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
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-127060 (JP 060) in view of FR 2902058 (FR 058).
For claim 1, JP 060 discloses a vehicle front section structure (FIG.3) comprising:
a horn (44), the horn being provided at a vehicle front section;
a bumper absorber (28),
the bumper absorber being provided at a vehicle lower side of the horn, and
the bumper absorber being capable of absorbing impact energy due to an impact load that has been input from a vehicle front side; and
a grill (16), the grill being disposed at a vehicle lower side of the bumper absorber at a bumper cover configuring a design at a vehicle front end, and an opening portion being formed in the grill.
JP 060 fails to provide the specifics of the bumper absorber.
PNG
media_image1.png
647
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FR 058 teaches a bumper absorber (2) is configured to include:
a through-hole (22), the through-hole penetrating along a vehicle up-down direction (FIG.3), and
an elastic body (23), the elastic body being is provided within the through-hole, and the elastic body having a hollow shape penetrating along the vehicle up-down direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the elastic body (23) is configured to be capable of absorbing a portion of the impact energy due to the impact load that has been input from the vehicle front side.
For claim 3, the elastic body (23) has a cylindrical shape (FIGS.3-4).
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 substituted the energy absorber of JP 060 with that of FR 058 as an obvious expedient based on factors such as its suitability for the intended use to optimize the cost of the product made in light of size, capacity to manufacture, manufacturing technology, safety, easy to manufacture, manpower for assembling parts, and still meet the design specifications and because it would perform the same function. Modifying in this manner would yield no more than the predictable outcome/result which one of ordinary skill would have expected to achieve with this common tool of the trade and is therefore an obvious expedient. See MPEP section 2143(I)(D). Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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, 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