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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/587,241, filed on 2/26/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-6 and 8-17 have been rejected as follows. Claim 7 is objected to.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/439,808 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they encompass the same scope of features (see below).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/587,241
Copending Application No. 18/439,808
13.An assembly comprising: a vehicle bumper; a rod having a first end fixable to the vehicle bumper and a second end spaced from the first end along an elongated axis of the rod; a collar fixed to the rod between the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod, the collar including a pyrotechnically-activated release releasable from the rod; and a coil spring having an inner diameter sized to be received by the rod.
15.An assembly comprising: a vehicle bumper; a rod having a first end fixed to the vehicle bumper and a second end spaced from the first end along an elongated axis of the rod; a collar fixed to the rod between the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod, the collar including a pyrotechnically-activated release releasable from the rod; and a coil spring retained on the rod between the collar and the vehicle bumper.
17.The assembly of claim 13, further comprising a retainer protruding radially outwardly from rod at second end.
16.The assembly of claim 15, further comprising a retainer fixable to the second end of the rod, the retainer protruding radially outwardly from rod at second end.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinnhuber (DE-102005021725-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sinnhuber discloses an assembly comprising a vehicle bumper (19, Fig. 5; 9, Fig. 2; page 10, last para., page 11, para. 1 & 4); a rod (6, Fig. 5) having a first end fixable to the vehicle bumper (end of 6 at 19, Fig. 5) and a second end spaced from the first end (end of 6 near 4, Fig. 5) along an elongated axis of the rod (axis 6, Fig. 5); a collar (8, Fig. 5 & 3a/b; page 10, last para., page 11, para. 2) fixed to the rod (6, Fig. 5 & 3a) between the first end of the rod and the second end of the rod (Fig. 5), the collar (8, Fig. 5 & 3a/b) including a pyrotechnically-activated release (holding element 13, Fig. 3a/b; page 4, para. 2) releasable from the rod (6, Fig. 3b; page 11, para. 2); and a coil spring (20, Fig. 5; page 11, para. 4) having an inner diameter sized to be received by the rod.
Regarding claim 16, Sinnhuber further discloses wherein the rod (6, Fig. 5) includes threads (page 11; para. 2, lines 4-5; para. 3, lines 3-4) at the first end and the vehicle bumper (19, Fig. 5) includes a threaded hole designed to threadedly receive the threads of the rod. Dashed and solid lines on rod (6, Fig. 5) indicate where disclosed threads are located and received in vehicle bumper (19, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Sinnhuber further discloses a retainer (as broadly claimed, interpreted as spindle drive 4, Fig. 5) protruding radially outwardly from rod (6, Fig. 5) at second end.
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 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faruque (US Patent No. 8,113,555) in view of Sinnhuber (DE-102005021725-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Faruque discloses a vehicle (10, Fig. 1-2) comprising a vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3; column 5, lines 31-34); a vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3; column 5, line 5) disposed vehicle-forward of the vehicle frame; a rod (190, Fig. 3) elongated along an axis, the rod being fixed relative to the vehicle bumper (column 5, lines 58-60) and slidably engaged with vehicle frame (column 6, lines 12-17); a spring (200, Fig. 3/4a) compressed (column 6, lines 24-29) along the axis of the rod between the vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3/4a) and the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3/4a); and a collar (230, Fig. 3) fixed relative to the rod and extending radially from the rod, the spring forcing the collar toward the vehicle frame (Fig. 3/4a) with the collar preventing vehicle-forward movement of the rod relative to the vehicle frame along the axis of the rod (column 6, lines 23-30). However, Faruque does not expressly disclose the collar including a pyrotechnically-activated release releasable from the rod.
Sinnhuber teaches a vehicle bumper with energy absorbing assembly (19, Fig. 5; 9, Fig. 2; page 11, para. 1 & 4) that has a collar (8, Fig. 5 & 3a/b; page 10, last para. to page 11, para. 2) including a pyrotechnically-activated release (holding element 13, Fig. 3a/b; page 4, para. 2) releasable from the rod (6, Fig. 3b; page 11, para. 2) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle bumper impact mitigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the way to release the collar (actuator 370/380, Fig. 9; column 7, lines 57-65; column 6, lines 31-37) as disclosed in Faruque by substituting the type of collar release as taught by Sinnhuber. Doing so would achieve rapid, reliable separation of the collar components for release from the rod to engage the bumper for reducing impact force to a pedestrian upon collision.
Regarding claim 2, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the collar (230, Fig. 3) abuts the vehicle frame (via 220, where the frame includes flange 220 and rail 110, Fig. 3; column 6, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the vehicle frame (110 via 220, where the frame includes flange 220 and rail 110, Fig. 3) includes a hole (column 6, line 14) that slidably receives the rod (190, Fig. 3; column 6, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 4, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3) includes a flange (220, Fig. 3) between the collar (230, Fig. 3) and the spring (200, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the collar (230, Fig. 3) abuts the flange (220, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the flange (220, Fig. 3) includes a hole (column 6, line 14) that slidably receives the rod (190, Fig. 3; column 6, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3) includes a crush can (extendable rail 100, frame rail ends of 110, Fig. 3; column 6, lines 7-10), the flange (220, Fig. 3) being fixed to the crush can.
Regarding claim 9, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 8 above, and Faruque further discloses a communication cable (actuator 370 hard wired, Fig. 9; column 8, lines 22-24) extending from the collar (230/310, Fig. 9; column 8, lines 22-24) along the crush can.
Regarding claim 10, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the rod (190, Fig. 3) supports the vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3) on the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3; column 5, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 11, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the spring (200, Fig. 3; column 5, lines 61-62) is on rod (190, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the rod (190, Fig. 3) includes a first length along the axis from the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3) to the vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3), the coil spring (200, Fig. 3) having a free length longer than the first length (Fig. 4b) of the rod and a fully-compressed length shorter than (Fig. 4a) or equal to than the first length of the rod.
Regarding claim 13, Faruque discloses an assembly comprising a vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3; column 5, line 5); a rod (190, Fig. 3) having a first end fixable to the vehicle bumper (column 5, lines 58-60) and a second end spaced from the first end along an elongated axis of the rod (Fig. 3, 4a/b); a collar (230, Fig. 4a) fixed (column 5, lines 65-67) to the rod (190, Fig. 3) between the first end of the rod (end of 190 coupled to 120, Fig. 4a) and the second end of the rod (tip of 190 beyond 230, Fig. 4a); and a coil spring (200, Fig. 3; column 5, lines 61-62) having an inner diameter sized to be received by the rod (190, Fig. 3). However, Faruque does not expressly disclose the collar including a pyrotechnically-activated release releasable from the rod.
Sinnhuber teaches a vehicle bumper with energy absorbing assembly (19, Fig. 5; 9, Fig. 2; page 11, para. 1 & 4) that has a collar (8, Fig. 5 & 3a/b; page 10, last para. to page 11, para. 2) including a pyrotechnically-activated release (holding element 13, Fig. 3a/b; page 4, para. 2) releasable from the rod (6, Fig. 3b; page 11, para. 2) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle bumper impact mitigation systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the way to release the collar (actuator 370/380, Fig. 9; column 7, lines 57-65) as disclosed in Faruque by substituting the type of collar release as taught by Sinnhuber. Doing so would achieve rapid, reliable separation of the collar components for release from the rod to engage the bumper for reducing impact force to a pedestrian upon collision.
Regarding claim 14, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 13 above, and Faruque further discloses wherein the rod (190, Fig. 3) is configured to extend through a hole (column 6, line 14) in a vehicle frame (110 via 220, where the frame includes flange 220 and rail 110, Fig. 3) with a first portion of the rod (190, Fig. 3) extending along the axis from the vehicle frame (110, Fig. 3) to the vehicle bumper (120, Fig. 3); the rod includes a first length along the axis from the vehicle frame to the vehicle bumper; and the coil spring (200, Fig. 3) has a free length longer than the first portion (Fig. 4b) of the rod and a fully-compressed length shorter (Fig. 4a) than or equal to the first length of the rod.
Regarding claim 15, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 13 above, and Faruque further discloses a vehicle frame (110 via 220, where the frame includes flange 220 and rail 110, Fig. 3) defining a hole (column 6, line 14); the rod (190, Fig. 3) extending through the vehicle frame (220/110, Fig. 3) with a first portion of the rod extending from the vehicle frame (220/110, Fig. 3) to the first end of the rod; and the coil spring (200, Fig. 3) having a free length longer (Fig. 4b) than the first portion of the rod and a fully-compressed length shorter (Fig. 4a) than or equal to the first portion of the rod.
Regarding claim 16, Faruque in view of Sinnhuber discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 13 above, and Sinnhuber further discloses wherein the rod (6, Fig. 5) includes threads (page 11; para. 2, lines 4-5; para. 3, lines 3-4) at the first end and the vehicle bumper (19, Fig. 5) includes a threaded hole designed to threadedly receive the threads of the rod. Dashed and solid lines on rod (6, Fig. 5) indicate where disclosed threads are located and received in vehicle bumper (19, Fig. 5). Additionally, Faruque discloses wherein the rod (190, Fig. 3) includes threads (column 5, lines 58-61) coupled to bumper (120, Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 7 is the inclusion of “a retainer fixed to the rod and spaced from the collar along the axis of the rod, the collar being between the retainer and the flange, and the retainer having an outer diameter larger than an outer diameter of the hole”. Neither the closest prior art of Faruque (US Patent No. 8,113,555) nor Sinnhuber (DE-102005021725-A1) disclose this feature where a retainer or nut is fixed to the rod 16 and retains the second end 20 of the rod to the frame 28 after release of collar 22 from rod 16 of the energy absorber in the extended position. The retainer 46 abuts the vehicle frame 28 in the extended position to maintain the rod 16 and the bumper 14 engaged with the vehicle frame 28 in the extended position against the vehicle-forward force of the spring 26. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jayasuriya (US Patent No. 8,246,091) discloses an energy-absorbing front end structure with bumper beam able to move rearward against a spring to lessen the crash energy transmitted to a pedestrian.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612