DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 8, 16, 19, 22 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 5 ad 16 are indefinite in the scope of the term “low density”.
Claim 8 and 19 are indefinite in “arranged parallel” as a stiffener is inherently a three dimensional structure and no frame of reference is given for “parallel”, as to length, width, or height.
Claim 22 is apparently incorrect as the structure of claims 13 is not a stiffener by the limitation of claim 12, but an absorber as this structure has no projections found.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fasteners of claim 11, the bracket of claim 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1,9,12, 15, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez et al. US 6270131, cited by applicant.
Martinez et al. have casing 20, absorber 1 with holes and stiffener 2 with projections 11, 13 normal to the axis of the casing and inserted into the holes with both 1 and 2 within the casing..
Claim 9, 20 the projections extend longitudinally to the vehicle axis parallel to an expected force on the casing.
Claim 15, Martinez et al. have bracket 21 to fasten the casing 20 to the vehicle..
Claim 22, the absorber 1 has both webs 30 and ribs 9.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5,6, 8, 10, 11, 13-14, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al.
The method of formation of the stiffener or casing is not a patentable distinction in a product claim, (MPEP 2113)but the stiffener of Martinez et al. is capable of being press-molded, claim 2,13, and the casing 20 is capable of being extruded claim 10.
Fastening the stiffener to the casing, claim 3, 14 is an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in this art a graduate engineer or experienced designer to maintain the casing and stiffener as an assembly, claim 3.
Claim 5, 16 the density of the absorber is an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill to enable absorption with the expected force of impact.
Claim 6, 17 metallic foam is an absorber material of common knowledge in this art obvious to use here for its known characteristics.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Claim 8, 19 dual absorbing structures at each of dual frame structures 22 of Martinez et al. are also common knowledge in this art for dual side protection from impact..
Claim 11, Martinez et al. has two stiffeners 2 in figure 10 and joining the stiffeners and the absorbers via an and an adhesive welding process is an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in this art to maintain the assembly.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. in view of Gasko et al. US 5997057.
Martinez et al. lacks an end cap to the bumper beam or casing using a complex curved end structure. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Martinez et al. a simple straight casing or beam with end cap 24 as taught by Gasko et al. as a simpler structure to form.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 21 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koch et al. US 20170015361, cited by applicant, is cited to detail stiffener 36 within a single opening of side sill 12 with ribs 22,26, etc. being capable of absorbing impact force. Goupy et al., US 4029350, cited by applicant, is cited to detail absorber cross sections, figures 3-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS H PEDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6667. The examiner can normally be reached 4:30-1pm.
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 571-270-5550. 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.
/Dennis H Pedder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
DENNIS H. PEDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
DHP
10/29/2025