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
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 “means” of attaching in lines 5-6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faruque et al. US 2019/0359158 A1 (cited on IDS receipt date of 12/15/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Faruque et al. discloses an energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1) for a vehicle (32 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1) the energy-absorbing device comprising: a main direction of elongation (along the bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0036] shown in Figure 2), an external face (covered by fascia 34 in paragraph [0026] as shown in Figure 3) intended to receive at least one impact, a core (the core is made up of the continuous assembly of plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5) made of at least one energy-absorbing material, wherein the core is of a corrugated shape (shown in Figure 5) with a succession of crests (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5) in a direction of extension parallel to the main direction of elongation (shown in Figure 1), and at least one plastic structure (the rest of the structure 38, which is visible, as shown in Figure 4 and comprises a thermoplastic in paragraph [0036]) forming with the core (the core is made up of the continuous assembly of plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5), wherein the at least one plastic structure (frame 44 may be formed of any suitable material in paragraph [0029]) comprises means of attaching the energy-absorbing (vehicle 32 includes a frame 44, and the bumper assembly 30 is attached to the frame 44 in paragraph [0029] shown in Figure 1) to an element (bumper beam 36 in paragraph [0036] shown in Figures 2 and 3) of the vehicle (32 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1) which is to be protected, wherein the external face (covered by fascia 34 in paragraph [0026] as shown in Figure 3) is formed at least in part by the crests (plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5) of the corrugated shape (shown in Figure 5) of the core (the core is made up of the continuous assembly of plurality of arches 48 in paragraph [0035] shown in Figure 5).
However, Faruque et al. does not show at least one plastic structure forming a one-piece entity with the core.
Regarding claim 1, 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. with at least one plastic structure forming a one-piece entity with the core, use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
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.).
Regarding claim 2, Faruque et al., as modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 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 (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 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 7, Faruque et al., as modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein 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.) are formed with the plastic structure (frame 44 may be formed of any suitable material in paragraph [0029] of Faruque et al.).
However, Faruque et al., as modified, does not show wherein the attachment means are formed integrally with the plastic structure.
Regarding claim 7, 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. with the attachment means are formed integrally with the plastic structure, use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
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.).
Regarding claim 8, Faruque et al., as modified, discloses the
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 material is a glass fiber reinforced plastic (in paragraph [0036] 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 receipt date of 12/15/2023) in view of Pingston et al. US 2017/0355332 A1 (cited on IDS receipt date of 07/22/2025).
Regarding claims 4-6, Faruque et al., as modified, discloses the
energy-absorbing device (structure 38 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 1 of Faruque et al.) as claimed in claim 1.
However, Faruque et al., as 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 configuration different (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 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.).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 7963378 B2 discloses a corrugated tubular energy absorbing structure.
US US 10723297 B2 discloses the fourth energy absorbing device (48) may be within the third energy absorbing device (32), may be shorter than the third energy absorbing device (32).
JP 2008121856 A discloses the impact energy absorbing member (10) is disposed between an outer board of a vehicle and a wall of the cabin side so that the normal direction to the corrugated side surface of the corrugated molding is substantially orthogonal to the outer board of the vehicle and the wall of the cabin side, whereby impact energy applied to the outer board from the outside is enough absorbed regardless of the shape of the collision material.
GB 1511397 A discloses an energy dissipating device (2) for use as a rear bumper of a van (1) comprises a core (4) constituted by a plurality of corrugated bonds (7), each two adjacent bonds (7) being arranged so that the corrugations butt against each other, that in a collision energy is absorbed by permanent flattening of the corrugations.
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