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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 108 in view of WO 154.
For claim 1, JP 2002-12108 (JP 108) discloses a connecting element (70) for fastening a bumper (FIG.1) to a body structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a first end face facing the bumper, and
a second end face facing the body structure,
wherein the connecting element (70) being realized as an extrusion component ([0006]) comprising
a screw section (78) monolithically connected to the extrusion component,
wherein the screw section (78) extends over a part of the length of the connecting element in the direction of a longitudinal axis of the connecting element.
JP 108 provides for the screw section to be used in conjunction with self-tapping screws and therefore lacks the element including an internal thread.
PNG
media_image1.png
198
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP 108 further lacks the screw section (with internal threads) extends at least almost to the first end face via the internal thread and has a length which is twice to three times the diameter of the internal thread.
PNG
media_image3.png
272
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These features are known from WO 154 (WO 2018/055154) as set forth above.
Specifically, WO 154 (WO 2018/055154) teaches a connecting element (200) for fastening a bumper (FIG.1) to a body structure of a vehicle, comprising:
a first end face facing the bumper, and
a second end face (FIGS.2-4) facing the body structure,
wherein the connecting element (200) being realized as an extrusion component (pg 6, lines 9-20) comprising
a screw section (202) monolithically connected to the extrusion component and
having an internal thread (pg 7, line 25-27)
wherein the screw section (202) extends over a part of the length of the connecting element in the direction of a longitudinal axis of the connecting element (FIG.2), and
wherein the screw section (202) extends at least almost to the first end face via the internal thread and has a length which is twice to three times the diameter (pg 8, lines 5-7) of the internal thread.
PNG
media_image4.png
527
613
media_image4.png
Greyscale
For claim 1, the at least one screw section (202) is disposed on an outer wall (FIG.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the screw section of the element of JP 108 with internal threads as taught by WO 154 in order to allow for a screw that is not-self tapping to be utilized and further to have provided the screw section extended at least almost to the first end face via the internal thread and has a length which is twice to three times the diameter of the internal thread taught by WO 154 in order to allow for a secure and stable attachment.
For claim 1, as amended, JP 108, as modified, provides the at least one screw section is disposed on an outer wall (FIG.4c) on the side of the outer wall facing away from the longitudinal axis as recited.
For claims 8 and 11, JP 108, as modified with WO 154, inherently discloses the recited method.
For claim 3, wherein two screw sections are provided, which are disposed diametrically opposite to the longitudinal axis.
For claim 6, the cross section of the connecting element is rectangular.
For claim 7, the connecting element is connected to a connecting plate (flange 8, FIG.1) for being fastened to the body structure of a vehicle.
For claim 9, JP 108, as modified, discloses a crash management system as recited where two connecting elements are provided (FIG. 1) spaced apart along with a bumper (1, FIG.1) as recited.
For claim 10, JP 108, as modified, provides each connecting element (FIG.4c) having two screw sections disposed on opposite sides, two on one side and two on the other, the two screw sections, both being aligned with a center plane of the bumper.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 108, as modified and applied above with respect to claim 1 and in view of Sovic et al. (2019/0381960).
For claim 4, JP 108, as modified, provides the connecting element realized as a crash box but lacks the recited weakening area and further the weakening area in the form of a dent.
Sovic et al. teach this feature with weakening area (15) as a dent. As is evident from FIG.3 the weakening area (15) is provided in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the connecting element, on an outer wall thereof;
the weakening area (15) extends over a part of the length of the connecting element (3) in each case having a distance to the two end faces (near to reference numeral 6 and 13).
PNG
media_image5.png
584
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the element of JP 108, as modified, with a weakening area at a distance spaced from a second end face of the connecting element as taught by Sovic et al. in order to optimize and/or control the deformation behavior of the element as so desired.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have positioned the weakening area of JP 108, as modified, spaced (in the longitudinal direction of the connecting element) from the screw section, at the first end face of the connecting element, in order to not interfere with the screw section.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 108, as modified, and in view of Gotanda et al. (2002/0063433).
For claim 5, JP 108, as modified, discloses the connecting element made of aluminum but fails to provide the cross section having several chambers extending in the direction of the longitudinal axis, a feature taught by Gotanda et al. which provides a connecting element (17) of aluminum material having several chambers (FIG.1).
PNG
media_image6.png
592
645
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the element of JP 108, as modified, designed with several chambers as taught by Gotanda et al. in order to improve the plastic deformation characteristics of the element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on JP108 in view of W0154
Applicant submits the rejection is improper because JP108 relies on full-length screw-hole structures that participate in crash deformation and energy absorption, whereas Applicant intentionally localizes the screw section to minimize adverse effects on crash performance, as explained in paragraphs [0004]- [0006] and [0025]. The Office Action relies upon those same full-length screw-hole structures as corresponding to the claimed screw section.
Examiner disagrees. The screw sections, as broadly recited and interpreted can be seen in JP 108 in at least in the cross-sectional view of FIG.1B. The “section” as recited is interpreted as only that portion, monolithically connected to the extrusion component, where the screw (18) is provided. Although a hole (19) is formed for the purposes of deformation, the entirety thereof is not, for the purposes of interpreting the claims and the reference, to be considered the “screw section” as broadly recited but only that portion or section (at 18) through which the screw (18) extends. The modification made above is to that section only and not the entirety of the hole (19). Modifying the length of the “screw section” would modify only the portion of the hole where the screw (18) and internal threads, taught by WO 154, reside.
PNG
media_image3.png
272
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant goes on to argue that even assuming WO 154 supplies certain additional structural features, the Office Action does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified JP 108's full-length crash-deformation screw-hole structure so as to arrive at Applicant's localized screw section because such a modification would run contrary to the purpose for which JP108 employs the screw-hole structures (as part of the impact absorbing member.
The examiner notes that JP 108 was modified to include internal threads and to include the internal threads to the end face where the internal threads extend a length equal to twice-three times the diameter of the internal threads. The motivation set forth was to accommodate a fastener that is not self-tapping and create a secure and stable attachment for the screw. For the later rationale, a PHOSITA understands that when using screws to secure objects one wants the screw to break before the threads strip/fail. That is, as an engineering safeguard and good rule of thumb, the length of the screw section should be at least 2.0 times the diameter (D) so the failure point is in the tensile stress area of the screw (see Tameson chart for “Aluminum” showing a minimum thread engagement distance of 2.0 to 2.5 x diameter of the screw). A thorough explanation has been provided. Motivation can come from the prior art, knowledge of those skilled in the art, or common sense. Examiner submits there is no legal error with the rejection above which is hereby maintained.
Claims 4, 5-7 and 10
For claim 4, applicant makes additional comments regarding claim 4 stating that a specific positional relationship is recited between the weakening area and the screw section and that the Office Action does not identify where this specific relationship is disclosed or suggested in the cited references. Examiner has modified the language to clarify that it would be obvious to space the weakening taught by Sovic from (away from) the screw section (rearwardly in the longitudinal direction of the connecting element) so as not to interfere with that connection. That is, a PHOSITA understands that providing the specific weakening at the screw section may adversely compromise the integrity of the connection during deformation. It is within the purview of the examiner to employ a rationale of common sense when no “specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference” is present. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights