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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected because Fig. 1 does not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Rules 37 CFR 1.84 (l) and (m) detail the requirements of drawings:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a
process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Fig. 1 does not have adequately durable, clean, black lines and includes shading that reduce legibility.
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 “unwinding length formed only in the middle longitudinal section” (as recited in claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
It is noted that claim 27 recites that “the cross member comprises one piece of s single material.” This means that the profiled front wall and profiled rear wall (as recited in claim 1) can be interpreted in most of the claims (excepting claim 15, for example) as being comprised of one piece of single material. Thus, it appears, when the cross member is formed of one piece of single material, that the division of where the front wall ends and where the rear wall begins is arbitrary. That is, as long as the front wall includes the front facing plate and the rear wall includes the rear facing plate, any front to rear connecting members of the cross member can be divided at any desired point to define the front wall and the rear wall.
Claim Objections
According to § 608.01(m) of the Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period (i.e., each claim is to be written as a single sentence). Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). It is suggested that Applicant review the claims of the patents cited in this Office action to get an idea of how claims should be written.
Claims 25-26 are objected to because they do not end with a period.
Claims 13, 14, 18, 25, 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 4, “crossmember” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant as recited “cross member.”
In claim 14, line 3, it appears the term “are” should be deleted for proper grammar.
In claim 18, line 3, “the longitudinal section” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in claim 13, Applicant has recited “a middle longitudinal section.”
In claim 21, line 2, “the central longitudinal section” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in claim 13, Applicant has recited “a middle longitudinal section.”
In claim 25, “an unwinding length of the front wall” and “an unwinding length of the rear wall” appear to be double recitations of the same that has been recited in claim 13.
Claim 26 has a similar problem.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-33 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.
In claim 13, lines 4-5, Applicant recites “a middle longitudinal section between the at least one crossmember and the crash boxes.” However, this language does not appear accurate when viewing Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings. Figure 1 shows middle longitudinal section 4 located between crash boxes 3 and 3, but not between the cross member 2 and the crash boxes. Since the middle longitudinal section 4 is part of the cross member 2, it is not clear how the middle longitudinal section 4 could be between the cross member 2 and any other structure. For purposes of applying prior art this language will be interpreted as --between the connection section for the crash boxes.--
In claim 14, lines 2-3, the phrase, “the front wall and the rear wall in the middle longitudinal section is C-shaped or hat-shaped, respectively” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if Applicant is stating that either of the front wall or the rear wall may be either C-shaped or if the front wall is C-shaped and the rear wall is hat shaped. The language is confusing because Applicant uses the singular “is” referring to a single wall and then Applicant uses the phrase “C-shaped or hat-shaped” as opposed to “C-shaped and hat-shaped.” For purposes of applying prior art, claim 14 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation that either the front wall or the rear wall may be C-shaped or hat-shaped.
In claim 15, line 2, “two profiled half shells” appears to be a double recitation of “a profiled front wall” and “a profiled rear wall” as recited in claim 13. Correction and/or clarification is required.
In claim 22, lines 2-3, “an opening angle between an upper chord and a lower chord of the front wall or the rea wall is greater than 95º” does not appear to make sense because the upper chord and lower chord of the front wall do not intersect to form an angle. It appears that Applicant intends to recite --wherein an opening angle of each of an upper chord and a lower chord of the front wall with respect to a vertical portion of the front wall is 95º or an opening angle of each of an upper chord and a lower chord of the rear wall with respect to a vertical portion of the rear wall is 95º--. This is how the claim will be interpreted for purposes of applying prior art.
In claims 31-33, Applicant recites “a range from a center cross-sectional plane.” However, it is not clear what “center cross-sectional plane” Applicant is referring to. Applicant discloses a center-cross section plane at Y=0 in paragraph [0017] of the specification. However, in Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings, Y=0 is not at the center of the cross member. Thus, the term “center cross-sectional plane” is vague and indefinite.
In claims 31-33, “the unwinding length” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In claim 13, Applicant refers to two separate unwinding lengths. Thus, in claims 31-33 it is not clear which unwinding length Applicant is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 13-18, 21, 24-26, and 28-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koga et al. (US 2021/0039718).
With respect to claim 13, Koga et al. (US 2021/0039718) disclose bumper assembly, which is capable of being coupled to a motor vehicle via crash boxes, the bumper assembly comprising:
at least one cross member 12, comprising connection sections for the crash boxes (any section near the ends of the cross member as shown in Fig 4 may be used for connecting crash boxes) and a middle longitudinal section between the connection sections for the crash boxes (for example, the length of the cross member 12 that overlaps with the reinforcing members 3 as show in Fig. 4 of Koga et al.), wherein the cross member 12 comprises, in cross section, a profiled front wall 22 (“outer member,” Koga et al., paragraphs [0068] and [0074]; Fig. 7A) and a profiled rear wall 21, and in the middle longitudinal section is an unwinding length of the front wall less than 20%, smaller than an unwinding length of the rear wall (the front wall 22 is the same length as the rear wall 21 and thus, the unwinding length of the front wall 22 is less than 0% smaller than the unwinding length of the rear wall 21).
With respect to claim 14, Koga et al. disclose that the profiling of the front wall 22 and the rear wall 21 in the middle longitudinal section are each C-shaped or hat-shaped, respectively, in cross section, and the openings of the C or hat shape are face each other (as shown in Fig. 7A of Koga et al.).
With respect to claim 15, Koga et al. disclose that the cross member comprises two profiled half-shells 21 and 22 joined together (as show in Fig. 7A of Koga et al.).
With respect to claim 16, Koga et al. disclose that the cross member 12 comprises a steel material (Koga et al., paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claim 17, Koga et al. disclose that the unwinding length can be measured, relative to a vertical direction of the motor vehicle, from an upper coupling point between the front wall and the rear wall to a lower coupling point as shown in the below Fig. taken from Fig. 7A of Koga et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (lower coupling point)][AltContent: textbox (upper coupling point)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
305
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Koga et al. disclose that the front wall 22 and the rear wall 21 comprise a profile with a hat-shaped cross section at least with regard to the longitudinal section (as shown in Figs. 2 and 7A of Koga et al.).
With respect to claim 21, Koga et al. disclose that the cross section of the cross member 12 is hexagonal in the central longitudinal section (as shown in Figs. 2 and 7a of Koga et al.).
With respect to claim 24, Koga et al. discloses that both unwinding lengths are equal (as shown in Fig. 7A of Koga et al.
With respect to claim 25, Koga et al. discloses that the middle longitudinal section is an unwinding length of the front wall less than 15% smaller than an unwinding length of the rear wall (since Koga et al. discloses that the front and rear walls are equal, the front wall unwinding length is 0% less than the unwinding length of the rear wall).
With respect to claim 26, Koga et al. disclose that the middle longitudinal section is an unwinding length of the front wall less than 10% smaller than an unwinding length of the rear wall (since Koga et al. discloses that the front and rear walls are equal, the front wall unwinding length is 0% less than the unwinding length of the rear wall).
With respect to claim 28, Koga et al. disclose that the cross member comprises at least one half-shell 22. Note, the recited method of “is hot formed and press hardened” is a recitation of how the half-shell if made. In an apparatus claim, the method of how the structure is made holds no patentable weight unless the method results in a final structure that is different than the prior art. In this case, there is no difference in structure.
With respect to claim 29, Koga et al. disclose that the cross member comprises a light metal material (“aluminum,” Koga et al, paragraph [0069]).
With respect to claim 30, Koga et l. disclose that front wall 22 and rear wall 21 are coupled with each other via flanges 21C/22C oriented in a vertical direction of the motor vehicle (as shown in Fig. 7A of Koga et al.--note, Fig. 7A is shown rotated 90º from the orientation placed on a vehicle).
Claims 13, 27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trancart et al. (US 2004/0130166).
With respect to claim 13, Trancart et al. disclose a bumper assembly, coupled to a motor vehicle via crash boxes 4/4, the bumper assembly comprising:
at least one cross member 12, comprising connection sections for the crash boxes 4/4 and a middle longitudinal section between the connection sections for the crash boxes (as shown in Fig. 1 of Trancart et al.), wherein the cross member 12 comprises, in cross section, a profiled front wall and a profiled rear wall as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2A of Trancart et al.:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
463
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and in the middle longitudinal section is an unwinding length of the front wall less than 20%, smaller than an unwinding length of the rear wall. Note, since the bumper beam is made from a single piece of one material, the division between the profiled front wall and profiled rear wall may be arbitrarily determined (such a division may be made at any of the locations of the arrows in the above Figure resulting in the unwinding length of the front wall being less than 20% smaller than and unwinding length of the rear wall).
With respect to claim 27, wherein the cross member comprises one piece of a single material (as shown in Fig. 2A of Trancart et al.).
With respect to claim 35, Trancart et al. can be interpreted such that the unwinding length of the front wall is by at least more than 1% smaller than the unwinding length of the rear wall (depending on where one determines the front wall to end and the rear wall to start).
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.
Claims 19-20, 23, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (US 2021/0039718), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kosaka et al. (US 2013/0119680).
With respect to claim 19, Koga et al. disclose the claimed bumper assembly except for the unwinding length being only in the middle longitudinal section. However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly including a cross beam 12 which includes a specific unwinding length of the front and rear walls only in a middle longitudinal section of the cross beam.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
With respect to claim 20, Koga et al. disclose the claimed bumper assembly except for the bead which extends in a longitudinal direction at least in the middle longitudinal section. . However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly including a front wall 34 comprising a bead 36, which extends in its longitudinal direction in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle at least in the middle longitudinal section (as shown in Fig. 9 of Kosaka et al.).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
With respect to claim 23, Koga et al. disclose the claimed bumper assembly except for the front wall in the connection section comprising a straight line from an upper coupling point to a lower coupling point and comprises a flat impact surface. However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly including a cross beam 12 which when viewed in cross- section, a front wall 44 in the connection section is comprises a straight line from an upper coupling point to a lower coupling point and provides comprises a flat impact surface (as shown in Figs. 9-10 of Kosaka et al.).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
With respect to claim 31, Koga et al. discloses the claimed bumper assembly except for the unwinding length being only in the middle longitudinal section, relative to a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, and in a range from a center cross-sectional plane less than or equal to ± 250 mm.
However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly with a cross member having a specific unwinding length of front and rear walls only in a middle longitudinal section (as shown in Fig. 9 of Kosaka et al.). While, Kosaka et al. is silent on the exact length of the unwinding length sections, Applicant has not shown any criticality to the range of ±250 mm. The disclosed bumper assembly does not show any unexpected results from the recited range of ±250 mm. Instead, the bumper assembly appears to provide the same known function at any range.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
With respect to claim 32, Koga et al. discloses the claimed bumper assembly except for the unwinding length being only in the middle longitudinal section, relative to a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, and in a range from a center cross-sectional plane less than or equal to ± 210 mm.
However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly with a cross member having a specific unwinding length of front and rear walls only in a middle longitudinal section (as shown in Fig. 9 of Kosaka et al.). While, Kosaka et al. is silent on the exact length of the unwinding length sections, Applicant has not shown any criticality to the range of ±210 mm. The disclosed bumper assembly does not show any unexpected results from the recited range of ±210 mm. Instead, the bumper assembly appears to provide the same known function at any range.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
With respect to claim 33, Koga et al. discloses the claimed bumper assembly except for the unwinding length being only in the middle longitudinal section, relative to a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, and in a range from a center cross-sectional plane less than or equal to ± 80 mm.
However, Kosaka et al. teach a similar bumper assembly with a cross member having a specific unwinding length of front and rear walls only in a middle longitudinal section (as shown in Fig. 9 of Kosaka et al.). While, Kosaka et al. is silent on the exact length of the unwinding length sections, Applicant has not shown any criticality to the range of ±80 mm. The disclosed bumper assembly does not show any unexpected results from the recited range of ±80 mm. Instead, the bumper assembly appears to provide the same known function at any range.
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Kosaka et al. with the bumper assembly disclosed by Koga et al. for the advantage of a reduction in weight due to the flat surface of the end sections of the front wall of the cross beam while still maintaining an equivalent bending strength to a bumper without the flat portions in the end sections of the front wall (Kosaka et al., paragraph [0086]).
Claims 22 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al. (US 2021/0039718).
With respect to claim 22, Koga et al. disclose the claimed bumper assembly except that they are silent on the exact angle between the upper chord and front wall and lower chord and front wall. Koga et al. teach an upper chord and a lower chord of the front wall as shown below in the image take from Fig. 7A of Koga et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (lower chord)][AltContent: textbox (upper chord)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
305
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koga et al. shows that the opening angle of each of an upper chord and a lower chord of the front wall with respect to a vertical portion of the front wall is at least greater than 90º. While the exact angle of the opening angle is not known, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal angle of greater than 95º through ordinary, routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 34, Koga et al. disclose the claimed bumper assembly except that they are silent on the exact angle between the profiled front wall 22 and the profiled rear wall 21. However, front wall. Koga et al. teach that the profiled front wall and the profiled rear wall are arranged an angle greater than 90º to one another, as shown in Fig. 7A of Koga et al. While the exact angle is not known, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to find the optimal angle of greater than 95º through ordinary, routine experimentation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612