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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “the both end portions of the reinforcing member” lack proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (U.S. 2011/0187081A1), in view of Steinebach et al. (U.S. 2018/0037179A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses a crash box (14R, see figs. 6A, 6B and refer to para 0042) comprising:
a tubular body (30);
a sheet-like lid body (34; para 0048);
a lashing bracket (62; para 0061); and wherein
the tubular body (30) defines a hollow portion in the tubular body (the interior space of 36 as shown in fig. 7A),
the lid body (34; para 0048) is joined by spot welding (refer to para 0046: cover 34 is integrally fixed to a tip portion of the tubular body 30, for example, by spot welding”) to the tubular body (30) in such a manner as to cover an end portion of the tubular body (30) and close the hollow portion (as shown in fig. 6A),
the lashing bracket (62; para 0061) supports a lashing hook (22; para 0042) protruding from the lashing bracket (62) and is placed in such a manner as to be placed on the lid body (34; see figs. 5B and 6A-7B), and furthermore is coupled to the lid body (34) in such a manner as to, together with the lid body (34), cover the end portion of the tubular body (30) and close the hollow portion (see figs. 6A and 7A).
However, Ando fails to teach a reinforcing member placed along the lashing bracket in the tubular body in such a manner as to cross the hollow portion in the tubular body, and both end portions of the reinforcing member are coupled to the tubular body.
Steinebach et al. teach a crash box (150; see fig. 28 and refer to para 0075) comprising a tubular body (160) and a reinforcing member (170; refer to para 0077) placed in the tubular body (160) in such a manner as to cross a hollow portion in the tubular body (160; see fig. 28), and both end portions of the reinforcing member (170) are coupled to the tubular body (160; as shown in fig. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crash box of Ando to include a reinforcing member placed along the lashing bracket in the tubular body in such a manner as to cross the hollow portion in the tubular body, and both end portions of the reinforcing member are coupled to the tubular body, as modified by Steinebach et al. in order to improve the energy absorption properties of the crash box (refer to para 0053).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ando and Steinebach et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Ando further discloses wherein the lid body (34) includes end portions (see annotated fig. 6B below) in contact with the tubular body (30; see fig. 6A), and flange portions (50), the flange portions (50) extend from the end portions along surfaces of sheets forming the tubular body (50; see figs. 6A-7C), and the both end portions of the reinforcing member (as modified by Steinebach et al.) are coupled to the flange portions of the lid body and the tubular body (the claim does not require that the reinforcing member be directly coupled to the flange nor the claim recites any specific coupling feature directly coupling them together. When the reinforcing member is added to the crash box tubular body, it would be coupled to the flange by reason of it being coupled to the entire assembly).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ando and Steinebach et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Ando further discloses wherein each of the lid body (34) and the lashing bracket (62) includes end portions in contact with the tubular body (30; see figs. 6A and 7A), and flange portions (50, 66), the flange portions extend from the end portions along surfaces of sheets forming the tubular body (see figs. 6A-7C), the flange portions (50) of the lid body (34) and the flange portions (66) of the lashing bracket (62) are placed in such a manner as to sandwich the end portion of the tubular body in a thickness direction of the sheet (see figs. 6A-7C), and the both end portions of the reinforcing member (as modified by Steinebach et al.) are coupled to the tubular body and the flange portions of the lid body through the flange portions of the lashing bracket (the claim does not require that the reinforcing member be directly coupled to the flange portions nor the claim recites any specific coupling feature directly coupling them together. When the reinforcing member is added to the crash box tubular body, it would be coupled to the flange portions by reason of it being coupled to the entire assembly).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ando and Steinebach et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Ando further discloses wherein the tubular body (30) includes a pair of half bodies (44, 46; fig. 6B and refer to para 0048), and a split direction of the half bodies agrees with an extension direction of the reinforcing member (as modified by Steinebach et al.) between the both end portions (as shown in fig. 6B. Fig. 6B is consistent with applicants fig. 7. Examiner notes that the term “agrees” is broadly recited. Examiner has interpreted “agrees” to mean that the reinforcement member is within the split hollow body).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, Ando further discloses wherein the lashing bracket (62) includes end portions in contact with the tubular body (30; see figs. 6A and 7A-7C), and flange portions (66), the flange portions (66) extend from the end portions along surfaces of sheets forming the tubular body (see figs. 6A and 7A-7C).
However, Ando fails to disclose through-holes and the both end portions of the reinforcing member are coupled to the tubular body through the through-holes and an inner diameter of the through-holes has a size that allows restricting movement of the reinforcing member in a direction orthogonal to an insertion direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gunther (U.S. 2022/0363211A1), Sovic et al. (U.S. 2019/0381960A1), Virupaksha et al. (U.S. 2017/0305220A1), Brown (U.S. 8,251,414B2), Harrison et al. (U.S. 2004/0041416A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights