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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite: “the front tow hook end is secured to the bumper beam in a T-direction.” The term “T-direction” does not have a recognized meaning in the art and is not defined in the claims. The specification does not provide an explicit definition, coordinate system, or reference frame that would allow one of the ordinary skills in the art to determine the bounds of the claimed “T-direction” with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the metes and bound of the claim cannot be determined. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted as “the front tow hook end is secured to the bumper beam in a T-.”
Claims 3 and 13 recite: “the rear tow hook end is secured to the crush box in an L-direction.” Similar to the above, the term “L-direction” lacks an established meaning in the art and is not defined in the claims. The specification does not provide an explicit definition, coordinate system, or reference frame that would allow one of the ordinary skills in the art to determine the bounds of the claimed “L-direction” with reasonable certainty. As a result, the claim language is indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted as “the rear tow hook end is secured to the crush box in an L- .”
Any claim not specifically addressed under 35 USC §112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 35 USC §112(b).
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.
(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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon Jong-moon (KR19980011119 U; hereinafter, “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses: a tow hook system (‘Title’, figs. 1-6), comprising: a bumper beam (1, fig. 1 and fig. 2);
a crush box (lower coupling flange 2', fig. 2; page 2); and
a tow hook (8), comprising:
a front tow hook end (A, annotated fig. 2 below); and
a rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 below),
wherein:
the front tow hook end (A) is secured to the bumper beam (2), and
the rear tow hook end (B) is secured to the crush box (2').
PNG
media_image1.png
986
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figs 2-3 of Kwon
Regarding claim 2, Kwon further discloses that the front tow hook end (end A, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the bumper beam (2) in a T-fig. 3 above for T-direction (T-shaped structure) via groove 6 on 2). See 35 USC 112(b) section above.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon further discloses that the rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the crush box (2') in an L-direction (L-shaped structure) [see annotated fig. 3 above where the rear tow hook end appears to form in an L-direction]. See 35 USC 112(b) section above.
Regarding claim 4, Kwon further discloses that the rear tow hook end (B) is secured to the crush box (2') in front of a crush initiation form (via 9' bent portion, page 2) of the crush box (2', see figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon further discloses that a bracket member (2, fig. 2) configured to secure the front tow hook end (A) 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 6, Kwon further discloses that one or more bolts (two bolts 24, fig. 6) configured to secure (figs. 5 and 6) the front tow hook end (A) to the bracket member (side surface 4 of bracket member 2, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon further discloses that the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam [‘Abstract’ 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 further discloses that a bracket member (bent portion 9, page 2) configured to secure the rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 above) to the crush box (2', fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon discloses: a tow hook system, comprising: a vehicle (fig. 1), comprising:
a bumper beam (1, fig. 2); and
a crush box (lower coupling flange 2', fig. 2; page 2); and
a tow hook (8), comprising:
a front tow hook end (A, annotated fig. 2 above); and
a rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 above),
wherein:
the front tow hook end (A) is secured to the bumper beam (2), and
the rear tow hook end (B) is secured to the crush box (2').
Regarding claim 12, Kwon further discloses that the front tow hook end (end A, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the bumper beam (2) in a T-annotated fig. 3 above for T-direction ((T-shaped structure) via groove 6 on 2). See 35 USC 112(b) section above.
Regarding claim 13, Kwon further discloses that the rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 above) is secured to the crush box (2') in an
Regarding claim 14, Kwon further discloses that the rear tow hook end (B) is secured to the crush box (2') in front of a crush initiation form (via 9' bent portion, page 2) of the crush box (2', see figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Kwon further discloses that a bracket member (2, fig. 2) configured to secure the front tow hook end (A) 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 discloses that one or more bolts (two bolts 24, fig. 6) configured to secure (figs. 5 and 6) the front tow hook end (A) to the bracket member (side surface 4 of bracket member 2, figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Kwon further discloses that the bracket member is welded to the bumper beam [‘Abstract’ 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 further discloses that a bracket member (bent portion 9, page 2) configured to secure the rear tow hook end (B, annotated fig. 2 above) to the crush box (2', fig. 3).
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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Ozaki Tatsuya (JP 2010116085 A; hereinafter, “Ozaki”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 (similar limitations, different dependency), Kwon does not appear to explicitly teach that one or more bolts configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the bracket member; however,
Ozaki in another vehicle structure similar to Kwon teaches that one or more bolts (bolt 17, fig. 3) configured to secure the rear tow hook end (the rear tow hook 13 end as depicted in fig. 3) to the bracket member (11) [ ‘Abstract’ teaches that the upper end (rear end) of a towing hook 13 is rotatably connected to a cross member 11 (bracket member) above the rear side member 1 with a bolt 17; thus, one or more bolts configured to secure the rear tow hook end to the bracket member.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the rear tow hook end to the bracket member using one or more bolts, as taught by Ozaki into the invention of Kwon in order to advantageously provide a removable, serviceable and structurally reliable attachment consistent with conventional vehicle recovery-point design practices. 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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Takahashi et al. (US Pub. 20190241033 A1; hereinafter, “Takahashi”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kwon does not explicitly teach that the tow hook comprises a rear protrusion; however,
Takahashi in another towing hook mounting structure similar to 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 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. 20220332157 A1 to Albert discloses: disclosed embodiments include apparatuses, vehicles, and methods for a break- away tow hook. In an illustrative embodiment, an apparatus includes a tow hook configured to extend in a first direction from a surface of a vehicle and to receive a towing line. A mount is configured to displaceably secure the tow hook to the 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, Neacsu, Valentin can be reached on (571) 272-6265265. 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 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611