19 and an inner member 24 forming a cavity 22 that includes an insert 30 that reinforces the reinforcement structure (see Figures 7-11; Paragraphs 33-36). The insert 30 is positioned between the inner member 24 and the shell 19 (see Figure 9; Paragraph 35). The insert 30 functions to better address stresses applied to the reinforcement structure (see Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the reinforcement structure of Evans, as modified by Matecki et al., with an insert positioned between the shell and the inner member prior to securing the inner member to the shell, with a reasonable expectation of success, to better addresses stresses applied to the reinforcement structure, as taught by Belpaire et al..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-11,15-18,20-21,24-26, and 28-29 have been considered. The new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ralston et al. (US Pat 8,016,331) disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell with retaining members and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member. Ralston et al. (US Pat 8,196,979) disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell with retaining members and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member. Okabe et al. (US Pat 7,338,099) disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell with retaining members and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member with a single rib making a pair of cavities. Glance (US PG Pub 2002/0060462) discloses a reinforcement structure having a shell with retaining members and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member. Beekman (US Pat 4,856,833) discloses a reinforcement structure having a shell and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member. Maeda et al. (US Pat 10,787,137) disclose a reinforcement structure having a shell with retaining members and an inner member including one or more cavities formed by one or more walls of the inner member with a single rib forming a pair of cavities.
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