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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 8-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/10/2025. Claims 1-5 and 8-26 have been rejected as follows.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steffens et al (US 2017/0073017).
Regarding claim 1, Steffens et al discloses a reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (abstract), the member (1, Fig. 1) comprising a first component (9, Fig. 1-2) made of steel (paragraph [0067], lines 1-5); and a second component (10, Fig. 1-2) secured to a portion (12, Fig. 1) of the first component (9, Fig. 1-2), wherein the second component (10, Fig. 1-2) is made of a reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], line 3), wherein, the reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) with the combination of the second component (10, Fig. 1-2) and the first component (9, Fig. 1-2) is configured to absorb impact energy (paragraph [0033], lines 16-37).
Regarding claim 2, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the steel is hot stamped boron steel (paragraphs [0040] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the hot stamped boron steel is a 22MnB5 grade boron steel (paragraph [0040], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 5, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (10, Fig. 1-2) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], lines 3-4) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], line 3).
Regarding claim 9, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the second component (9, Fig. 1-2) is secured to the first component (10, Fig. 1-2) covering area (12, Fig. 1) ranging from 60% to 90% of the first component (60%, paragraph [0079], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the second component (10, Fig. 1-2) is secured to the portion of the first component (9, Fig. 1-2) through bonding process (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the first component (9, Fig. 1-2) is defined with flanges (4, 13; Fig. 2) on either end, the flanges (4, 13; Fig. 2) are configured to secure the first component (9, Fig. 1-2) to a portion of the vehicle (attaching to the base of the vehicle body; paragraph [0071], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 13, Steffens et al further discloses wherein the profile of the first component (9, Fig. 1-2) complements (9 fits into the grooves of 10) the profile of the second component (10, Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Steffens et al discloses a method of manufacturing a structural reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) of claim 1, the method comprises securing a first component (9, Fig. 1-2) made of steel (paragraph [0067], lines 1-5) of pre-determined dimensions to a second component (10, Fig. 1-2) of reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], line 3) through a bonding process (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 16, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the steel is an advanced high strength steel [AHSS] selected from a group comprising of boron steel (paragraph [0040], line 6), DP780 steel and DP980 steel.
Regarding claim 17, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the steel is hot stamped boron steel (paragraphs [0040] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the hot stamped boron steel is a 22MnB5 grade boron steel (paragraph [0040], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 19, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (10, Fig. 1-2) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], lines 3-4) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], line 3).
Regarding claim 20, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein reinforced polymers (10, Fig. 1-2) are molded by orienting fibers in a pre-defined orientation (paragraph [0068], lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 21, Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 20 above, and further discloses wherein the pre-defined orientation is at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation (parallel 0/0 or perpendicular 0/90 orientation, paragraph [0068], lines 6-13).
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, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896) in view of Steffens et al (US 2017/0073017).
Regarding claim 1, Ganesan et al discloses a reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) for a vehicle (paragraphs [0001] & [0090], lines 3-5), the member (1, Fig. 1) comprising a first component (2, Fig. 1) made of steel (paragraph [0066]); and a second component (3, Fig. 1) secured to a portion of the first component (2, Fig. 1), wherein the second component (3, Fig. 1) is made of a reinforced polymer (paragraphs [0068] - [0072]), wherein, the reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) with the combination of the second component (3, Fig. 1) and the first component (2, Fig. 1) is configured to absorb impact energy (paragraph [0012]). However, Ganesan et al does not expressly disclose the reinforced polymer is molded by orienting fibers in at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation.
Steffens et al teaches the use of a reinforced polymer that is molded by orienting fibers in at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation (parallel 0/0 or perpendicular 0/90 orientation, paragraph [0068], lines 6-13) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members. Steffens discloses the “individual fibres of the fibre composite material can be arranged in as scrim, in which the fibres, ideally, are arranged in parallel… additional fibres are orientated perpendicularly…” as it is known that unidirectional fiber orientation provides maximum strength and stiffness and bidirectional fiber orientation provides balanced strength and buckling prevention.
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 vehicle reinforcement component of Ganesan et al by using the type of reinforced polymer as taught by Steffens et al. Doing so would improve reinforcement by significantly affecting the energy absorption of the beam during a side-impact as well as to allow for a strong and lightweight structure.
Regarding claim 2, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, including a first component made using a high strength steel (Ganesan et al - paragraph [0066]), and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the steel is hot stamped boron steel (paragraphs [0040] & [0041]) which provides high tensile strength to resist intrusion and absorb crash energy during a side-impact as well as allow for a strong and lightweight structure.
Regarding claim 3, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 2 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the hot stamped boron steel is a 22MnB5 grade boron steel (paragraph [0040], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 5, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (3, Fig. 1) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0069]) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0072]). Additionally, Steffens et al discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (10, Fig. 1-2) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], lines 3-4) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0068], line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the second component (3, Fig. 1-3) is secured at a substantially central portion (paragraph [0011], lines 5-9; Fig. 1-3) of the first component (2, Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the second component (9, Fig. 1-2) is secured to the first component (10, Fig. 1-2) covering area (12, Fig. 1) ranging from 60% to 90% of the first component (60%, paragraph [0079], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the second component (3, Fig. 1) is secured to the portion of the first component (2, Fig. 1) through bonding process (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) is a door intrusion beam of the vehicle (paragraphs [0001] & [0090], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the profile of the first component (2, Fig. 1a) complements (3 fits into the grooves or cavities of 2) the profile of the second component (3, Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 15, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses a method of manufacturing a structural reinforcement member (1, Fig. 1) of claim 1, the method comprises securing a first component (2, Fig. 1) made of steel (paragraph [0066]) of pre-determined dimensions to a second component (3, Fig. 1) of reinforced polymer (paragraphs [0068] - [0072]) through a bonding process (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the steel is an advanced high strength steel [AHSS] selected from a group comprising of boron steel (paragraph [0040], line 6), DP780 steel and DP980 steel.
Regarding claim 17, Ganesan et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, including a first component made using a high strength steel (Ganesan et al - paragraph [0066]), and Steffens further discloses wherein the steel is hot stamped boron steel (paragraphs [0040] & [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the hot stamped boron steel is a 22MnB5 grade boron steel (paragraph [0040], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 19, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (3, Fig. 1) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0069]) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 20, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 15 above, including a second component made of a reinforced polymer (Ganesan et al - paragraphs [0068] - [0072]), and Steffens et al further discloses wherein reinforced polymers (10, Fig. 1-2) are molded by orienting fibers in a pre-defined orientation (paragraph [0068], lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 21, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 20 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the pre-defined orientation is at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation (parallel 0/0 or perpendicular 0/90 orientation, paragraph [0068], lines 6-13).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896) in view of Steffens et al (US 2017/0073017) further in view of Matecki (US 2021/0024022).
Regarding claim 4, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and a first component made using high strength steel (Ganesan et al - paragraph [0066]). However, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al does not expressly disclose wherein the steel is advanced high strength steel [AHSS] selected from a group comprising of DP780 steel and DP980 steel.
Matecki teaches an impact reinforcement beam (12, Fig. 2) made of steel wherein the steel is advanced high strength steel [AHSS] (paragraph [0048], lines 4-20) selected from a group comprising of DP780 steel and DP980 steel (paragraph [0048], lines 16-17) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members.
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 vehicle reinforcement component of Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al by using the type of steel as taught by Matecki. Doing so would efficiently absorb impact energy while minimizing the weight of the beam.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896) in view of Steffens et al (US 2017/0073017) further in view of Baccouche et al (US 2018/0141415).
Regarding claim 11, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al does not expressly disclose wherein the first component (2, Fig. 1) is defined with flanges on either end, the flanges are configured to secure the first component to a portion of the vehicle.
Baccouche et al teaches a vehicle door reinforcement beam wherein the first component (16/18, Fig. 2) is defined with flanges (56, 58, Fig. 2; paragraph [0020], lines 1-12) on either end, the flanges (56, 58, Fig. 2) are configured to secure the first component (16, Fig. 2) to a portion of the vehicle (14, Fig. 2; paragraph [0019], lines 4 & 9-13) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members.
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 vehicle reinforcement component of Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al by providing the beam of Ganesan et al with flanges as taught by Baccouche et al. Doing so would secure the beam to the vehicle door so that the reinforcing beam may act as a counterforce to collision impact and reduce intrusion of the vehicle door towards the occupant (paragraph [0058], lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 14, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al does not expressly disclose wherein the profile of the first component (2, Fig. 1) and the second component (3, Fig. 1) is a corrugated profile.
Baccouche et al teaches a reinforcement beam wherein the profile of the first component (18, Fig. 3-5) and the second component (20, Fig. 3-5) is a corrugated profile (Fig. 5) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members.
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 vehicle reinforcement components of Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al by providing the components with a corrugated profile as taught by Baccouche et al. Doing so would increase the beam’s stiffness and strength without adding weight or material thickness.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccouche et al (US 2018/0141415) in view of Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896).
Regarding claim 22, Baccouche et al discloses a vehicle door (10, Fig. 1-2) comprising an inner panel (14, Fig. 2); an outer panel (52, Fig. 2; paragraph [0015], lines 1-4) connectable to the inner panel (14, Fig. 2) such that the inner panel (14, Fig. 2) and the outer panel (52, Fig. 2) define a door well (54, Fig. 2; paragraph [0018]) therebetween; and a door intrusion beam (16, Fig. 2; paragraph [0016], lines 5-8) connectable to at least one of the inner panel (14, Fig. 2) and outer panel (52, Fig. 2) and extending into the door well (54, Fig. 2; paragraph [0019], lines 1-3), the door intrusion beam (16, Fig. 2) comprises a first component (18, Fig. 2-3 & 6, paragraph [0009], lines 4-6) and a second component (20, Fig. 2-3 & 6) wherein the combination is configured to absorb impact energy (paragraph [0058]). However, Baccouche et al does not expressly disclose that the door intrusion beam (16, Fig. 1-2) comprises a first component made of steel; and a second component secured to a portion of the steel component, wherein, the door intrusion beam with the combination of the second component and the first component is configured to absorb impact energy.
Ganesan et al teaches a door intrusion beam (1, Fig. 1) comprising a first component (2, Fig. 1) made of steel (paragraph [0066]); and a second component (3, Fig. 1) secured to a portion of the first component (2, Fig. 1), wherein the second component (3, Fig. 1) is made of a reinforced polymer (paragraphs [0068] - [0072]), wherein, the door intrusion beam (1, Fig. 1) with the combination of the second component (3, Fig. 1) and the first component (2, Fig. 1) is configured to absorb impact energy (paragraph [0012]) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle side door reinforcement beams.
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 vehicle door of Baccouche et al by substituting the type of door intrusion beam as taught by Ganesan et al. Doing so would enhance the beam strength and increase the energy absorption amount by dispersing and transmitting the input impact energy across a wide range to the metal component via the polymer component.
Regarding claim 23, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 22 above, and Ganesan et al further discloses wherein the reinforced polymer (3, Fig. 1) is at least one of glass fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0069]) and carbon fiber reinforced polymer (paragraph [0072]).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccouche et al (US 2018/0141415) in view of Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896) and further in view of Steffens et al (US 2017/0073017).
Regarding claim 24, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 22 above, including a first component made using a high strength steel (paragraph 0066). However, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al does not expressly disclose wherein the steel is hot stamped boron steel.
Steffens et al teaches the use of hot stamped boron steel (paragraphs [0040] & [0041]) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members.
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 vehicle reinforcement component of Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al by using the type of steel as taught by Steffens et al. Doing so would enhance the mechanical properties of the beam by providing a high tensile strength steel to resist intrusion and absorb crash energy during a side-impact as well as allow for a strong and lightweight structure.
Regarding claim 25, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al further in view of Steffens et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 24 above, and Steffens et al further discloses wherein the hot stamped boron steel is a 22MnB5 grade boron steel (paragraph [0040], lines 6-7).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccouche et al (US 2018/0141415) in view of Ganesan et al (US 2023/0173896) and further in view of Matecki (US 2021/0024022).
Regarding claim 26, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 22 above, and a first component made using high strength steel (paragraph [0066]). However, Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al does not expressly disclose wherein the steel is advanced high strength steel [AHSS] selected from a group comprising of DP780 steel and DP980 steel.
Matecki teaches an impact reinforcement beam (12, Fig. 2) made of steel wherein the steel is advanced high strength steel [AHSS] (paragraph [0048], lines 4-20) selected from a group comprising of DP780 steel and DP980 steel (paragraph [0048], lines 16-17) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle reinforcement members.
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 vehicle reinforcement component of Baccouche et al in view of Ganesan et al by using the type of steel as taught by Matecki. Doing so would efficiently absorb impact energy while minimizing the weight of the beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of Applicant' s response, claim 1 is amended and Applicant references Ganesan et al and argues that Ganesan et al fails to disclose the pre-defined orientations of the fibres as claimed in amended claim 1. That is Ganesan et al fails to disclose the pre-defined orientation of the second component that is made of a reinforced polymer and is molded by orienting fibers in at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation as required by amended claim 1 of the claimed invention. As necessitated by the amendment, claim 1 is newly rejected as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al in view of Steffens et al set forth above, where Steffens et al is relied upon to teach fiber orientation of a reinforced polymer to be old and well known in the art.
On pages 8-9 of Applicant' s response, Applicant’s comments are noted and are narrative in form discussing the reference of Steffens et al. The arguments are focused on the aspect of the claimed invention defining a polymer molded by orienting fibers in at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation. Applicant argues that though Steffens discloses the orientations of the fiber material are positioned parallel or perpendicular to the laminated plane, Steffens fails to disclose the orientations of the fibres as claimed in claim 1. With respect to these arguments, paragraph [0068] of Steffens et al discloses the “individual fibres of the fibre composite material can be arranged in as scrim, in which the fibres, ideally, are arranged in parallel… additional fibres are orientated perpendicularly…”. It is known that unidirectional fiber orientation (0/0 orientation = parallel) provides maximum strength and stiffness and bidirectional fiber orientation (0/90 orientation = perpendicular) provides balanced strength and buckling prevention. Further, it is pointed out by the Examiner that the claim language “orienting fibers in at least one of…” in amended claim 1, line 6 only requires one of the claimed orientations to be shown to meet this claim limitation. Steffens et al discloses the orientations of the fiber material positioned parallel (0/0) or perpendicular (0/90). The orientation of fibers to achieve desired absorption of impact energy as broadly claimed is taught in Steffens et al and is well known (for example - see cited pertinent prior art, in particular, Zhang et al (CN 106080138) or Owens (US 2010/0266806)). Applicant’s reference to Table 2 on page 7, middle paragraph and on page 9, lines 5-10 of the Remarks is noted. However, the table merely establishes that there is a relationship between orientation and energy absorption, as one would expect. The statement by Applicant in reference to Table 2 that the “orientation of fibers in the claimed invention significantly affects energy absorption which enables optimum energy absorption” is not a claimed distinction. Nonetheless, the claims set forth a plurality of orientations, several of which are disclosed by the teachings of Steffens et al and as such, are considered to “enable optimum energy absorption” to the same extent as that of the current invention. Regarding Applicant’s arguments of claims 2-5, 8-14 and method claims 15-21 depending from amended claim 1, it appears that all arguments are focused on fiber orientation and no new arguments are presented.
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that claims 22-26 recite a vehicle door comprising a door intrusion beam having the same structural configuration as amended claim 1, which recites a reinforcement member for a vehicle comprising a first component made of steel and a second component secured to a portion of the first component, wherein the second component is made of a reinforced polymer, wherein the reinforced polymer is molded by orienting fibers in a pre- defined orientation, preferably, wherein the pre-defined orientation is at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation, and wherein the reinforcement member with the combination of the second component and the first component is configured to absorb impact energy. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the limitations of amended claim 1 “wherein the reinforced polymer is molded by orienting fibers in a pre-defined orientation, preferably, wherein the pre-defined orientation is at least one of 0/0 orientation, 0/90 orientation, 30/-30 orientation, 90/90 orientation and 60/-60 orientation, and wherein the reinforcement member with the combination of the second component and the first component is configured to absorb impact energy”) are not recited in the rejected claims 22-26. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Independent claim 22, rejected over Baccouche in view of Ganesan, relies on Baccouche which discloses applicant’s vehicle door structure as claimed modified by Ganesan’s teaching of a hybrid impact beam comprising steel and a reinforced polymer to absorb impact energy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/DLE/
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612