DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw 1,612,948 in view of Denels 1,566,839 and Vander Togt 4,999,227.
Regarding claim 1 Shaw shows a bumper for a motor vehicle application in figure 3 comprising:
a first side edge mounting portion, as broadly claimed – not labeled-- but as per applicant’s, an intermediate portion (same) and a second side edge mounting portion (same) connected in sequence along a width direction of the anti-collision ‘bumper’, the first side edge mounting portion , the intermediate portion, and the second side edge mounting portion extending along a length direction of the anti-collision bumper, wherein a first inner side groove 6 extending along the length direction of the anti-collision bumper is formed at a junction of a first inner side surface 4 of the first side edge mounting portion and an intermediate inner side surface 5 of the intermediate portion, a second inner side groove (6) extending along the length direction of the anti-collision strip is formed at a junction of a second inner side surface 3 of the second side edge mounting portion and the intermediate inner side surface 5 of the intermediate portion.
Lacking in Shaw is a specific description of the bumper being an anti-collision ‘strip’ .
The reference to Denels is relied upon to show it is well known to make metal bumpers of the Shaw type from rubber. See element 10, which may be variable in both size and shape, and the manner of its attachment to 11.
The reference to Vander Togt is relied upon to show that automotive bumpers of the type shown by both Shaw and Denels have other applications such as for furniture. See figures 1 and 5 and the discussions at the bottom of col 5 over to the top of col 6.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have made the bumper of Shaw from a rubber/elastomer material on a much smaller scale so that it could be utilized in a furniture, or similar application, more of as a bumper guard, or ‘strip’, since Vander TOgt indicates that automobile bumpers can also have applications as protective guards for furniture if produced on a smaller scale.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, the ‘angle between’ the side surfaces at 3,5 or 4,5 i.e. the angle of any of the flange areas appear to meet the limitation of between 90 and 180 deg. Notwithstanding this argument it would have been obvious to have made these angles of between 90-180 deg simply to satisfy certain vehicle applications.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, the “cutting track” extending along the length direction of the strip is considered to be the channel/indentation (not labeled) on the opposite side of the intermediate inner side surface 5 capable of functioning as claimed.
Claim(s) 3,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw/Denels/Vander-Togt as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Mechelstein 5,496,609.
Regarding claim 3 Shaw, as modified, includes a device that can be used as a bumper guard or strip for furniture.
Lacking is the specific limitation of providing an adhesive layer with a tearable protective film.
The reference to Michelstein shows a protective bumper that can be attached to furniture and states in at least the abstract:
The adhesive is protected by a removeable tape which is discarded as the bumper is affixed to a selected object.
It would have been obvious to have provided the modified bumper of Shaw with an adhesive covered by a protective removable tape so that it may be attached to a piece of furniture.
Regarding claim 10 it would have been obvious to have supplied the modified strip of Shaw as a bundle roll for improved marketability and convenience in large applications. Note Michelstein states:” In use the bumper is envisioned as being supplied by the roll in various convenient lengths”.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw/Denels/Vander-Togt as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Bertolet 3,669,490.
Regarding claim 6 Shaw, as modified, lacks specifically making the intermediate inner side surface 5 a concave arc-shaped surface.
The reference to Bertolet also shows a bumper guard for furniture (similar in construction to Denels) and in figures 3 and 4 shows it is known that the guard may be made flexible to allow it to be attached to pieces of furniture. Note the shape of the surface at 6 and 12 in figures 3 and 4 respectively.
It would have been obvious to have incidentally made the surface 5 of Shaw (as modified) concave arc-shaped to provide a certain amount of flexibility so that it may be attached in a desired form.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,7,8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
12/14/25