Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-14, and 16-20 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “The vehicle of claim 3” seems to be directed to state --The vehicle of claim 1--, since claim 3 has been canceled by the applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 19-20, the original disclosure lacks support for where “the second portion tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the second end.” The applicant describes the structure of the second portion wherein “The second portion may extend a same length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at the lateral center of the vehicle and outboard of the vehicle-lateral center.” (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0018] and [0043]). Therefore, this limitation is new matter.
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 1-2, 6-8, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1 and McFadden et al. US 5,746,419 A, in view of Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2, and further in view of Cherry US 6,416,094 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Bator discloses a vehicle (Bator abstract), comprising:
a vehicle frame (Bator claim 9); and
a bumper (Bator 10; Bator Fig. 6; Bator paragraph 0014) including a crossbeam (Bator 12) elongated along the vehicle-lateral axis (Bator Fig. 4; Bator paragraph 0014);
the bumper including a cell structure (Bator 14) vehicle-forward of the crossbeam (Bator Fig. 6), the cell structure including cell walls (Bator 30; Bator Fig. 5) that define cell chambers (Bator 22/22’; Bator Fig. 5), the cell structure including a first end and a second end spaced from each other along the vehicle-lateral axis (see annotated Bator Fig. 4);
the cell structure including a first portion elongated along the vehicle-lateral axis and a second portion elongated along the vehicle-lateral axis from the first end to the second end of the cell structure (Bator 20; Bator Fig. 4); and
the second portion having a uniform length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis from the first end to the second end of the cell structure (see annotated Bator Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bator does not disclose a first frame rail nor a second frame rail.
However, McFadden et al. disclose a frame rail (McFadden et al. 55) located at the forward portion of a vehicle (McFadden et al. Fig. 8; McFadden et al. col. 4, lines 19-21).
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 (McFadden et al. col. 1, lines 65-66).
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,” (Mustafa et al. 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 (Mustafa et al. col. 2, lines 58-63).
Bator does not disclose the first portion extending further along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center, nor the first portion tapering along the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end and the second end.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose that the first portion (Mustafa et al. 4a/4b/4c; Mustafa et al. col. 4, lines 47-48) form the front side 2 of the bumper 1, and the shape of the first portion extends along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center is shown (Mustafa et al. Fig. 1; Mustafa et al. col. 4, lines 47-48), and the first portion tapering along the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end and the second end (Mustafa et al. Fig. 1).
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 (Mustafa et al. col. 6, lines 19-24).
Bator does not disclose the cell chambers being elongated along a vehicle-vertical axis.
However, Cherry discloses having cell chambers elongated along a vehicle-vertical axis (Cherry Fig. 5; Cherry col. 3, lines 57-58).
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 (Cherry col. 2, lines 33-36).
Bator does not disclose the bumper including foam disposed in the cell chambers.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose foam disposed in the cell chambers. Mustafa et al. disclose a bumper arrangement that comprises “a plurality of respectively closed chambers, a foam filling enclosed in each of said chambers," (Mustafa et al. Fig. 2; Mustafa et al. claim 1).
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 dispose foam in the cell chambers to absorb impact energy, the impact energy being dissipated by work done upon deformation of the structure (Mustafa et al. col. 1, lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 2, Bator, in view of McFadden et al. as discussed in claim 1 above, disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the cell structure extends along the vehicle-lateral axis (Bator Fig. 4) from the first frame rail to the second frame rail (McFadden et al. 55).
Regarding claim 6, Bator discloses that the cell walls of the first portion are thinner than the cells walls of the second portion (Bator 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 (Bator paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 12, Bator discloses an outer panel (Bator 16; Bator Fig. 6) 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 (Bator Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bator discloses that the first portion is forward of the second portion (Bator Figs. 5-6; Bator paragraph 0017) is configured to cooperate with sections of adjacent layers to absorb energy (Bator paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 14, Bator discloses that the crossbeam (Bator 12; Bator paragraph 0014) is fixed to the cell structure (Bator 14; Bator paragraph 0014) to the vehicle (Bator Fig. 6; Bator abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Bator discloses that the cell chambers can be hexagonal (Bator Fig. 5; Bator 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.
Regarding claim 18, Bator discloses that the first portion is elongated along the vehicle-lateral axis from the first end to the second end of the cell structure, the first portion and the second portion both terminating at the first end and the second end of the cell structure (Bator Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Bator does not disclose that the first portion tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose that the first portion tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail (see annotated Mustafa et al. Fig. 1).
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 tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail as shown by Mustafa et al. in order to achieve the desired bumper deformation characteristics (Mustafa et al. col. 6, lines 19-24).
PNG
media_image3.png
253
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Bator does not disclose that the first portion tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail.
However, Mustafa et al. disclose that the first portion tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail (see annotated Mustafa et al. Fig. 1 above).
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 tapers in the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end outboard of the first frame rail as shown by Mustafa et al. in order to achieve the desired bumper deformation characteristics (Mustafa et al. col. 6, lines 19-24).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bator US 2011/0101714 A1, McFadden et al. US 5,746,419 A, Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2, and Cherry US 6,416,094 B1, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Sobel US 3,721,433.
Regarding claim 4, Bator, as modified by Mustafa et al., disclose foam in the cell chambers, as discussed in claim 1 above, but do 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. in claim 1 above, disclose 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Bator does not disclose "the first portion extending further along the vehicle-longitudinal axis at a lateral center of the vehicle than outboard of the lateral center, the first portion tapering along the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end and the second end," as recited in amended claim 1, and that this deficiency is not remedied by Mustafa et al. since Mustafa et al. disclose chambers 4a, 4b, 4c having differing dimensions and material properties, but do not disclose a cell structure including a first portion and a second portion extending along the vehicle-lateral axis as recited in claim 1. The applicant argues that Mustafa et al. does not disclose or suggest a cell structure including both (i) a first portion having the recited longitudinal variation across the vehicle-lateral axis, including tapering along the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end and the second end, and (ii) a second portion having a uniform length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end of the cell structure.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that a combination of Mustafa et al. with Bator would require selectively extracting features from individual chambers of Mustafa et al. and reconfiguring the structure of Bator into the claimed first and second portions, which is not taught or suggested by the cited references, is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, combining the cell structure of Bator with the first and second portion configurations as taught by Mustafa et al. meet the limitation of “a first portion having the recited longitudinal variation across the vehicle-lateral axis, including tapering along the vehicle-longitudinal axis toward the first end and the second end,” as shown in Mustafa et al. Fig. 1. Additionally, Bator discloses “a second portion having a uniform length along the vehicle-longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end of the cell structure” (Bator Fig. 2). Therefore, the combined features of Bator and Mustafa et al. meet the aforementioned limitations, and the examiner respectfully finds the arguments set forth by the applicant as not persuasive.
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 annotated Bator Figs. 2 and 4.
Mustafa et al. US 7,044,514 B2 disclose an energy-absorbent component for a motor vehicle.
McFadden et al. US 5,746,419 A disclose an energy absorbing device is typically used in a vehicular bumper system.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights