DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to communications filed for application 18/591,253 on June 18, 2026.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on June 18, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 18/519,380 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuerst (US 10,017,140). With regard to claim 1, Fuerst teaches a vehicle bumper comprising: a panel part 3 forming a part of a vehicle body of a vehicle; and a reinforcement part 4/10/11 which is disposed on the panel part through a long fiber injection (LFI) process (Col. 3, lines 5-25; injected fiber reinforced plastic), wherein the reinforcement part is configured to reinforce rigidity of the panel part. With regard to claim 2, Fuerst teaches the bumper, wherein the panel part 3 includes a region that is exposed to the outside (right; Fig. 1) and a non-exposed region that is not exposed to the outside (left; Fig. 1, and wherein the reinforcement part 4 is formed through a foaming process after the non-exposed region of the panel part is coated with the reinforcement part (Col. 3, lines 5-25; foaming within mold after injection). With regard to claim 3, Fuerst teaches the bumper, wherein the panel part includes a region that is exposed to the outside (right; Fig. 1) and a non-exposed region that is not exposed to the outside (left; Fig. 1), and wherein the reinforcement part 4 has a shape corresponding to a non-exposed region of the panel part (Fig. 1). With regard to claim 4, Fuerst teaches the bumper, wherein the reinforcement part includes: a main body part 4 disposed on a non-exposed region of the panel part; and a protruding part 10/11 protruding from the main body part in a direction from the panel part toward the reinforcement part (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
With regard to the Fuerst ‘140 reference, applicant argues the following with regard to claims 1-4:
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues the following:
Applicant's specification explains that the reinforcement part 140 is disposed in the non- exposed region 122 of the panel part 120 and is coupled to the panel part through an LFI process. The LFI process is described as coating the target object with a mixture of polyurethane and long glass fiber using a gun, such that the non-exposed region of the panel part is coated with the mixture, and then the mixture foams in a space between the panel part and a mold to form the reinforcement part in a state coupled to the panel part.
The Office Action asserts that Fuerst discloses "a reinforcement part 4/10/11 which is disposed on the panel part through a long fiber injection (LFI) process," citing Fuerst, col. 3, lines 5-25 as allegedly disclosing "injected fiber reinforced plastic." Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Fuerst does not disclose the claimed "reinforcement part" as a single reinforcement structure disposed on the panel part through an LFI process. Instead, the Office Action's mapping relies on three different Fuerst structures-4, 10, and 11-as the alleged "reinforcement part." This is improper for anticipation because claim 1 requires "a reinforcement part" disposed on the panel part through the LFI process. The rejection does not identify where Fuerst discloses that the alleged combined "4/10/11" structure is itself disposed on the panel part through an LFI process.
To the extent the Examiner maps Fuerst's element 4 to the claimed reinforcement part, Fuerst does not disclose that element 4 is disposed on panel 3 through the claimed LFI process. The Office Action characterizes Fuerst as disclosing "foaming within mold after injection," but claim 1 is not satisfied merely by injecting material into a mold. Claim 1 requires that the reinforcement part be disposed on the panel part through a long fiber injection process. The present claims are directed to a reinforcement part formed on the vehicle-body panel itself, not merely to a molded bumper component that includes injected fiber-reinforced plastic somewhere in a mold.
To the extent the Examiner maps Fuerst's elements 10/11 to the claimed reinforcement part, Fuerst likewise fails to disclose the claimed arrangement. The Office Action relies on Fuerst's Fig. 1 for elements 10/11, but the rejection does not identify where Fuerst discloses that5
elements 10/11 are formed by coating the panel part through LFI or are disposed on the panel part through the LFI process. At most, the Office Action treats elements 10/11 as protruding or reinforcing structures associated with element 4. That does not disclose the claimed "reinforcement part" being disposed on the "panel part" through LFI.
Accordingly, Fuerst does not disclose the exact limitation of claim 1 requiring "a reinforcement part which is disposed on the panel part through a long fiber injection (LFI) process." Claim 1 is therefore not anticipated.
Response to Arguments for Claim 1
In the specification, in paragraph 32, applicant discloses that “The LFI process may be a process of coating a target object with a mixture of polyurethane (PU) and long glass fiber (LGF) (hereinafter, referred to as a mixture) using a gun capable of performing coating.”
Applicant has only disclosed an example of the LFI process. A “LFI process” does not require these exact disclosed steps nor does claim 1 claim any of these specific steps. It can be shown that Fuerst teaches of fiber-reinforced plastic that is injected into a mold forming ribs 4 walls 10 and 11 (Col. 3, lines 11-19), which form the reinforcement member.
Applicant also places emphasis on “a single reinforcement structure,” while pointing out that Fuerst teaches of three (parts 4,10,11) different structures. It can be shown that applicant only claims “a reinforcement part.” Parts 10/11/4, all formed during the same process, they merely have different labels (similar to parts 142 (main body) and 144 (protruding parts) of the disclosed invention (see Figures below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, applicant argues the following:
The Office asserts that Fuerst discloses this limitation because Fuerst's element 3 allegedly includes an exposed region and a non-exposed region, and because Fuerst's reinforcement part 4 is allegedly "formed through a foaming process after the non-exposed region of the panel part is coated with the reinforcement part," citing Fuerst, col. 3, lines 5-25.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 requires a specific sequence and relationship: first, the non-exposed region of the panel part is coated with the reinforcement part; then, the reinforcement part is formed through a foaming process.
Fuerst, however, is not shown to disclose coating a non-exposed region of panel part 3 with reinforcement part 4 before the reinforcement part is formed through foaming. The Office Action's statement that Fuerst discloses "foaming within mold after injection" does not establish that Fuerst discloses "after the non-exposed region of the panel part is coated with the reinforcement part," as expressly required by claim 2. Foaming in a mold is not the same as coating the non-exposed region of a vehicle-body panel with the reinforcement part and then forming that reinforcement part by foaming.
Thus, Fuerst does not disclose the exact sequence and arrangement required by claim.
Response to Arguments for Claim 2
Figures 1 and 2 of Fuerst have been provide below for clarity with regard to this discussion:
PNG
media_image2.png
632
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As disclosed by Fuerst, panel part 3 comprises an exposed side (parts 5 and 6) and an non-exposed side where ribs 4 and walls 10/11 are formed on via a LFI process. When the fiber-reinforced plastic is injected into the mold, the non-exposed portion of panel 3 will be coated first and then foaming will take place (as claimed and as disclosed in Fuerst).
With regard to Claim 3, applicant argues the following:
The Office asserts that Fuerst discloses this limitation because element 4 allegedly has a shape corresponding to a non-exposed region of panel part 3, citing Fuerst's Fig. 1.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 3 is not satisfied merely because two structures in a figure are adjacent or have broadly complementary shapes. Claim 3 requires that the claimed reinforcement part, the same reinforcement part disposed on the panel part through the LFI process of claim 1, has a shape corresponding to the non-exposed region of the panel part.
Fuerst does not disclose that its alleged reinforcement part 4/10/11 is shaped by and corresponds to a non-exposed region of panel 3 in this claimed manner. The rejection merely cites Fig. 1 and concludes that the shape corresponds to the non-exposed region. That is insufficient to establish anticipation. The Office does not identify any disclosure in Fuerst that element 4 is formed as a reinforcement part having a shape corresponding to the non-exposed region of panel 3, much less a reinforcement part disposed on the panel part through LFI as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, Fuerst does not disclose the exact limitation of claim 3. Claim 3 is therefore not anticipated.
Response to Arguments for Claim 3
Figures 1 and 2 of Fuerst have been provide below for clarity with regard to this discussion:
PNG
media_image2.png
632
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 2 of Fuerst show a non-exposed portion of panel 3 (top part of parts 5/6 in Fig. 2) wherein the reinforcement part (parts 4/10/11) are shaped to correspond to the shape of the non-exposed region.
With regard to claim 4, applicant argues the following:
Claim 4 requires that the reinforcement part itself include both: (1) a main body part
disposed on a non-exposed region of the panel part; and (2) a protruding part protruding from that main body part in a direction from the panel part toward the reinforcement part.
Fuerst does not disclose this claimed geometry. The rejection identifies elements 10/11 as the alleged protruding part, but does not identify where Fuerst discloses that elements 10/11 protrude from main body part 4 "in a direction from the panel part toward the reinforcement part." The cited Fig. 1 does not supply the missing disclosure. At most, the Office identifies structures within Fuerst's bumper module and labels them as a "main body part" and "protruding part." But the claim requires a particular directional protrusion from the main body part relative to the panel part and the reinforcement part. The Office has not shown that Fuerst discloses required directional relationship.
Response to Arguments for Claim 4
PNG
media_image3.png
489
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the present invention, the reinforcement part comprises: the main body (labeled part 142) and the protruding part (labeled part 144). As best understood, and as claimed by the applicant in claim 4, this requires the bumper “wherein the reinforcement part includes: a main body part disposed on a non-exposed region of the panel part; and a protruding part protruding from the main body part in a direction from the panel part toward the reinforcement part.”
Figures 1 and 2 of Fuerst have been provide below for clarity with regard to this discussion:
PNG
media_image2.png
632
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As claimed, Fuerst teaches the reinforcement part comprising a main body part (bottoms of 4/10/11 located on the non-exposed region of panel 3) and a protruding part (formed by walls 11 and 10) protruding from the main body part “in a direction from the panel part 3 toward the reinforcement part .” Please Note: for both Fuerst and the present invention, since protruding part has been disclosed and claimed as being part of the reinforcement part, is unclear how they do not protrude toward the reinforcement part.
All of the applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the vehicle bumper as claimed, and particularly including an absorbing member including: a support part coupled to the non-exposed region of the panel part; and an absorbing part having a shape bent from an end portion of the support part, wherein the support part is disposed between the non-exposed region of the panel part and the main body part of the reinforcement part, and including the remaining structure of claim 5. Claim 6 depends on claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights