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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/8/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent resulting from U.S. Application Nos. 18/499,771 and 18/678,678 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-4, 7-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Ishizuka et al. (US 2023/0044854) in view of Sonobe et al. (US 2021/0162940).
With respect to claim 1, Ishizuka et al. disclose the claimed structural beam except for the reinforcing insert. Ishizuka et al. disclose a structural beam for a vehicle, the structural beam comprising:
a roll-formed outer beam profile having an elongated hollow body 2 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.) formed from a sheet material (note, in an apparatus claim, the method of forming does not hold any patentable weight unless the resulting structure is different than the prior art–in this case, the resulting structure is not different than the prior art), the hollow body 2having a front wall portion and a rear wall portion extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end of the hollow body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (top wall portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
392
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (bottom wall portion)]
wherein the front wall portion is integral with a top wall portion and a bottom wall portion, forming a top wall junction and a bottom wall junction, respectively (as shown above), and
wherein at least one of the top wall junction and the bottom wall junction comprises a flange 231.
Sonobe et al. teach a similar structural beam for a vehicle including a reinforcing insert 15/16/17/18 disposed along a central section of the reinforcement beam between first and second lateral end sections (while this is not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reinforcing insert would be centrally positioned in the outer beam since this is a likely impact point of a collision), the reinforcing insert having an upper wall and a lower wall that each extend between the front wall portion and the rear wall portion of the outer beam profile as shown below in the image taken from Fig 14 of Sonobe et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (lower wall)][AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (upper wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (intermediate wall)]
PNG
media_image2.png
264
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Sonobe et al. with the structural beam disclosed by Ishizuka et al. for the advantage of the insert which provides additional strength to the structural beam.
With respect to claim 2, Sonobe et al. disclose all the claimed structure of the apparatus Note, since claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, the method step of disposing the reinforcing insert in the outer beam profile during the roll-forming process is not given any patentable weight unless it results in a structural difference from the prior art, in this case it does not add any structural difference.
With respect to claim 3, Sonobe et al. disclose that the reinforcing insert 15/16/17/18 further comprises an intermediate wall disposed between the upper wall and the lower wall, and wherein the intermediate wall is adjacent the front wall portion of the outer beam profile (as indicated in the above Figure).
With respect to claim 4, the intermediate wall of the reinforcing insert is coupled to the front wall portion of the outer beam profile by welding (Sonobe et al., paragraph [0071]).
With respect to claim 7, Ishizuka et al. disclose that the top wall portion and the bottom wall portion extend between the front wall portion and the rear wall portion (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.).
With respect to claim 8, Ishizuka et al. disclose that the flange has a zero-thickness offset bend (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Ishizuka et al.).
With respect to claim 9, Sonobe et al. teach that the upper and lower walls of the reinforcing insert 15/16/17/18 divide an interior volume of the hollow body to form a plurality of elongated hollow areas A, B, and C (as shown in Fig. 13 of Sonobe et al.).
With respect to claim 10, Ishizuka et al. disclose the claimed bumper reinforcement beam capable of being supported by crush cans except for the reinforcing insert. Ishizuka et al. disclose a bumper reinforcement beam capable of being supported by crush cans at a vehicle frame, the bumper reinforcement beam comprising:
a roll-formed outer beam profile having an elongated hollow body 2 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishisuzka et al.) formed from a sheet material (note, in an apparatus claim, the method of forming does not hold any patentable weight unless the resulting structure is different than the prior art–in this case, the resulting structure is not different than the prior art), the hollow body 2 having a front wall portion and a rear wall portion extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end of the hollow body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (top wall portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
392
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (bottom wall portion)]
wherein a front wall portion is integral with a top wall portion and a bottom wall portion, to define a top wall junction and a bottom wall junction (as shown above), each of the top wall junction and the bottom wall junction having an integral flange 231.
Sonobe et al. teach a similar structural beam for a vehicle including a reinforcing insert 15/16/17/18 disposed along a central section of the reinforcement beam between first and second lateral end sections (while this is not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reinforcing insert would be centrally positioned in the outer beam since this is a likely impact point of a collision), the reinforcing insert having an upper wall and a lower wall that each extend between the front wall portion and the rear wall portion of the outer beam profile as shown below in the image taken from Fig 14 of Sonobe et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (intermediate wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (upper wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (lower wall)][AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
264
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Sonobe et al. with the bumper reinforcement beam disclosed by Ishizuka et al. for the advantage of the insert which provides additional strength to the structural beam.
With respect to claim 11, Sonobe et al. disclose that the reinforcing insert 4 further comprises an intermediate wall disposed between the upper wall and the lower wall, and wherein the intermediate wall is adjacent the front wall portion of the outer beam profile (as indicated in the above Figure).
With respect to claim 12, Sonobe et al. disclose that the intermediate wall is adjacent the front wall portion of the outer beam profile (as shown above).
With respect to claim 13, Sonobe et al. disclose that the intermediate wall of the reinforcing insert is coupled to the front wall portion of the outer beam profile by welding (Sonobe et al., paragraph [0071]).
With respect to claim 17, Ishizuka et al. disclose that the flange has a zero-thickness offset bend (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Ishizuka et al.).
Claims 1, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Ishizuka et al. (US 2023/0044854) in view of Schiller et al. (US 2023/0143784).
With respect to claim 1, Ishizuka et al. disclose the claimed structural beam except for the reinforcing insert. Ishizuka et al. disclose a structural beam for a vehicle, the structural beam comprising:
a roll-formed outer beam profile having an elongated hollow body 2 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishisuzka et al.) formed from a sheet material (note, in an apparatus claim, the method of forming does not hold any patentable weight unless the resulting structure is different than the prior art–in this case, the resulting structure is not different than the prior art), the hollow body 2having a front wall portion and a rear wall portion extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end of the hollow body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (top wall portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
392
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (bottom wall portion)]
wherein the front wall portion is integral with a top wall portion and a bottom wall portion, forming a top wall junction and a bottom wall junction, respectively (as shown above), and
wherein at least one of the top wall junction and the bottom wall junction comprises a flange 231.
[AltContent: textbox (upper wall)][AltContent: ]Schiller et al. teach a similar structural beam for a vehicle including a reinforcing insert 5 disposed along a central section of a reinforcement beam 1, wherein the between first and second lateral end sections (while this is not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reinforcing insert would be centrally positioned in the outer beam since this is a likely impact point of a collision), the reinforcing insert having 5 an upper wall and a lower wall that each extend between a front wall portion 6 and the rear wall portion 8 of the outer beam profile as shown below in the image taken from Fig 2(c) of Schiller et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (lower wall)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
239
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Schiller et al. with the bumper reinforcement beam disclosed by Ishizuka et al. for the advantage of the insert which provides additional strength to the structural beam.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Schiller et al. teach that the structural beam includes a central section having a first length 4 (corresponding to the length of a reinforcing insert 5) as shown in Fig. 1 of Schiller et al. The entire beam length is L and Schiller et al. teaches (in paragraph [0031]) that “The middle length portion 4 has a longitudinal extent of approximately from 20% to 50%, in particular from 20% to 40% of the length L of the bumper crossmember 2.” Thus, if the length of the reinforcing insert is 20% of the length L of the crossmember 2, then the first and second lengths of the first and second lateral ends would each be 40% of L. Therefore, Schiller et al. teach that the first length (.2L) is less than s sum of the second third lengths (.8L).
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizuka et al. (US 2023/0044854) in view of Yamamomto (US 2001/0017473).
With respect to claim 1, Ishizuka et al. disclose the claimed structural beam except for the reinforcing insert. Ishizuka et al. disclose a structural beam for a vehicle, the structural beam comprising:
a roll-formed outer beam profile having an elongated hollow body 2 (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishisuzka et al.) formed from a sheet material (note, in an apparatus claim, the method of forming does not hold any patentable weight unless the resulting structure is different than the prior art–in this case, the resulting structure is not different than the prior art), the hollow body 2having a front wall portion and a rear wall portion extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end of the hollow body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (bottom wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (front wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (top wall portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
392
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the front wall portion is integral with a top wall portion and a bottom wall portion, forming a top wall junction and a bottom wall junction, respectively (as shown above), and
wherein at least one of the top wall junction and the bottom wall junction comprises a flange 231.
Yamamoto et al. teach a similar structural beam for a vehicle including a reinforcing insert 4 disposed along a central section of a reinforcement beam 3, wherein the central section is between first and second lateral end sections as shown in Fig. 1A of Yamamoto, the reinforcing insert having 4 an upper wall and a lower wall that each extend between a front wall portion 6 and the rear wall portion 8 of the outer beam profile as shown below in the image taken from Fig 1B of Yamamoto:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (upper wall)]
[AltContent: textbox (lower wall)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
239
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Yamamoto with the bumper reinforcement beam disclosed by Ishizuka et al. for the advantage of the insert which provides additional strength to the structural beam.
With respect to claim 6, Ishizuka et al. in view of Yamamoto disclose the claimed structural beam except that they are silent on whether the upper wall of the reinforcing insert portion extends rearward and upward at an angle of greater than 70º relative to the front wall portion. Yamamoto discloses that the upper wall 4a of the reinforcing insert 4 extends rearward and upward at an angle relative to the front wall portion as shown in Fig. 1B of Yamamoto. While this angle appears to be greater than 70º relative to the front wall portion, Yamamoto is silent on this. However, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)]. Se MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Thus, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make the angle 70º relative to the front wall portion based on routine experimentation in determining the optimal angle.
With respect to claim 15, Ishizuka et al. in view of Yamamoto disclose the claimed structural beam except that they are silent on whether the upper wall of the reinforcing insert portion extends rearward and upward at an angle of greater than 70º relative to the front wall portion, and wherein the lower wall of the reinforcing insert extends rearward and downward at an angle of less than 90º relative to the front wall portion. Yamamoto discloses that the upper wall 4a of the reinforcing insert 4 extends rearward and upward at an angle relative to the front wall portion as shown in Fig. 1B of Yamamoto. While this angle appears to be greater than 70º relative to the front wall portion, Yamamoto is silent on this. However, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)]. Se MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Additionally, Yamamoto is silent on the angle of the lower wall 4b of the reinforcing insert 4 extending rearward and downward at relative to the front wall portion. As shown in Fig. 1B of Yamamoto the angle appears approximately less than 90º relative to the front wall portion, butYamamoto is silent on this. It has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. [In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)]. Se MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Thus, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make the angle less than 90º relative to the front wall portion based on routine experimentation in determining the optimal angle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Ishizuka et al. (US 2023/0044854) in view of Sonobe et al. (US 2021/0162940), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rietschle et al. (US 2025/0319834).
With respect to claim 16, Ishizuka et al. as modified discloses the claimed bumper reinforcement beam except that they are silent on whether the rear wall portion comprises an attachment surface that is adapted for attachment to crush cans. Ishizuka et al. disclose that the top wall portion and the bottom wall portion extend between the front wall portion and the rear wall portion (as shown in Fig. 3 of Ishizuka et al.).
Rietschle et al. teach a similar bumper reinforcement beam including an outer beam 10 and a reinforcing insert 20 wherein a rear wall portion 28 comprises an attachment surface that is adapted for attachment to crush cans 12,14 (Rietschle et al., paragraph [0042]; Fig. 1).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Rietschle et al. with the bumper reinforcement beam of Ishizuka et al. as modified for the advantage of added impact absorption provided by the crush cans to protect the vehicle and/or passenger compartment from damage.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handing (US 2017/0129429) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2020/0139910).
With respect to claim 18, Handing discloses a method of forming a structural beam for a vehicle except for the steps of roll-forming a partial profile; inserting a reinforcing insert into the partial profile; and roll-forming the partial profile including the reinforcing insert into an outer beam profile of a structural beam for a vehicle, the structural beam having an elongated hollow body, Maeda et al. disclose a method comprising:
roll forming a structural beam profile (Handing, paragraph [0025]) wherein the elongated hollow body has a front wall portion 5 and a rear wall portion 3, the front wall portion being integral with a top wall portion 12 and a bottom wall portion 11 to define a top wall junction and a bottom wall junction, each of the top wall junction and the bottom wall junction including an integral flange as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 9B of Handing:
[AltContent: textbox (integral flange)][AltContent: textbox (integral flange)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
221
515
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Maeda et al. teach a similar method of roll-forming a structural beam for a vehicle including:
a reinforcing insert 1 having an upper wall and a lower wall that each extend between the front wall portion and the rear wall portion of the outer beam profile as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Maeda et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (front or rear wall portion)][AltContent: textbox (upper or lower wall )][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (rear or front wall portion )][AltContent: textbox (lower or upper wall)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
259
360
media_image5.png
Greyscale
roll-forming a partial profile 2 (as shown in Fig. 7B of Maeda et al.);
inserting a reinforcing insert 1 into the partial profile 2; and
roll-forming the partial profile 2 including the reinforcing insert 1 into an outer beam profile of a structural beam for a vehicle, the structural beam having an elongated hollow body (Maeda et al., paragraph [0067], Figs. 2 and 7D).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Maeda et al. with the method disclosed by Handing for the advantage of the reinforcing insert 1 which provides the structural beam with a greater strength.
With respect to claim 19, Maeda et al. disclose that the elongated hollow body is formed from a sheet material (as shown in Figs. 2 and 7A of Maeda et al.), the front wall portion and the rear wall portion each extending along a length defined between a first end and a second end of the hollow body as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 2 of Maeda et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (second end/second lateral end section)][AltContent: textbox (first end/first lateral end section)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image6.png
217
362
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Maeda et al. disclose that the reinforcing insert 1 disposed along a central section of the outer beam profile 2 between first and second lateral end sections thereof as shown above,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New references have been applied, as outlined above, to meet the newly added limitations regarding flanges or integral flanges.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
