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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, on the third to last line, “peripheral wall” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagiwa US 6,637,786.
Regarding claim 1, Yamagiwa discloses:
A sacrificial composite part (1; Figs. 1-4) that absorbs the energy released when a vehicle collides with an impacting object (see the abstract lines 1-3; as illustrated by the arrow in Fig. 1), said part (1; Figs. 1-4) consisting of an assembly of a plurality of cells (as identified in annotated Fig. 3 below), each cell comprising a wall (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 below), connecting a first end (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 below), and a second end (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 below), of said cell, the direction of penetration (as identified on the right edge of annotated Fig. 4 below), of the impacting object (as illustrated by the arrow in Fig. 1) into said part (1; Figs. 1-4) extending from said first end towards said second end, said part being characterized in that the peripheral wall (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 below) of each cell has a thickness decreasing from said first end (with thickness t2 in annotated Fig. 4 below) towards said second end ( thick thickness t1 in annotated Fig. 4 below) of said cell, in the direction of penetration (as identified on the right edge of annotated Fig. 4 below) of the impacting object (the object as illustrated by the arrow in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
880
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 1, as explained above, characterized in that each of the cells (as identified in annotated Fig. 3 above), of which it is composed has an internal cross-section whose surface area (the perimeter area defined by the peripheral wall of each cell) increases from said first end (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 above) towards said second end (as identified in annotated Fig. 4 above) of said cell, in the direction of penetration of the impacting object because the perimeter of the peripheral walls increases from the first end to the second end due to the thinning thereof, where the greater perimeter of the peripheral walls near the second end of the wall results in a greater surface area.
Regarding claim 5, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 2, as explained above, characterized in that the cross-section of the cells (as identified in annotated Fig. 3 above) is substantially square (see annotated Fig. 3 above), i.e., polygonal.
Regarding claim 6, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 5, as explained above, characterized in that the cross-section of the cells (as identified in annotated Fig. 3 above) is substantially square or rectangular (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 9, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 1, as explained above, characterized in that it comprises a connecting bar (3; annotated Fig. 4 above) overhanging the cells as viewed in the direction of penetration (as identified on the right edge of annotated Fig. 4 below) of the impacting object (the object as illustrated by the arrow in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagiwa US 6,637,786 in view of Glance US 6,443,513
Regarding claim 3, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 2, as explained above, except that the cross-section of the cells is generally circular.
However, Glance discloses an energy absorber, i.e., sacrificial composite part, (10; Fig. 1) which includes a plurality of cells defined by a peripheral wall (18; Fig. 1), where the cross section of the cells is circular (as shown in Fig. 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Glance reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Glance reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to energy absorbing structures, as the Yamagiwa reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the cells of Yamagiwa to have a generally circular cross section as taught by Glance with a reasonable expectation of success so that they cells are collapsible in an axial direction when subjected to an axial load. Motivation provided by Glance in col. 5, lines 14-16.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagiwa US 6,637,786 in view of Glance US 6,443,513.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 2, as explained above. Furthermore, in an alternate interpretation of Yamagiwa, the plurality of cells are interpreted as identified in annotated Fig. 3 below, where adjacent cells are connected by a connecting element as identified in annotated Fig. 3 below. Note that the connecting elements are in the form of a partition (as identified in annotated Fig. 3 below) between an interior space inside the composite part and the space external to the composite part, as shown in annotated Fig. 3 below
PNG
media_image3.png
758
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, regarding claims 3 and 4, Yamagata does not disclose that the cross-section of the cells is generally circular,
However, Glance discloses an energy absorber, i.e., sacrificial composite part, (10; Fig. 1 below) which includes a plurality of cells defined by a peripheral wall (as identified in annotated Fig. 1 below) where the cross section of the cells is circular (as shown in Fig. 1 below). Adjacent ones of the plurality of cells are connected by a connecting element in the form of a partition between an interior space inside the composite part and the space external to the composite part, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below
PNG
media_image4.png
885
1021
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention construct the cells of Yamagiwa to have a generally circular cross section as taught by Glance with a reasonable expectation of success so that they cells are collapsible in an axial direction when subjected to an axial load. Motivation provided by Glance in col. 5, lines 14-16.
The resultant composite part construction of Yamagiwa , as modified by Glance, is such that each cell is of circular cross-section connected to at least one adjacent cell by means of a connecting element in the form of a partition, the thickness of which decreases in the direction of penetration of the impacting object, as recited in claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagiwa US 6,637,786 in view of Goupy et al. US 4,029,350.
Regarding claim 7, Yamagiwa discloses
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 5, as explained above, except that the cross-section of the cells is hexagonal.
However, Goupy et al. disclose an energy absorber, i.e., sacrificial composite part, (2; Fig. 2) which has a plurality of cells with a hexagonal cross-section as shown in Fig. 3.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Goupy et al reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Goupy et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to energy absorbing structures, as the BASE reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the cells of Yamagiwa to have a hexagonal cross section as taught by Goupy et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a desired energy absorbing performance for different applications of the sacrificial composite part, where cells having a hexagonal cross-section perform better than cells with a square or rectangular cross-section.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagiwa US 6,637,786 in view of Tyan et al. US 10,220,881.
Regarding claim 8, Yamagiwa discloses:
The sacrificial composite part according to claim 1, as explained above, except that it comprises a lower sole considering the direction of penetration of the impacting object.
However, Tyan et al. disclose an energy absorber (600; Fig. 6A) comprising a plurality of cellular structures 602 with a lower sole (606; Fig. 6A) and connecting bar (604; Fig. 6A) to overlie the exposed surfaces of the cellular structures.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Tyan et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Tyan et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to energy absorbing structures, as the Yamagiwa reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the sacrificial composite part of Yamagiwa with a lower sole as taught by Tyan et al. with a reasonable expectation of success which serves to achieve a desired energy absorbing performance for different applications of the sacrificial composite part, specifically, when covering the open second ends of the cells of Yamagiwa et al. perform better than open ended cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 104890604A discloses an energy absorber with a plurality of cells having walls with tapering thicknesses.
Salloum et al. US 3,933,387 disclose a vehicle bumper construction including layers of cellular energy absorbing panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612