DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after Aug 16, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/11/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendment have been entered. Examiner notes that claim 20 has been amended, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of argument, all the claim objections and §112(b) rejections previously presented have been withdrawn. In view of further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC §103 (details below). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see (‘Remarks’ filed 05/11/2026, pages 5-11). In view of argument, the applicant contends that the rejection made for claim 1 under 35 USC § 102, particularly the cited limitation “the front tow hook end is secured to the bumper beam, and the rear tow hook end is secured to the crush box” does not intend to describe a structure separate from the side member 1 to which the end B of the hook 8 is secured and that the claimed features are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to make up for addressing the deficiency of claim 1 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive. In light of amendment, all the limitations from the arguments are moot because a new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over Kwon in view of Asjad below does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 no obviousness.
6. Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon Jong-moon (KR19980011119 U; hereinafter, “Kwon”) in view of Asjad (US. Pub. 20090108566 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches: a tow hook system (‘Title’, figs. 1-6), comprising:
a bumper beam (1, fig. 1 and fig. 2);
a tow hook (8), comprising:
a front tow hook end (A, annotated fig. 2 below); and
wherein:
the front tow hook end (A) is secured to the bumper beam (2), and
Although Kwon teaches the bumper beam and the tow hook, the cited applicant’s argument appears to focus on Kwon’s alleged “crush box”, identified as coupling flange 2' in fig. 2 of Kwon does not appear to function as a crush box; however,
Asjad in another ‘collapsing vehicle tow hook’ similar to Kwon teaches that a crush box (14, 16; [0016]) and the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24) is secured to the crush box (14 and 16; [para. 0016 teaches: “referring to fig. 1, a motor vehicle 10 has a front-end structure 12 including a left frame rail 14 (crush box), a right frame rail 16, and a front bumper 18 that is attached to the front ends of the left frame rail 14 and right frame rail 16. A left tow hook assembly 22 is attached to the left frame rail 14 and a right tow hook assembly 24 is attached to the right frame rail 16]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Kwon to incorporate the ‘crush box’ teaching of Asjad, in such that the rear tow hook end is rigidly secured to the crush box with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously improve structural support integrity or reinforced geometry to resist deformation under towing loads better than bumper beam alone. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate.
PNG
media_image1.png
986
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figs 2-3 of Kwon
Regarding claim 2, Kwon as modified above further teaches that the front tow hook end (end A, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the bumper beam (2) in a T-direction [see annotated fig. 3 above for T-direction and T-shaped structure via groove 6 on 2].
Regarding claim 3, Kwon as modified above further teaches that the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22, 24 of Asjad; [0016 of Asjad]) is secured (via crush initiation form at bracket 28; fig. 1) to the crush box (14 and 16 of Asjad) in an L-direction (L-shaped structure; fig. 2 of Asjad).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon as modified above further teaches that the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22, 24 of Asjad; [0016 of Asjad]) is secured to the crush box (14 and 16 of Asjad) in front of a crush initiation form (via hinge bracket 28; fig. 20) of the crush box (14 and 16).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon as modified above further teaches that a bracket member (2, fig. 2) configured to secure the front tow hook end (A of Kwon) to the bumper beam (1 of Kwon; [ page 2, lines 8-15of Kwon teaches that as shown in figs. 1 to 4, the semicircular groove 6 is formed on the side surface 4 of the side member inner panel 2 of the side member 1 to which the side member outer panel 3 is welded; thus, a bracket member configured to secure the front tow hook end (A) to the bumper beam (1)]).
Regarding claim 6, Kwon as modified above further teaches that one or more bolts (two bolts 24, fig. 6) configured to secure (figs. 5 and 6 of Kwon) the front tow hook end (A of Kwon) to the bracket member (side surface 4 of bracket member 2, figs. 1-6 of Kwon).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon as modified above further teaches that the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam [‘Abstract’ of Kwon teaches: “the side member (1) to which the side member outer panel (3) is welded, and at the same time the bottom (5), a semicircular groove 7 is formed up to the coupling flange 2 '; thus, the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam.]
Regarding claim 8, Kwon as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a bracket member configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the crush box; however,
Asjad teaches that a bracket member (28; [0019]) configured to secure (via rivets and bolts; fig. 2 and [0021]) the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24) to the crush box (14 or 16; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Kwon to incorporate the teaching of Asjad and provide a bracket member configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the crush box in such that the rear tow hook end is rigidly secured to the crush box with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously improve structural support integrity or reinforced geometry to reduce risk of bumper beam distortion. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate. Accordingly, the claimed configuration represents no more than the predictable use of known structural features to achieve the expected result of securing the one end of the tow hook assembly.
Regarding claims 9, Kwon as modified above further teaches that one or more bolts (“bolts”; [0021] of Asjad) configured to secure the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24 of Asjad) to the bracket member (28 of Asjad).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon teaches: a tow hook system, comprising: a vehicle (fig. 1), comprising:
a bumper beam (1, fig. 2); and
a tow hook (8), comprising:
a front tow hook end (A, annotated fig. 2 above); and
wherein:
the front tow hook end (A) is secured to the bumper beam (2), and
Although Kwon teaches the bumper beam and the tow hook, the cited applicant’s argument appears to focus on Kwon’s alleged “crush box”, identified as coupling flange 2' in fig. 2 does not appear to function as a crush box; however,
Asjad in another ‘collapsing vehicle tow hook’ similar to Kwon teaches that a crush box (14, 16; [0016]) and the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24) is secured to the crush box (14 and 16; [para. 0016 teaches: “referring to fig. 1, a motor vehicle 10 has a front-end structure 12 including a left frame rail 14 (crush box), a right frame rail 16, and a front bumper 18 that is attached to the front ends of the left frame rail 14 and right frame rail 16. A left tow hook assembly 22 is attached to the left frame rail 14 and a right tow hook assembly 24 is attached to the right frame rail 16]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Kwon to incorporate the ‘crush box’ teaching of Asjad, in such that the rear tow hook end is rigidly secured to the crush box with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously improve structural support integrity or reinforced geometry to resist deformation under towing loads better than bumper beam alone. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate.
Regarding claim 12, Kwon further teaches that the front tow hook end (end A, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the bumper beam (2) in a T shaped structure [see annotated fig. 3 above for T-direction and T-shaped structure via groove 6 on 2].
Regarding claim 13, Kwon further teaches that the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22, 24 of Asjad; [0016 of Asjad]) is secured (via crush initiation form at bracket 28; fig. 1 of Asjad) to the crush box (14 and 16 of Asjad) in an L-direction (L-shaped structure; fig. 2 of Asjad).
Regarding claim 14, Kwon as modified above further teaches that the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22, 24 of Asjad; [0016 of Asjad]) is secured to the crush box (14 and 16 of Asjad) in front of a crush initiation form (via hinge bracket 28; fig. 1) of the crush box (14 and 16).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon further teaches that a bracket member (2, fig. 2) configured to secure the front tow hook end (A of Kwon) to the bumper beam (1; [ page 2, lines 8-15 teaches that as shown in figs. 1 to 4, the semicircular groove 6 is formed on the side surface 4 of the side member inner panel 2 of the side member 1 to which the side member outer panel 3 is welded; thus, a bracket member configured to secure the front tow hook end (A) to the bumper beam (1)]).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon further teaches that one or more bolts (two bolts 24, fig. 6 of Kwon) configured to secure (figs. 5 and 6 of Kwon) the front tow hook end (A of Kwon) to the bracket member (side surface 4 of bracket member 2, figs. 1-6 of Kwon).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon further teaches that the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam [‘Abstract’ of Kwon teaches: “the side member (1) to which the side member outer panel (3) is welded, and at the same time the bottom (5) A semicircular groove 7 is formed up to the coupling flange 2 '”; thus, the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam.]
Regarding claim 18, Kwon as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a bracket member configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the crush box; however,
Asjad teaches that a bracket member (28; [0019]) configured to secure (via rivets and bolts; fig. 2 and [0021]) the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24) to the crush box (14 or 16; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Kwon to incorporate the teaching of Asjad and provide a bracket member configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the crush box in such that the rear tow hook end is rigidly secured to the crush box with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously improve structural support integrity or reinforced geometry to reduce risk of bumper beam distortion. Such an arrangement represents an apparent design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate. Accordingly, the claimed configuration represents no more than the predictable use of known structural features to achieve the expected result of securing the one end of the tow hook assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Kwon as modified above further teaches that one or more bolts (“bolts”; [0021] of Asjad) configured to secure the rear tow hook end (rear end of 22 and 24 of Asjad) to the bracket member (28 of Asjad).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Asjad and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Pub. 20190241033 A1; hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claims 10, depending on claim 1, Kwon as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the tow hook comprises a rear protrusion; however,
Takahashi in another towing hook mounting structure similar to the modified Kwon teaches that the tow hook (30, fig. 1) comprises a rear protrusion [ para. 0049 teaches: “the amount of protrusion of the towing hook 30 from the frame 20 to the outside of the vehicle” as depicted in fig. 2.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tow hook that comprises a rear protrusion as taught by Takahashi and incorporate the protrusion end to the invention of the modified Kwon with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously secure hook to the rear bumper structure, using bolts or weld operation and thus design of the mounting structure can be improved [ para. 0049 of Takahashi]. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable use of known fastening means to secure adjacent structural components and therefore claim does not include any feature that would have rendered the combination non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 20, depending on claim 11, Kwon as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the tow hook comprises a rear protrusion; however,
Takahashi in another towing hook mounting structure similar to the modified Kwon teaches that the tow hook (30, fig. 1) comprises a rear protrusion [ para. 0049 teaches: “the amount of protrusion of the towing hook 30 from the frame 20 to the outside of the vehicle” as depicted in fig. 2.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tow hook that comprises a rear protrusion as taught by Takahashi and incorporate the protrusion end to the invention of the modified Kwon with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously secure hook to the rear bumper structure, using bolts or weld operation and thus design of the mounting structure can be improved [ para. 0049 of Takahashi]. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable use of known fastening means to secure adjacent structural components and therefore claim does not include any feature that would have rendered the combination non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. 20050275194 A1 to Darrin teaches: a combination replacement front bumper assembly and receiver hitch assembly for mounting to the front of a vehicle such as a truck. The receiver hitch assembly includes a hitch receiver tube, the frame, and brackets.
US Pub. 20090278333 A1 to Martin teaches: an integrated tow hook and vehicle bumper mounting bracket assembly including a mounting bracket including a frame mounting surface and a bumper mounting surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights