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 to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heat dissipation device, claim 1,10 the groove and block engaging therewith, claim 4, the radiator, claim 2, and the air inlet at right and left edge, claim 14 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 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 – Claim(s) 1- 2 , 9-1 0 ,13 , 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Peugeot FR3038550, cited by applicant . Peugeot have bumper body 6, rotatable blade 8, heat dissipation device , a radiator , claim 2, disclosed, driving device 22 rotating the blade and connected therewith at 12,14, air inlet surrounding blade 8 in figure 2, partially coinciding with a projection of the heat dissipation device , the blade exposes the inlet in open position, figure 2, top right and bottom and in closed position covers the inlet, figure 2 top left and projections of the blade and bumper body cover a projection of the heat dissipation device in the front-rear direction. Claim 9, the gap between inlet and blade is shown in figure 2 top left. Claim 10, Peugeot have a vehicle. Claim 13, the inlet is at a bumper upper edge, figure 1 and 2. Claim 14 is treated on art as best understood . The air inlet extends to right and left edges of the bumper body and thus arranged at those locations. 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) 3, 11 ,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peugeot. Claim 3, 11, the bumper assembly comprises an air intake grill 24 in front of the radiator and behind the inlet, with vertical part 24 and horizontal part in the frame 104, forming an L shape, a grill vent schematically shown in 24 with a projection thereof partially coinciding with a projection of the inlet. The bumper body is detachable from the part 104 as an obvious expedient of reversing the assembly. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Peugeot a disassembly of the body and transverse part as a reversal of the assembly illustrated. Claim 6, Peugeot has a motor 22, rotating shaft shown and drivingly connected to linkage 12,14 which is connected to the blade. Mounting of t he motor on the radiator is deemed to be an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in this art, a graduate engineer or experienced designer to ease assembly as a cooling module. Claim 12, a hole in the transverse part 104 to remove water is deemed to be an obvious expedient to prevent corrosion. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide a hole in transverse part 104 to remove water. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5,7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. No block and groove , claim 4 of the bumper assembly of claim 1 and third connecting rod hinged to a fixed bracket, claim 7 is of record in this application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DENNIS H PEDDER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6667 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 4:30-1pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5550 . 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. /Dennis H Pedder/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DENNIS H. PEDDER Examiner Art Unit 3612 DHP 12/18/2025