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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The thinner cell walls 34a of the first portion 46 have a lower crush strength than the thicker cell walls 34b of the second portion 48, e.g., when the first portion 46 and the same portion are a same material,” ([0045]). The limitation “second portion 48” should be stated instead of “same portion”.
“The cover 52 may surround and enclose the cell walls 32a, 34b,” ([0039]). The reference character “34a” should be stated instead of “32a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 in view of Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Bator discloses:
A vehicle frame (claim 9);
a bumper (10; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “bumper system” in paragraph 0014) including a crossbeam elongated along a vehicle-lateral axis (12; Fig. 4; disclosed as an “impact beam” in paragraph 0014);
a cell structure (14; Fig. 1; disclosed as an “energy absorber [that] is comprised of layers of cell panels” in the abstract), cell walls (30; Fig. 5), and cell chambers (22, 22’; Fig. 5; disclosed as “a plurality of joined hollow cells” in paragraph 0015).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
431
529
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bator does not disclose a vehicle longitudinal axis and foam disposed in the cell chambers.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose a vehicle longitudinal axis and foam disposed in the cell chambers. Mustafa et al. disclose an arrangement wherein “the direction of forward travel of the vehicle to which the bumper 1 is fitted,” (col. 4, lines 47-51), and “a plurality of respectively closed chambers, a foam filling enclosed in each of said chambers," (Fig. 2; claim 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
372
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to establish an orientation of the vehicle frame as shown by Mustafa et al. in order to provide clarity in structural positioning.
Additionally, it 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 to dispose foam in the cell chambers to absorb impact energy, the impact energy being dissipated by work done upon deformation of the structure as disclosed by Mustafa et al. (col. 1, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 3, Bator discloses a first portion and a second portion elongated across the vehicle-lateral axis (20; Fig. 4; disclosed as “cell panels” in paragraph 0017). Bator does not disclose the first portion having a lower crush strength than the second portion.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose a first portion having a lower crush strength than the second portion in stating, “It is desirable if the chambers disposed in front of the bearer as impact zones are of an increasing strength in a downward direction in the position of installation of the component, for example on a motor vehicle. In the event of a light impact for example with a pedestrian, energy absorption takes place for the major part over the above-described impact zones while in the case of a heavier collision for example with another vehicle, a large part of the energy would be transmitted by way of the comparatively rigid bearer to the vehicle structures which are disposed therebehind,” (col. 3, lines 15-25). Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is understood here that “impact zones” are considered the first portion and the “rigid bearer” as the second portion where the crush strength increases from the first portion to the second portion.
Therefore, it 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 to design the first portion to have a lower crush strength than the second portion as described by Mustafa et al. to provide different energy absorption capabilities dependent on the type of collisions and their effects on bumper damage, including that of pedestrian impacts (col. 2, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 6, Bator discloses that the cell walls of the first portion are thinner than the cells walls of the second portion (claim 8).
Regarding claim 7, Bator discloses that the cell walls have a thickness, but does not explicitly disclose the width of the cell walls, namely .5 millimeter and 1 millimeter, respective to the first and second portions. However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to design the cell walls to have a thickness of .5 millimeter and 1 millimeter, respective to the first and second portions with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the cell structure would not perform differently by designing the cell walls to have a thickness of .5 millimeter and 1 millimeter, respective to the first and second portions.
Regarding claim 8, Bator discloses that the first portion and the cells walls of the second portion are monolithic (disclosed as “The cell panels 20 may be of any extrudable material… the extrusion process can be continuous” paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 9, Bator discloses that the length of the first portion along the vehicle-longitudinal axis varies along the vehicle-lateral axis (L; Fig. 5; paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 10, Bator does not disclose that the first portion extends further along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose that the first portion (disclosed as “chambers 4a, 4b, and 4c” in col.4, lines 47-48) form the front side 2 of the bumper 1, and the shape of the first portion along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center is shown (Fig. 3; col.4, lines 47-48).
PNG
media_image5.png
311
643
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to design the first portion that extends further along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center as shown by Mustafa et al. in order to achieve the desired bumper deformation characteristics (col. 6, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 11, Bator does not disclose that the second portion extends a same length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at the lateral center of the vehicle and outboard of the vehicle-lateral center.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose that the second portion (disclosed as “chamber 4d” in col. 4, lines 49-50) extends over the entire length of the elongate bumper 1, and the shape of the second portion along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at the lateral center of the vehicle and outboard of the vehicle-lateral center is shown (Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 49-53).
Therefore, it 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 to design the second portion that extends a same length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at the lateral center of the vehicle and outboard of the vehicle-lateral center as shown by Mustafa et al. to provide additional stiffness in the bumper in respect of flexing and shape (col.4, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 12, Bator discloses an outer panel (16; Fig. 1; disclosed as “fascia” in the abstract) that extends along the vehicle-lateral axis at the lateral center of the vehicle and extending oblique to the vehicle-lateral axis outboard of the lateral center (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bator discloses the positioning of the first and second portion (disclosed as “sections of the cell panels 20 in each layer” in paragraph 0017) is configured to cooperate with sections of adjacent layers to absorb energy (Figs. 1 and 5; paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 14, Bator discloses that the crossbeam (12; disclosed as the “impact beam” in paragraph 0014) is fixed to the cell structure (14; disclosed as “energy absorber” in paragraph 0014) to the vehicle (Fig. 1; abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Bator discloses that the cell chambers can be hexagonal (Fig. 5; disclosed as “cells 22, 22' can be of any shape such as honeycomb” in paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 17, Bator discloses that the cells have a size, but does not explicitly disclose the length of the cell walls, namely 6 to 7 millimeters. However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to design the cell walls to have a length of 6 to 7 millimeters with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the cell structure would not perform differently by designing the cell walls to have a length of 6 to 7 millimeters.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 in view of McFadden et al. US 5,746,419 A.
Bator discloses that the cell structure extends along the vehicle-lateral axis (Fig. 4). Bator does not disclose a first frame rail, nor a second frame rail.
However, McFadden et al. disclose a frame rail located at the forward portion of a vehicle (Fig. 8; disclosed as “side rail 55” in col. 4, lines 19-21).
PNG
media_image6.png
479
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to design a vehicle frame that includes frame rails on the forward portion of the vehicle as shown by McFadden et al. in order to provide an additional structural element where the cell structure can extend from the first to the second frame rail (col. 1, lines 65-66).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 in view of Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2, as applied above to claim 3, and further in view of Sobel US 3,721,433.
Regarding claim 4, Bator, as modified by Mustafa et al., discloses foam in the cell chambers, as explained above (Fig. 2), but does not disclose the use of open cell and foam and closed cell foam in their respective first and second portions.
However, Sobel discloses open cell foam and closed cell foam in an energy-absorbing collision device in the form of a vehicle bumper (Sobel, col. 2, lines 39-41). Sobel discloses that “open cell rigid and crushable foamlike material which would accommodate collisions occurring at high speeds,” and “a flexible and compressible closed cell plastic foamlike material which is selected to accommodate low speed collisions,” (Sobel, col. 4, lines 5-17).
Therefore, it 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 to include open cell foam in the first portion and closed cell foam in the second portion of the cell structure as explained by Sobel to accommodate high or low speed vehicle collisions, being adapted to open and closed cell foam, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Bator, as modified by Mustafa et al., discloses that the foams within the cell chambers are of differing density (Mustafa et al., col. 3, lines 28-29), but does not explicitly disclose the density of the foams, namely .4 to 1.4 pounds per cubic foot and 2.5 to 3.2 pounds per cubic foot, respective to the open and closed cells. However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to design the foams to have a density of .4 to 1.4 pounds per cubic foot and 2.5 to 3.2 pounds per cubic foot, respective to the open and closed cells with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the cell structure containing foam in the cell chambers would not perform differently by designing the foams to have a density of .4 to 1.4 pounds per cubic foot and 2.5 to 3.2 pounds per cubic foot, respective to the open and closed cells.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 in view of Cherry US 6,416,094 B1.
Bator discloses that the cell chambers are elongated but that the overall size, degree of elongation, and the direction of the length of the cell chambers can be varied (Figs. 1 and 5; paragraph 0016). Bator does not disclose that the cell chambers are elongated along a vehicle-vertical axis.
However, Cherry discloses having cell chambers are elongated along a vehicle-vertical axis (Fig. 6; disclosed as “vertically extending cavities within the resilient impact absorbing material” in col. 3, lines 57-58).
PNG
media_image7.png
229
645
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to design the cell chambers to be elongated along a vehicle-vertical axis as disclosed by Cherry in order to provide resilient collapsing and rebound of the cell structure on impact, preventing further deformation of the bumper assembly (col. 2, lines 33-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 discloses a bumper energy absorber for an automotive vehicle. See Figs. 1, 4, 5.
Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2 disclose an energy-absorbent component for a motor vehicle. See Figs. 2, 3.
McFadden et al. US 5,746,419 A disclose an energy absorbing device is typically used in a vehicular bumper system. See Fig. 8.
Sobel US 3,721,433 discloses energy-absorbing crash or collision devices for vehicles.
Cherry US 6,416,094 B1 discloses a resilient bumper assembly for a vehicle. See Fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612 01/07/2026
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612