DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A response to the first office action and amendment were received on 25 May 2026.
Claims 10-12, 14 and 17-22 are still pending; Claims 1-9, 13, 15 and 16 have been cancelled; Claims 10, 17, 18, 21 and 22 have been amended.
Replacement Drawing sheets have been received and overcome the previous objections.
Arguments directed to the rejection of the previous claim set have been received and acknowledged below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the prohibited term “disclosure” in lines 1 and 5. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe (US 9,663,051) in view of Tatarinov (US 2023/0373419).
Regarding Claims 10, 21 and 22, 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). 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), and the chamfer length may be between 12 and 25mm (paragraph 0032). 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 and length 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 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).
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 17, The combination of Rabe and Tatarinov 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), and an attachment 18 coupled to both the lower and upper walls at their end. 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), and the chamfer length may be between 12 and 25mm (paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 18, The combination of Rabe and Tatarinov 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). 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), and the chamfer length may be between 12 and 25mm (paragraph 0032). The combination further includes 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 17 and 18 to include the subject matter of previous claims 13 and 15. The main argument presented is that the secondary reference of Tatarinov, as used to reject claims 13 and 15, is NOT prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1), and therefore cannot be combined to reject the amended claim set. The Examiner agrees that the Tatarinov reference is not a 102(a)(1) prior art reference, but it is not asserted to be such. 35 USC 102(a)(2) recites:
“(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.”
The effective filing date of the present application has the priority date of 08 December 2022. Tatarinov has an effectively filed date as of the filing of its priority document DE 10 2022 112 618.8 which is 19 May 2022. As such, Tatarinov is a 35 USC 102(a)(2) reference and may be legally combined with the reference of Rabe for a 103 rejection. The argument is not convincing.
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 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
Prosecution Insights