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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “An
energy-absorbing device for a vehicle” (line 1 of Abstract dated 08/14/2026) is not a complete sentence. Abstract dated 08/14/2026 has not been entered by Examiner. 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 is relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faruque et al. US 20190359158 A1 (cited on IDS dated 12/15/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Faruque et al. discloses an energy-absorbing device for a vehicle (“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028]), the energy-absorbing device (“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028]) comprising: a main direction of elongation (“fascia 34 may be elongated parallel to the bumper beam 36” in paragraph [0033]), an external face (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figures 2, 4 and 7) intended to receive at least one impact (paragraphs [0001], [0028], [0029], and [0036]) a core (structure 38 shown in Figure 5 in paragraphs [0026], [0033] – [0040]) made of at least one energy-absorbing material (paragraphs [0036] and [0037]) wherein the core (structure 38 shown in Figure 5) is of a corrugated shape (plurality of arches 48 shown in Figure 5 in paragraph [0035]) with a succession of crests in a direction of extension parallel to the main direction of elongation (shown in Figure 5), and the at least one plastic structure (“bumper beam 36 may be formed of any suitable material” in paragraph [0032]) being different from the core (“structure 38 may be a composite material 50 including a matrix material 52 and a reinforcement material 54” in paragraph [0036] and “the reinforcement material 54 may be carbon fiber and/or carbon nanotubes” in paragraph [0037]) wherein the at least one plastic structure (“bumper beam 36 may be formed of any suitable material” in paragraph [0032]) comprises means of attaching the energy-absorbing device to an element of the vehicle (frame 44 shown in Figure 1 in paragraph [0029]) which is to be protected (shown in Figure 1), wherein the external face (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figures 2, 4 and 7) is formed at least in part by the crests of the corrugated shape (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figures 2, 4 and 7) of the core (structure 38 shown in Figure 5 in paragraphs [0026], [0033] – [0040]).
However, Faruque et al. does not show at least one plastic structure forming a one-piece entity with the core by overmolding the at least one plastic structure on the core and wherein the means of attaching is formed integrally with the plastic structure.
In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process (overmolding), determination of patentability is based on the product itself (energy-absorbing device). The patentability of a product (energy-absorbing device) does not depend on its method of production (overmolding). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one plastic structure of Faruque et al. forming a one-piece entity with the core with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the means of attaching of Faruque et al. formed integrally with the plastic structure with a reasonable expectation of success in order to that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 2, Faruque et al., as twice modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device (“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028]) of Faruque et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the succession of crests (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5 of Faruque et al.) extends over the entire length of the
energy-absorbing device (“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028] of Faruque et al.) in the main direction of elongation (along the bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0036] shown in Figure 2 of Faruque et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Faruque et al., as modified, discloses a vehicle
(32 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) comprising at least
one element (bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figures 2 and 3 of
Faruque et al.) to be protected from impact and at least one energy-absorbing
device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) as
claimed in claim 1, wherein the energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in
paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) is attached to the element
(bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figures 2 and 3 of Faruque et
al.) that is to be protected using the attachment means (“vehicle 32 includes a
frame 44, and the bumper assembly 30 is attached to the frame 44” in paragraph
[0029] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) such that the external face (shown in
Figures 2 and 3 of Faruque et al.) is on the opposite side from the element
(bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figures 2 and 3 of Faruque et
al.) that is to be protected, and an internal face (shown in Figures 2 and 3 of
Faruque et al.) of the energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026]
shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.), opposite to the external face (shown in
Figures 2 and 3 of Faruque et al.), faces the element (bumper beam 36 in
paragraph [0026] shown in Figures 2 and 3 of Faruque et al.) that is to be
protected.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Faruque et al. US 2019/0359158 A1 (cited on IDS dated 12/15/2023) in view of Pingston et al. US 2017/0355332 A1 (cited on IDS dated of 07/22/2025).
Regarding claims 4-6, Faruque et al., as twice modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device (“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028]) of Faruque et al.) as claimed in claim 1.
However, Faruque et al., as twice modified, does not show wherein the
corrugated shape has an amplitude that varies in the direction of extension of the
succession of crests (claim 4); wherein the corrugated shape has a pitch that
varies in the direction of extension of the succession of crests (claim 5); and
wherein the corrugated shape has a variable shape varying along the direction of
elongation of the energy-absorbing device, wherein the corrugated shape
comprises a first part and a second part, wherein the first part of the corrugated
shape has a configuration different than a configuration of the second part of the
corrugated shape (claim 6).
Pingston et al. teaches the energy-absorbing device (30) includes a
strip (58) fixed relative to the beam (32); the strip (58) has a plurality of
corrugations (60); the corrugations (60) form bases (62) and the lobes (134); the
bases (62) are attached to the beam (32); the size of the corrugations (60) and
the spacing between the lobes(134) may be uniform along the strip (58) or may
vary along the strip (58); the corrugations (60) may be crimped into the strip (58),
or the strip (58) may be initially formed with corrugations (60); and the
corrugations (60) may each have a corrugation axis C spaced from the
longitudinal axis L, and the corrugation axes c may be generally parallel to each
other (in paragraphs [0032] - [0033] as shown in Figure 5A-5C); wherein the
corrugated shape (plurality of corrugations 60 in paragraph [0032] shown in
Figure 5A comprises a first part (left and right sides of strip 58 in paragraph
[0032] shown in Figure 5A) and a second part (middle section of strip 58 in
paragraph [0032] shown in Figure 5A), wherein the first part of the corrugated
shape (left and right sides of strip 58 in paragraph [0032] shown in Figure 5A)
has a different configuration (different size of the corrugations 60 in paragraph
[0033] as shown in Figure 5A) has a configuration of the second part of the
corrugated shape (middle section of strip 58 in paragraph [0032] shown in Figure
5A) as shown in Figure 5A.
Regarding claims 4-6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the
energy-absorbing device of Faruque et al., as twice modified, with the corrugated
shape has an amplitude that varies in the direction of extension of the succession
of crests (claim 4); wherein the corrugated shape has a pitch that varies in the
direction of extension of the succession of crests (claim 5); and wherein the
corrugated shape has a variable shape varying along the direction of elongation
of the energy-absorbing device, wherein the corrugated shape comprises a first
part and a second part, wherein the first part of the corrugated shape has a
configuration different than a configuration of the second part of the corrugated
shape (claim 6), as taught by Pingston et al., with a reasonable expectation of
success in order to provide two-stage energy absorption (in paragraph [0035] of
Pingston et al.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faruque et al. US 20190359158 A1 (cited on IDS dated 12/15/2023) in view of Kitano et al. US 6591949 B2.
Regarding claim 8, Faruque et al., as twice modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device ((“Bumpers of vehicles” in paragraph [0001] and “bumper assembly 30” in paragraph [0028]) of Faruque et al.) of
Faruque et al.) as claimed in claim 1 but does not show wherein the
energy-absorbing material is a glass fiber reinforced plastic.
Kitano et al. teaches FRP in the present invention is a fiber simple body which is composed of reinforcing fibers such as carbon fibers, aramid fibers, glass fibers, and the like and formed in a braided-string-shape or in a twisted-fiber-shape or the fiber simple body partly impregnated with resin in column 4, lines 10-15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the energy-absorbing material of Faruque et al., as twice modified, glass fiber reinforced plastic, as taught by Kitano et al., with a reasonable expectation of success because glass fiber is lightweight, strong, corrosion-resistant and cost-effective.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Faruque et al. does not show at least one plastic structure forming a one-piece entity with the core by overmolding the at least one plastic structure on the core and wherein the means of attaching is formed integrally with the plastic structure.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process (overmolding), determination of patentability is based on the product itself (energy-absorbing device). The patentability of a product (energy-absorbing device) does not depend on its method of production (overmolding). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the at least one plastic structure of Faruque et al. forming a one-piece entity with the core with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the means of attaching of Faruque et al. formed integrally with the plastic structure with a reasonable expectation of success in order to that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Prior Art
No Prior Art.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109.
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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights