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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/28/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the recitation “wherein the first material and the third material have a first stiffness and a third stiffness” should be modified to include the term “respectively” thereafter making clear that the first material has the first stiffness and the third material has the third stiffness. Appropriate correction is required. It should be noted that this objection was not addressed in the response of 10/28/25. No amendment was made to claim 1 to overcome or obviate the objection nor were any arguments or remarks made.
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 3, 10-15, and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 11 both recite the first width is equal to the second and the third widths which is unclear as claims 2 and 10 from which these claims depend now recite that the second width is “greater than” each of the first and third widths. It doesn’t then follow that the second width can be both equal to and greater than the first and third widths.
Claims 10 and 12-15 all recite “the impact surface” (in lines 1 or 1-2) which limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 9, which previously introduced “an impact surface” has been modified and the language removed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the impact surface” in line 18 which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The previously recited “an impact surface” has been deleted.
Claim 20, recites “the impact surface” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tay et al. (10059294) in view of Townsend et al.
For claim 1, Tay et al. discloses a vehicle comprising:
a door having an interior surface (FIG.1); and
an armrest (22) disposed on the interior surface of the door,
the armrest (FIGS.3A-B) comprising
a first material (24, at one side) configured to contact the user during the collision,
a second material (30) disposed adjacent to the first material, and
a third material (24, at the opposite side) attached to the vehicle and disposed on an opposing side of the second material,
wherein the second material separates the first and third material along a length and height of the armrest,
wherein the first material and the third material have a first stiffness and a third stiffness, respectively, that are both greater than a second stiffness of the second material.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claims 9 and 17, the door of Tay et al. represents an impact surface as recited.
Tay et al. disclose the armrest having a height but fail to provide the second material being a continuous layer that extends across the planform of the armrest and separates the first and third materials along an entire length and height of the armrest, such that no portion of the first material is in direct contact with the third material.
Tay et al. do provide the overall width of the X or H shaped second material being greater than the width of either of the first or third materials. Further, Tay et al. provide alternatives to the lettered shapes shown, and specifically disclose the second material (30) may be of “any suitable shape” (Col 4, lines 53-55; Col 5, lines 29-34).
Townsend et al. (6142563) teach a vehicle comprising:
a door (38, FIG.2) having an interior surface; and
an armrest (36) disposed on the interior surface of the door,
the armrest comprising
a first material (28) configured to contact the user during the collision,
a second material (30) disposed adjacent to the first material, and
a third material (20) attached to the vehicle and disposed on an opposing side of the second material from the first material,
wherein the second material is a continuous layer that extends across the planform of the armrest and separates the first material and the third material along the entire length and height of the armrest, such that no portion (FIG.2) of the first material is in direct contact with the third material,
PNG
media_image2.png
436
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the second material separates the first material and the third material along an entire length and height of the armrest,
wherein the armrest has a total width (WT), the first material has a first width (Wi), the second material has a second width (W2), and the third material has a third width (W3), and
wherein the first material and the third material have a first stiffness and a third stiffness, respectively, distinct from a second stiffness of the second material.
Townsend et al. further disclose various alternate embodiments (FIGS.3-6) having cladding or outer walls (76, 98) and an inner component for controlling deformation and dissipating collision energy to reduce the force delivered to an occupant. The outer walls would necessarily be stiffer to allow for dissipation as anticipated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the X or H shape of the armrest of Tay et al. to reflect that which is taught by Townsend et al. where the second material is a continuous layer having a constant width that extends across the planform of the armrest and separates the first and third materials along an entire length and height of the armrest, such that no portion of the first material is in direct contact with the third material, as an obvious expedient based on required deformation or impact energy absorption (ie suitability for the intended use, design, and functional performance specifications) as well as factors including cost optimization and capacity or ease to manufacture.
For claims 2 and 10, the armrest of Tay et al., as modified above, has a total width (50), the first material has a first width, the second material has a second width, and the third material has a third width. The width of the second material of Tay et al., as modified, being greater than each of the first and third widths.
For claim 18, the first stiffness is substantially equal to the third stiffness.
For claims 4 and 12, the armrest has a height (52, FIG.2) and
wherein the first width, the second width, and the third width are uniform across the height (52) of the armrest (Col 4, lines 46-49).
For claims 5, 13, and 20, the armrest has a height (52, FIG.2) and
wherein the first, second, and third widths are not uniform across the height of the armrest (Col 5, lines 61-67). As disclosed in Tay et al., the second material (plug 30) may be below or above the height (52) of the first and third materials (substrate 24). When the armrest is sectioned at one point along its length (48, FIG.3A), a cross section of the armrest would show the first and third widths are not uniform (at the same height) as the second width because the second width would either be protruding above or below the height (52) thereof.
For claims 7 and 15, the armrest has a length (48, FIG.3A) and
wherein the first, second, and third widths are not uniform across the length (48) of the armrest (as is evident when the second material (plug 30) is of an “X” or “H” shape.
Claims 3, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tay et al., as modified and applied above.
Tay et al., as modified, disclose the armrest has a length (48).
Tay et al. fail to disclose the first, second, and third widths being equal (claims 3 and 11) or uniform (claims 6 and 14) across the length of the armrest.
Tay et al. do disclose that the second material (30) and the gap within which the second material resides may be of “any suitable shape” (Col 4, lines 53-55; Col 5, lines 29-34). This makes the record clear that other configurations (shapes) are possible such as those involving a uniform shape across the entire length of the armrest.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the shape of Tay et al., as modified, to allow for a uniform shape/width of the materials across a length of the armrest as an obvious expedient in order to tune the energy absorption characteristics of the armrest for a desired benefit during impact.
Claims 8, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tay et al., as modified, and applied above.
Tay et al. disclose the first and third materials (24,24) being rigid relative to the second material (30) (Col 6, lines 1-12) but is silent on the specific stiffness of the first and third materials being at least twice that of the stiffness of the second material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the material or material characteristics of the first and third materials of Tay et al. to be twice as stiff as the second material thereof in order to allow for improved energy absorption characteristics of the armrest. Tuning the material stiffness in this manner is known to a PHOSITA in order to achieve desired impact benefits to an occupant of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. With regard to the claim objection set forth in the prior (non final) office action and reiterated here (above) applicant has made no attempt to address the issue or argue against it.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available and 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights