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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S.C 112(b).
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Paragraph [0031] of the specification states “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a sheet cross member according to the prior art.” Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 and 5-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 12 and 19 recite “a flat upper plate”. This renders the claim unclear and indefinite, as it is uncertain whether “a flat upper plate” is the same as “the upper plate”. It is recommended to rewrite claim 1 as follows:
“An impact reinforcement component, comprising:
a component body having side walls on both sides thereof in a longitudinal direction and an upper plate connecting
upper ends of the side walls on both sides; and
an end flange formed by being bent at each of both ends of the component body in the
longitudinal direction,
wherein the component body is formed by continuous repetition of roll stamping in which a
stamping roll rotates multiple times and presses a material,
wherein the component body includes
a body portion having a plurality of beads formed on the upper plate in a longitudinal direction;
and
a boundary portion which is integrated with the body portion and the end flange, as a
connecting portion between the body portion and the end flange, which comprises the upper
plate,
wherein the body portion comprises:
a plurality of bead regions located to be spaced apart from each other in the
longitudinal direction and to have the beads formed on the upper plate thereof;
and
a middle beadless region located between the plurality of bead regions and comprising the
upper plate,
wherein a longitudinal length of the middle beadless region is equal to or greater than
twice a longitudinal length obtained by adding the boundary portion and the
end flange.”
Claim 5 line 11 recites the limitation “the second end beadless process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the Non-Final Rejection of 1/28/2026, the Examiner noted that claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(B), and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, meaning the limitations of claim 6 must be included in amended claim 5, and claim 6 cancelled. The applicant instead moved just the limitations of claim 7 into claim 5, skipping the limitations of claim 6. By not including the limitations of claim 6, the above noted lack of antecedent basis issue arose. Other issues have also resulted in claim 6 by moving claim 7 into claim 5 without claim 6. For example, Claim 6 includes “a first end beadless process of forming a flat upper plate” at line 6, but claim 5 includes “a first end beadles process” at line 10. It is also unclear if the flat upper plate and the upper plate of claim 6 are referring to the same, or different plates. It is recommended that claim 5 be rewritten as follows:
“A method for manufacturing an impact reinforcement component,
comprising:
a roll stamping operation of continuously repeating roll stamping in which a stamping roll
rotates multiple times and presses a material in a longitudinal direction; and
a flange forming operation of bending each of both ends of the material to form an end flange,
wherein in the roll stamping operation, a plurality of bead regions are formed in the material, a
middle beadless region is formed between the plurality of bead regions, and an end
beadless region is formed at each of both ends,
wherein the roll stamping operation comprises
a full bending process in which the stamping roll rotates multiple times and presses the
material, to bend the material to form side walls on both sides and an upper
plate;
a first end beadless process of forming the upper plate at one end of the material in a
longitudinal direction to form the end beadless region;
a bead process of forming a plurality of beads on the upper plate of the material to be spaced
apart from each other in the longitudinal direction to form the plurality of bead regions;
a middle beadless process of forming the upper plate between the plurality of beads to form
the middle beadless region; and
a second end beadless process of forming the
in the longitudinal direction to form the end beadless region,
wherein the first end beadless process, bead process, middle beadless process, and second
end beadless process are performed during the full bending process, and the middle
beadless process is performed during the bead process,
wherein a longitudinal length of the middle beadless region is equal to or greater than twice a
longitudinal length of the end beadless region formed by the first end beadless process
or the second end beadless process.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the “longitudinal length of the middle beadless region is equal to or greater than twice a longitudinal length obtained by adding the boundary portion and the end flange” as found in claims 1 and 5, is not an obvious combination of prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights