CTFR 18/413,027 CTFR 67007 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 4/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 3-5 have been rejected as follows. Claim 2 is allowed. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai et al (US Patent No. 12,503,165) in view of Chung et al (US 2021/0316793) . Regarding claim 1, Rai et al discloses a front side member (110, Fig. 1-3) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction at each of both left (120B, Fig. 1-3) and right sides (120A, Fig. 1-3) in a vehicle width direction (column 5, lines 49-54), that has an open cross-sectional shape (140A/140B, Fig. 1-3) in which an opening (column 5, lines 61-65; column 6, lines 5-9) is provided at least one side thereof in the vehicle width direction (Fig. 1-3), and that is integrally molded by die casting (column 6, lines 10-12), wherein the front side member comprises a plurality of ribs (Fig. 1-3, 7 & 11; column 8, lines 5-8) that connect a bottom surface (column 8, lines 8-10) at a side opposite from the opening, a lower surface of an upper wall (column 8, lines 8-10) in a vehicle up- down direction, and an upper surface of a lower wall (column 8, lines 8-10) in the vehicle up-down direction. Rai et al discloses that the size of the rib sections may be varied to increase or decrease the crush strength of the casting section; however, Rai et al does not expressly disclose a minimum rib height of the ribs along the vehicle width direction is set to be equal to or greater than half of a width direction dimension of the upper wall and the lower wall. Chung et al teaches a front side member with a minimum rib height (width of reinforcing ribs 26, Fig. 3-4) of the ribs (26, Fig. 3-4) along the vehicle width direction set to be equal to or greater than half of a width direction dimension of the upper wall (vertical wall 25, Fig. 3-4) and the lower wall (25, Fig. 3-4) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle front side frame members. Chung et al teaches the rib height to be greater than half of the width of the connecting walls as the rib height 26 extends to the full width of walls 25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ribs of Rai et al by incorporating the rib dimension as taught by Chung et al. Doing so would improve the ability to more easily distribute and absorb impact load transmitted from a front impact ([0033], lines 12-14). Regarding claim 3, Rai et al in view of Chung et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Rai et al further discloses wherein the open cross-sectional shape is a U-shaped (Fig. 7-8; column 8, lines 5-19; column 9, lines 65-67) cross-sectional shape, and the opening is provided at an outer side (Fig. 1-3) in the vehicle width direction. Regarding claim 4, Rai et al in view of Chung et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Rai et al further discloses wherein the open cross-sectional shape is an H-shaped (Fig. 11-12; column 8, lines 20-24) cross-sectional shape, and the opening is provided at each of an inner side and an outer side in the vehicle width direction. Regarding claim 5, Rai et al in view of Chung et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Rai et al further discloses wherein the ribs (Fig. 7-8 & 11-12) comprise hollowed- out portions (scallop shape, Fig. 7-8 & 11-12; column 8, lines 5-15 & 47-48; column 10, lines 8-14) in which a leading end is hollowed out in an arc shape (column 10, lines 8-14) from an opening side in the vehicle width direction . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 2 is allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 2 is the inclusion of the limitations that “the minimum rib height is set so as to increase toward a vehicle rear”. Since the crushing load increases from the vehicle front side of the front side member toward the rear, the crushing can be made easier to occur in order from the vehicle front side to rear, and robustness of deformation during a collision can be improved in applicant’s device. The closest prior art of Rai et al discloses the technique of progressively increasing wall thickness (column 9, lines 1-6) to improve crash performance; however, Rai et al does not expressly disclose increasing the rib height toward a vehicle rear. Applicant’s structure suppresses the occurrence of deformation in a concave shape thus an intended energy absorption amount can be secured and a decrease in energy absorption efficiency due to incomplete crushing can be reduced. Applicant’s minimum rib height increasing toward the vehicle rear in combination with the structure as defined in claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 6-7 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Rai et al (US 12,503,165) does not provide any reason to select a specific threshold from among the many possible rib dimensions encompassed by its broad design flexibility. With respect to these arguments, column 8, lines 25-33 of Rai et al does provide such a reason; namely, to increase or decrease crush strength. In paragraph [0007], the last three lines of applicant’s invention, the purpose of the specific H/D relationship is said to be beneficial so that “a crushing load in the chambers partitioned by the ribs can be controlled”. The Rai et al reference discloses in col. 8, lines 25-33 that the “number and size of the C sections (ribs)…may be varied to increase or decrease the crush strength of the casting section”. Rai et al has already discovered that changing the size of the ribs is directly related to increasing or decreasing the crush strength. The current invention recites a particular range of rib sizes to affect the same advantage envisioned by Rai et al. The instant invention has not discovered that a specific size would perform differently as expected. The expected performance having been disclosed by Rai et al that as size changes crush strength changes . On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that Rai et al contains no recognition of the critical significance of the claimed H/D relationship in connection with a particular crushing mode and technical effect. With respect to these arguments, the significance that size of the ribs is important for controlling a crush load is encompassed by the Rai et al disclosure that size of the ribs effects the magnitude of crush strength. On pages 7-8 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the technical role of the ribs between Chung et al and Rai et al or the present invention are materially different, that of load transfer versus controlled crushing. With respect to these arguments, the reinforcement ribs of Chung et al (US 2021/0316793) and Rai et al or the present invention are all directed to absorbing impact for the mitigation of damage to a vehicle. Controlled crushing is a mechanism for absorbing kinetic energy and managing load transfer during a crash or impact as the structure is forced to deform. While the disclosed ribs of Chung et al perform a primary function of transmitting force; the ribs of Chung et al do also absorb the impact load. As such, the function of absorbing force (crush strength) of Rai et al does align with and is relevant to the performance of the ribs of Chung et al to “improve the ability to more easily distribute and absorb impact load transmitted from a front impact”. The range set forth in claim 1 includes the point where the rib height is equal to the width, therefor the teaching of Chung et al meets this point in the range. Motivation to combine is to provide a reinforcement rib structure to absorb impact energy on the front end of a vehicle frame. Rai et al and Chung et al share the technical role that the rib dimensions effect impact load absorption. Chung teaches the use of ribs, as broadly claimed, that are greater than half of a width direction dimension of the upper and lower walls. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 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. /D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612 /AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 2 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 3 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 4 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 5 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 6 Art Unit: 3612 Application/Control Number: 18/413,027 Page 7 Art Unit: 3612
Prosecution Insights