DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on August 5th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s argument that “Regarding traversal, Applicant believes that the requirement of unity of invention is met as all the dependent claims (including claims 2-15) stem from a single general inventive concept, i.e., independent claim 1” (p. 2) is not persuasive as the single general inventive concept does not make a contribution over the prior art of Rocheblave (EP 3 296 089). Rocheblave teaches an energy-absorbing device (see Fig. 2) for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising at least one core (“composite sheet” 4), composed of at least one energy-absorbing material (see Abstract), and a plastic structure molded onto the core (4) in order to form an assembly in a single piece (Abstract - “a sheet of metallic material is formed to form a piece of metal (2), one solidarises one or more reinforcing strips (3) formed of continuous fibers coated with a polymer matrix on a composite sheet (4) formed of fibers impregnated in a thermoplastic polymer matrix”), wherein the energy-absorbing device comprises: at least one reinforcement part (“reinforcement strip” 3) forming a local additional thickness of a core (“composite sheet” 4), and at least one mechanical retention element (“Preferably, it will be sought to adhere the reinforcement strips 3 to the composite sheet 4”) contributing towards holding the core (4) and the at least one reinforcement part (3) together.
Applicant’s argument that “Furthermore, Applicant notes that the International Search Authority also appears to believe that the requirement of unity of invention is met because the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority contains no indications relating to lack of unity of invention. As set forth in MPEP 1850, "it is clear that the decision with respect to unity of invention rests with the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority." Therefore, Applicant asserts deference should be given to the position on unity of invention taken by the International Search Authority” (p. 2) is not persuasive as the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority are not responsible for examining the instant application. Examiner believes the restriction mailed June 5th, 2026 is proper according to MPEP 1850 and hereby maintained.
Applicant’s argument that “Applicant further notes that, according to PCT Rule 13.3, "it shall be permitted to include in the same international application a reasonable number of dependent claims, claiming specific forms of the invention claimed in an independent claim, even where the features of any dependent claim could be considered as constituting in themselves an invention." Accordingly, Applicant asserts that Group I and Group II represent permissible embodiments of the same invention. Despite what the Examiner asserts, Applicant believes a search strategy that covers Group I and Group II will also cover variations of Group I and Group II. Accordingly, it is believed that the election of species requirement is improper” (p. 2) is not persuasive for at least the reasons stated above. Examiner would encourage Applicant to recite a single general inventive concept that makes a contribution over the prior art as required by MPEP 1850.
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/698,363 filed on April 4th, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application FR 2 110 559 filed on October 6th, 2021. A certified copy was received on May 13th, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 4th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 8 (lines 3-4), please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one mechanical retention element is positioned spaced from the outer crest” to - - wherein the at least one mechanical retention element is positioned spaced from the one of the outer crests - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 7 (lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 8 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one reinforcement part is positioned covering the outer crest” to - - wherein the at least one reinforcement part is positioned covering the one of the outer crests - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 7 (lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 3-4), please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one reinforcement part extends locally on the core of an inner crest, to an adjacent inner crest, covering a single outer crest” to - - wherein the at least one reinforcement part extends locally on the core of [[an]] one of the inner crests, to an adjacent one of the inner crests, covering the one of the outer crests - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 7 (lines 9-11).
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “wherein the rectangular plate being deformed in order to have a sinusoidal geometry common to that of the core” to - - wherein the rectangular plate being deformed in order to have [[a]] the sinusoidal geometry common to that of the core - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 3-5), please change the recitation of “wherein a central part of the rectangular plate which forms the at least one reinforcement part is positioned covering an outer crest of the geometry common to the core” to - - wherein a central part of the rectangular plate which forms the at least one reinforcement part is positioned covering an outer crest of the sinusoidal geometry common to the core - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14 (line 1), please change the recitation of “A vehicle comprising at least one element” to - - [[A]] The vehicle comprising at least one element - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, in the recitation of “wherein the core and the at least one reinforcement part are supported flat on one another, and have together a geometry with a common form” it is unclear if Applicant intends to redefine the energy-absorbing device recited in claim 1. Claim 4 is directed towards a pre-fabricated state of the finished product recited in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the core and the at least one reinforcement part are supported [[flat]] on one another, and have together a geometry with a common form” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 5, in the recitation of “wherein the core has a geometry with a sinusoidal form” the difference between the “geometry” recited in claim 4 and the “geometry” recited in claim 5 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite something similar to “wherein the core has [[a]] the geometry with the common form is a sinusoidal form” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 3 and 5-6), in the recitations of “wherein the at least one reinforcement part is in the form of a rectangular plate” and “wherein the rectangular plate being deformed in order to have a sinusoidal geometry common to that of the core” it is unclear if Applicant intends to redefine the energy-absorbing device recited in claim 1. The recited “rectangular plate” is directed towards a pre-fabricated state of the finished product recited in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the at least one reinforcement part is in the form of a [[rectangular]] plate” and “wherein the [[rectangular]] plate being deformed in order to have [[a]] the sinusoidal geometry common to that of the core” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 11 (line 3), in the recitation of “wherein a central part of the rectangular plate” it is unclear if Applicant intends to redefine the energy-absorbing device recited in claim 1. The recited “rectangular plate” is directed towards a pre-fabricated state of the finished product recited in claim 1. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a central part of the [[rectangular]] plate” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claims 5-11 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rocheblave (EP 3 296 089). Rocheblave was cited on the IDS filed April 4th, 2024. See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Rocheblave teaches an energy-absorbing device (see various Figures) for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising at least one core (“composite sheet” 4), composed of at least one energy-absorbing material (see Abstract), and a plastic structure (4) molded onto the core (4) in order to form an assembly in a single piece (Abstract - “a sheet of metallic material is formed to form a piece of metal (2), one solidarises one or more reinforcing strips (3) formed of continuous fibers coated with a polymer matrix on a composite sheet (4) formed of fibers impregnated in a thermoplastic polymer matrix”),
wherein the energy-absorbing device comprises:
at least one reinforcement part (“reinforcement strip” 3) forming a local additional thickness of a core (4), and at least one mechanical retention element (“Preferably, it will be sought to adhere the reinforcement strips 3 to the composite sheet 4”) contributing towards holding the core (4) and the at least one reinforcement part (3) together.
Regarding Claim 2, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the energy-absorbing material comprises a plastic material ([0013] – “The hybrid structural part 1 shown in Figure 1 is a motor vehicle center pillar, and comprises a shaped metal part 2, onto which is overmolded a layer of thermoplastic or thermosetting material 6”) and at least one consolidation material based on carbon fibers or glass fibers, incorporated in the plastic material ([0019] – “The polymer material encasing the reinforcing strips 3 or the composite layer 4, preferably thermoplastic” and [0017] – “The continuous fibers of the reinforcement band 3 are embedded in a polymer matrix. The choice of fiber is made from among the most common reinforcing fibers such as glass fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, metallic fibers, aramid fibers”).
Regarding Claim 3, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the core (4) and the at least one reinforcement part (3) are in the form of a sheet (see Figs. 2-10).
Regarding Claim 4, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the core (4) and the at least one reinforcement part (3) are supported flat on one another (see Figs. 2-10), and have together a geometry with a common form (see Figs. 2-10; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the plastic structure (4) comprises means for securing the energy-absorbing device on an element (element seen in Fig. 1) of the vehicle which is to be protected (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Rocheblave teaches a vehicle ([0067] – “Finally, the invention relates to a hybrid structural part 1 of a motor vehicle”) comprising at least one element (element seen in Fig. 1) to be protected against impacts, and at least one energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
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 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocheblave (EP 3 296 089), in view of Maurer (US 7,338,038).
Regarding Claim 5, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 4.
Rocheblave does not teach “wherein the core has a geometry with a sinusoidal form”.
Maurer teaches a core (see Fig. 2C) has a geometry with a sinusoidal form (see Fig. 2C; col. 3, line 47 – “Exemplary cross-sections of energy absorbers are shown respectively in FIGS. 1A-B and 2A-E, such that the pattern of corrugations may be a square waveform (W1=W2)(FIGS. 1A-1B), a positive draft (W1>W2)(FIG. 2A), a negative draft (W1<W2) (FIG. 2B), a sinusoidal waveform (FIG. 2C)…Corrugation patterns other than the square waveform are preferred because these patterns offer increased impact absorption for those impacts that are not normal to the plane of the energy absorber”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the waveform taught by Rocheblave with the sinusoidal waveform taught by Maurer, such that “wherein the core has a geometry with a sinusoidal form”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known waveforms, and have the obvious advantage of increased impact absorption for impacts that are not normal to a plane of the energy-absorbing device taught Rocheblave. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 6, Rocheblave and Maurer teach the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 5,
Rocheblave teaches wherein the at least one reinforcement part (3) is positioned so as to cover at least one of the crests of the sinusoidal form (taught in combination with Maurer; see Figs. 9 and 13 of Rocheblave and Figs. 2C of Maurer).
Regarding Claim 7, Rocheblave and Maurer teach the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 6, the device further comprising:
Rocheblave teaches an outer face which is configured to receive the impacts, and an inner face opposite the outer face, which is configured to be positioned facing the element to be protected (see Figs. 9 and 13 of Rocheblave),
wherein the sinusoidal form of the core (taught in combination with Maurer) comprises:
an alternation of outer crests, the top of which participates in defining the outer face (see Fig. 2C of Maurer), and inner crests, the top of which participates in defining the inner face (see Fig. 2C of Maurer),
wherein the at least one reinforcement part (3) is positioned so as to cover one of the outer crests (see Figs. 9 and 13 of Rocheblave and Fig. 2C of Maurer).
Regarding Claim 10, Rocheblave and Maurer teach the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 5,
Rocheblave teaches wherein the at least one reinforcement part (3) is in the form of a rectangular plate (see 112(b) rejection above), supported against the core (4) with larger dimensions (see Figs. 9 and 13),
wherein the rectangular plate (3; see 112(b) rejection above) is deformed in order to have a sinusoidal geometry (taught in combination with Maurer) common to that of the core (4), and
wherein the at least one retention element is positioned on the periphery of this reinforcement plate (see [0013] and [0017] of Rocheblave).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocheblave (EP 3 296 089), in view of Plank (US 5,672,405).
Regarding Claim 12, Rocheblave teaches the energy-absorbing device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a plurality of reinforcement parts (“Reinforcement strips” 3),
wherein at least one mechanical retention element is associated with each of the reinforcement parts (3), in order to keep it integral with the core (4; [0026] – “Preferably, the aim is to adhere the reinforcement strips 3 to the composite sheet 4. This operation can be carried out hot by heating the face of said composite layer 4, intended to receive the reinforcement strip 3, to a temperature close to the melting temperature of the thermoplastic material, and the surface of the reinforcement strips 3 to a temperature close to the melting temperature of the polymer matrix encasing the continuous fibers, so that the face of the composite layer and the face of the reinforcement strips placed opposite each other are joined by welding”).
Rocheblave does not teach “wherein a plurality of reinforcement parts are positioned spaced from one another on the core, wherein at least one mechanical retention element is associated with each of the reinforcement parts, in order to keep it integral with the core, independently from the other reinforcement parts”. In other words, Rocheblave does not explicitly disclose the structural arrangement of the reinforcement parts.
Plank teaches a plurality of reinforcement parts (Fig. 8, “reinforcing metal sheets” 17 and 18) are positioned spaced from one another on a core (“plastic body” 16),
wherein at least one mechanical retention element (see Fig. 8) is associated with each of the reinforcement parts (17, 18), in order to keep it integral with the core (16), independently from the other reinforcement parts (17, 18; see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the plurality of reinforcement parts taught by Rocheblave as suggested by Plank, such that “wherein a plurality of reinforcement parts are positioned spaced from one another on the core, wherein at least one mechanical retention element is associated with each of the reinforcement parts, in order to keep it integral with the core, independently from the other reinforcement parts”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of securely fastening the plurality of reinforcement parts taught by Rocheblave.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571) 272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights