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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabe (US 9,663,051).
Regarding Claim 10, Rabe discloses a deformation profile, comprising: two opposite side walls 9, wherein the two opposite side walls are connected by an upper wall 1 and a lower wall 2 and the two opposite side walls have at least one bead 12 extending over an entire height of a respective side wall of the two opposite side walls (Fig. 2), wherein an upper corner area (see Fig.5 at numeral 1) is between the two opposite side walls and the upper wall and a lower corner area (see Fig. 5 at numeral 2) is between the two opposite side walls and the lower wall wherein the deformation profile is extruded (column 1; lines 36-44) and the upper corner area and the lower corner areas comprise a concave shape or a chamfer in cross section (see Fig. 5; corner located at reference numerals 1 and 2 include a chamfered/concave rounded corner at the intersection of the upper wall and side wall).
Regarding Claim 11, the one bead 12 comprises two beads 12 (Fig. 1) in the same longitudinal section.
Regarding Claim 12, the profile is a crash box (see Title).
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) 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tatarinov (US 2023/0373419).
Regarding Claims 13, 21 and 22, Rabe appears to be silent as to the construction of the chamfered surface. Tatarinov discloses a crash box 3 with upper, lower and two side walls, and further including a chamfer 15 at the corner between the upper, lower and side walls (Fig. 2E), wherein the chamfer angle is between 25 and 65 degrees (paragraph 0012). Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the chamfer angle of Tatarinov for the crash box of Rabe in order to improve the strength of the box during impact, the motivation is provided by Tatarinov in that the stresses will not be concentrated in the corners, but distributed over a larger area due to the chamfer (paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 14, Tatarinov discloses that the chamfer to wall proportions may be varied (angle and wall length of the chamfer may be varied) in order to optimize the crash resistance. Use of a proportion within the 30 to 65 percent range is merely an obvious matter of skill in the art based upon the teachings of Tatarinov (see paragraph 0032; proportion may be between 15 to 30% as a start).
Regarding Claim 15, the chamfer length may be between 12 and 25mm (paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 16, the radius of the concave corner is between 12 and 25mm (paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claim 17, Rabe further includes an attachment 18 coupled to both the lower and upper walls at their end.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Rabe and Tatarinov discloses a bumper with a cross beam (Rabe, 18), two deformation profiles (both Rabe and Tatarinov), by which the cross beam is connected to a vehicle, wherein the two deformation profiles comprise a multi-chamber profile (Tatarinov; Figs. 2B-2E) comprising at least one inner wall 14, which extends parallel to the upper wall and the lower wall, and the inner wall has an upwardly or downwardly directed hump in the longitudinal section having a bead (Rabe discloses the use of a bead 11 on a horizontal wall for improved strength).
Regarding Claim 19, Tatarinov discloses a multi-chamber crash box (Figs. 2B-2E).
Regarding Claim 20, both Rabe (Fig. 1) and Tatarinov (Fig. 1A) discloses the crash box is a longitudinal beam shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to crash boxes for vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612