DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 12/14/23. The request for foreign priority to a corresponding JP application filed 03/06/23 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-5 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 3 limitation that the downward slope is set to be “changed stepwise” from one end portion to the other must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). All figures show a gradual downward slope. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
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.
Fukuo in view of Yamagiwa
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuo et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0152674) (cited by Applicant) in view of Yamagiwa (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0030290). Fukuo is directed to a shock absorbing member and structure. See Abstract. Yamagiwa is directed to a shock absorber for a two-wheeled vehicle. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Fukuo discloses an energy absorber [Figs. 7-9] comprising: a body portion (18) assembled in a closed space of a vehicle [see Fig. 5B]; and a plurality of cells (20, 22) provided in the body portion and including an opening on an outer side in a vehicle width direction with the body portion assembled to the vehicle, the cells each including a lower surface (surfaces of 44, 46) with a downward slope of three degrees or more [see Fig. 9 (stepwise slope, as recited in claim 3, infra, greater than 3 degrees from end to end and/or from step to step)] from one end portion on an inner side in the vehicle width direction toward the other end portion on the outer side in the vehicle width direction as seen from a rear side of the vehicle. See Figs. 5B, 7-9.
Fukuo discloses all the required limitations of this claim except for the use of “resin” for the body portion, and arguably an explicit mention of the downward slope being 3 degrees or greater. Yamagiwa discloses a similar vehicle energy absorber [Figs. 4-5(b)], with a plurality of cells (2a1, 2a2), wherein the body portion is made of resin [see Abstract; para. 0034], and wherein a lower surface downward slope greater than 3 degrees [see para. 0032 (thickness difference can be as much as 2mm over a 30mm rib length, hence 3.8 degrees). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a resin for the body portion because this material is relatively inexpensive, readily available, and provides the requisite strength and shock absorbing properties needed for damping impact to a vehicle. It would also have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a downward slope greater than 3 degrees because, aside from this feature already appearing in Fukuo Figure 9, there is no criticality with regard to a range as expansive as ‘greater than 3 degrees’ and there may be design considerations for the angle of the rib taper, such as spacing and fitting a desired number of cells.
It should be noted that the recited material of the vehicle closed space being “metal” is not a required structural limitation of the claimed apparatus. While the material for the Fukuo vehicle car door is not explicitly mentioned, the use of metal for a vehicle car door is universally known, and would certainly be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 2: Fukuo discloses that the lower surface of each of the cells includes different downward slopes from the one end portion toward the other end portion, and includes a greater downward slope on the outer side in the vehicle width direction than on the inner side in the vehicle width direction. See Fig. 9 (slope of step downwards is a greater than slope of longitudinally-extending surface of rib).
Claim 3: Fukuo discloses that the downward slope of the lower surface is set to be changed stepwise. See Fig. 9.
Claim 4: Fukuo discloses that the downward slope of the lower surface is set to be changed gradually. See Figs. 7-8.
Claim 5: Fukuo discloses that the downward slope of the lower surface is set uniformly. See Figs. 7-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 February 11, 2026