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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 4/28/2026).
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 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Z-direction" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 lines 9-10, it is unclear to which “sensors” are being referred in the limitation “sensors of the plurality of sensors”. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the Z-direction" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 11 lines 9-10, it is unclear to which “sensors” are being referred in the limitation “sensors of the plurality of sensors”. Therefore, claim 11 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the Z-direction" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 18 line 8, it is unclear to which “piezoelectric sensors” are being referred in the limitation “piezoelectric sensors of the plurality of piezoelectric sensors”. Therefore, claim 18 is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browne et al. (US 7,392,876 B2) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2004/0186643 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) discloses a vehicle comprising:
a first vehicle component including a shape memory polymer (SMP) 6, 12, 14 having a first modulus of elasticity in a first state and a second modulus of elasticity in a second state, the second modulus of elasticity being less than the first modulus of elasticity;
a heating element 14 selectively movable from an OFF state to an ON state to supply the SMP with heat, the SMP moving from the first state to the second state in response to the heating element moving from the OFF state to the ON state (at least column 5 line 14-column 6 line 28, column 6 line 61-column 7 line 11, column 12 lines 4-26); and
at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 attached to the vehicle and configured to generate an electric signal in response to a force of a predetermined magnitude being applied to the vehicle to move the heating element 14 from the OFF state to the ON state.
But Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) does not explicitly disclose a plurality of sensors attached to the vehicle behind a front fascia at equal distances along the front fascia and at a height in the Z-direction that positions sensors of the plurality of sensors proximate to a knee of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle contacting the crash-test dummy at or above a predetermined speed.
Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a plurality of sensors 3, 3b, 10 attached to a vehicle 1 behind a front fascia 2 at equal distances along the front fascia (at least paragraphs [0009], [0022]) and at a height in the Z-direction that is configured to position sensors of the plurality of sensors proximate to a knee of a pedestrian based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle 1, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle 1 contacting the pedestrian at or above a predetermined speed (at least paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0026]-[0039], Figs 5 & 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Browne et al. according to the teachings of Tanaka et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving occupant protection.
While Tanaka et al. discloses a pedestrian and does not explicitly disclose a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the plurality of sensors proximate a knee of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, since applicant has not disclosed that a 50th percentile male
crash-test dummy solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a pedestrian as disclosed in Tanaka et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-10 (as best understood), the combination of Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) and Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) as modified above discloses
(claim 2) wherein at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 of the plurality of sensors is a piezoelectric sensor (at least column 8 lines 55-56 of Browne et al.);
(claim 4) wherein the first vehicle component is located under a hood panel of the vehicle (at least Figs. 2-4 of Browne et al.);
(claim 5) wherein the heating element 14 is a wire (at least Figs. 3-4 of Browne et al.);
(claim 6) wherein the wire is embedded within the SMP 6, 12, 14 (at least Figs. 3-4 of Browne et al.);
(claim 7) wherein the wire is in electrical communication with a power source 8 of the vehicle, the wire receiving current from the power source 8 when moved from the OFF state to the ON state (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.);
(claim 8) further comprising a switch (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.) in electrical communication with the plurality of sensors;
(claim 9) wherein the switch (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.) is moveable from an open state to a closed state in response to at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 of the plurality of sensors generating the electric signal to supply current to the heating element (Browne et al.);
(claim 10) wherein the heating element 14 is a wire embedded within the SMP 6, 12, 14 (at least Figs. 3-4 of Browne et al.).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) discloses a vehicle comprising:
a first component including a first portion formed from a first material and a second portion formed from a shape memory polymer (SMP) 6, 12, 14 having a first modulus of elasticity in a first state and a second modulus of elasticity in a second state, the second modulus of elasticity being less than the first modulus of elasticity;
a wire 14 embedded within the second portion and selectively receiving current in an energized state to move the SMP from the first state to the second state; and
at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 attached to the vehicle and configured to generate an electric signal in response to a force of a predetermined magnitude being applied to the vehicle to move the wire 14 into the energized state.
But Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) does not explicitly disclose a plurality of sensors attached to the vehicle behind a front fascia at equal distances along the front fascia and at a height in the Z-direction that positions sensors of the plurality of sensors proximate to a knee of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle contacting the crash-test dummy at or above a predetermined speed.
Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a plurality of sensors 3, 3b, 10 attached to a vehicle 1 behind a front fascia 2 at equal distances along the front fascia (at least paragraphs [0009], [0022]) and at a height in the Z-direction that is configured to position sensors of the plurality of sensors proximate to a knee of a pedestrian based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle 1, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle 1 contacting the pedestrian at or above a predetermined speed (at least paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0026]-[0039], Figs 5 & 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Browne et al. according to the teachings of Tanaka et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving occupant protection.
While Tanaka et al. discloses a pedestrian and does not explicitly disclose a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the plurality of sensors proximate a knee of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, since applicant has not disclosed that a 50th percentile male
crash-test dummy solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a pedestrian as disclosed in Tanaka et al.
Regarding claims 12 and 14-17 (as best understood), the combination of Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) and Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) as modified above discloses
(claim 12) wherein at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 of the plurality of sensors is a piezoelectric sensor (at least column 8 lines 55-56 of Browne et al.);
(claim 14) wherein the first component is located under a hood panel of the vehicle (at least Figs. 2-4 of Browne et al.);
(claim 15) wherein the wire 14 is in electrical communication with a power source 8 of the vehicle, the wire receiving current from the power source 8 when in the energized state (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.);
(claim 16) further comprising a switch (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.) in electrical communication with the plurality of sensor;
(claim 17) wherein the switch (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.) is moveable from an open state to a closed state in response to at least one sensor 2, 9, 18 of the plurality of sensors generating the electric signal to supply current to the wire 14.
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood), Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) discloses a vehicle comprising:
a first component including a first portion formed from a first material and a second portion formed from a shape memory polymer (SMP) 6, 12, 14 having a first modulus of elasticity in a first state and a second modulus of elasticity in a second state, the second modulus of elasticity being less than the first modulus of elasticity; and
at least one piezoelectric sensor 2, 9, 18 (at least column 5 lines 55-56) attached to the vehicle and configured to generate an electric signal in response to a force of a predetermined magnitude being applied to the vehicle to move the SMP 6, 12, 14 from the first state to the second state.
But Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) does not explicitly disclose a plurality of piezoelectric sensors attached to the vehicle behind a front fascia at equal distances along the front fascia and at a height in the Z-direction that positions piezoelectric sensors of the plurality of piezoelectric sensors proximate to a leg of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle contacting the crash-test dummy at or above a predetermined speed.
Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a plurality of sensors 3, 3b, 10 attached to a vehicle 1 behind a front fascia 2 at equal distances along the front fascia (at least paragraphs [0009], [0022]) and at a height in the Z-direction that is configured to position sensors of the plurality of sensors proximate to a leg of a pedestrian based on a front-end architecture and shape of the vehicle 1, the predetermined magnitude corresponding to the vehicle 1 contacting the pedestrian at or above a predetermined speed (at least paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0026]-[0039], Figs 5 & 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Browne et al. according to the teachings of Tanaka et al., in order to achieve the desirable result of improving occupant protection.
While Tanaka et al. discloses a pedestrian and does not explicitly disclose a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the plurality of sensors proximate a leg of a 50th percentile male crash-test dummy, since applicant has not disclosed that a 50th percentile male
crash-test dummy solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a pedestrian as disclosed in Tanaka et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 20 (as best understood), the combination of Browne et al. (at least Figs. 1-4) and Tanaka et al. (at least Figs. 1-7) as modified above discloses
(claim 19) further comprising a heating element 14 selectively movable from an OFF state to an ON state to supply the SMP 6, 12, 14 with heat, the SMP moving from the first state to the second state in response to the heating element 14 moving from the OFF state to the ON state (Browne et al.);
(claim 20) further comprising a switch (at least Fig. 1 of Browne et al.) in electrical communication with the plurality of piezoelectric sensors (at least column 5 lines 55-56 of Browne et al.), the switch configured to move the heating element 14 from the OFF state to the ON state in response to at least one piezoelectric sensor of the plurality of piezoelectric sensors generating the electric signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Jason D. Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights