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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2018-30542 A, cited in IDS submitted June 21, 2024, machine language translation provided and cited below) in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0129488 A1) as evidenced by Mizoguchi et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 104246914 A, machine language translation provided and cited below) and Kaji et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0036631 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hashida discloses a method for producing a bumper reinforcement, ([0026] of Hashida, bumper reinforcement formed by joining reinforcing plate #12 to bumper reinforcement body #32) the method comprising: a pre-joining process of preparing a laminate in a state in which a metal member ([0026] of Hashida, body #32 made of metal joined to reinforcing plate #12), an adhesive, and a resin member to be joined to the metal member are arranged in this order ([0016] of Hashida, reinforcing plate #12 formed from fiber reinforced resin; [0016], FIG. 4 of Hashida, plate #12 joined to body #32 using adhesive #29); and a joining process (FIG. 4 of Hashida, plate #12 joined to body #32 using adhesive #29), wherein the metal member is a body extending along a vehicle width direction and including at least one first joining portion on a vehicle body side (FIG. 3 of Hashida, bumper reinforcement #30 includes body #32 configured to extend across width of vehicle and includes; body #32 includes joining portion or bond interface with plate #12), the resin member is a resin reinforcing portion extending along the vehicle width direction and including at least one second joining portion, the first joining portion of the body and the second joining portion of the resin member are joined to each other via the adhesive (FIG. 3 of Hashida, bumper reinforcement #30 includes plate #12 configured to extend across width of vehicle; plate #12 includes joining portion or bond interface with body #32), the resin reinforcing portion is disposed closer to a vehicle body than the body (FIG. 3 of Hashida, plate #12 on vehicle body side of bumper reinforcement #30), the resin reinforcing portion includes one or more reinforcing ribs that protrude toward the vehicle body and extend along the vehicle width direction (FIGS. 3-4 of Hashida, plate #12 includes thicker portions #T4 which form ribs projecting toward vehicle body).
Hashida does not specifically disclose that the adhesive is a solid joining agent containing, as a main component, an amorphous thermoplastic resin which is at least one of a thermoplastic epoxy resin or a phenoxy resin and a joining process of melting the solid joining agent by heating and pressurizing the laminate to join the metal member and the resin member. Takahashi, however, discloses a metal/fiber-reinforced resin composite body comprising a metal member, a fiber-reinforced resin layer and a solidified bonding resin layer interposed therebetween (Abstract of Takahashi). According to Takahashi, the composite body can be used as an automobile structural member and which has excellent processability and can be produced by a simple method ([0035] of Takahashi). According to Takahashi, the bonding resin layer is a thermoplastic phenoxy resin ([0061]-[0062] of Takahashi) and the fiber-reinforced resin layer is joined to the metal member by a thermocompression process involving heating above the melting point of the bonding resin and pressurizing ([0103] of Takahashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solidified thermoplastic phenoxy resin bonding resin layer and the thermocompression process of Takahashi to join the plate and metal body of the bumper reinforcement of Hashida. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to join the components using a simple method which has excellent processability as taught by Takahashi ([0035] of Takahashi).
Takahashi does not disclose that the amorphous thermoplastic resin has an epoxy equivalent of 1600 or more, or contains no epoxy group, and the amorphous thermoplastic resin has a heat of fusion of 15 J/g or less. Takahashi, however, discloses that the phenoxy resin can be a bisphenol-A type phenoxy resin such as Pheno Tohto YP-50 ([0065] of Takahashi). As evidence by Mizoguchi and Kaji, YP-50 resin has an epoxy equivalent of 87,600 ([0175] of Mizoguchi) and a heat of fusion of 0 ([0055]-[0056], Table 1 of Kaji).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses that the heating and pressurizing are performed under conditions of 100 to 400 °C and 0.01 to 20 MPa ([0104] of Takahashi, thermocompression temperature of 150 to 300 °C; [0105] of Takahashi, pressure during compression of 3 to 5 MPa).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses that the solid joining agent before melting has a shape selected from the group consisting of a film, a rod, a pellet, and a powder ([0061] of Takahashi, bonding resin layer applied as a film).
Regarding claim 6, Hashida discloses that the body includes the first joining portion on each of upper and lower sides of the body, and the reinforcing rib is disposed corresponding to the first joining portion (FIGS. 3 and 4 of Hashida).
Regarding claim 10, Hashida discloses that the body includes the first joining portion on each of upper and lower sides of the body, and the resin reinforcing portion includes a resin main body extending in the vehicle width direction (FIG. 3 of Hashida, bumper includes plate which extends in vehicle width direction), and the second joining portion on each of upper and lower sides of the resin main body (FIGS. 3 and 4 of Hashida, body and plate joined on upper and lower sides of bumper reinforcement #30), and the first joining portion and the second joining portion are joined at a joined surface that intersects a vehicle front-rear direction (FIG. 3 of Hashida, joining surfaces of plate #12 and body #32 intersect vehicle front-rear direction).
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Takahashi as evidenced by Mizoguchi and Kaji as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kitakata et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2018-020747 A, cited in IDS submitted June 21, 2024; machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 4, Hashida does not specifically disclose that the first joining portion of the body and the second joining portion of the resin reinforcing portion are joined to each other to form a hollow portion inside the body. Kitakata, however, discloses a bumper reinforcement comprising a metallic body and a fiber-reinforced resin plate joined together by an adhesive (Abstract of Kitakata). According to Kitakata, the plate is joined to a bumper main body having a hat type cross-section such that a hollow portion is formed inside the body (FIG. 4C, [0026] of Kitakata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join the body and the plate in the modified method to each other to form a hollow portion since Kitakata establishes that it was known to form bumper reinforcements in such a manner. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Kitakata discloses that a cross- sectional shape of the body is a hat form (FIG. 4C, [0026] of Kitakata).
Regarding claim 7, Hashida does not specifically disclose that the resin reinforcing portion includes one or more holes. Kitakata, however, discloses a bumper reinforcement comprising a metallic body and a fiber-reinforced resin plate joined together by an adhesive (Abstract of Kitakata). According to Kitakata, the fiber-reinforced resin plate includes holes #26 into which fastening members #32 are inserted (FIGS. 3 and 5, [0015] of Kitakata). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plate in the modified process with holes. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the insertion of fastening members through the plate as taught by Kitakata (FIGS. 3 and 5, [0015] of Kitakata).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Takahashi as evidenced by Mizoguchi and Kaji as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Konishi et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2003-129611 A, cited in IDS submitted June 21, 2024; machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 8, Hashida does not specifically disclose that the body includes an aluminum alloy having a tensile strength of 350 MPa or higher. Moreover, Hashida discloses that the body can be made of an aluminum alloy ([0012] of Hashida) but does not disclose the tensile strength of the aluminum alloy. Konishi, however, discloses a bumper for an automobile made from an aluminum alloy (Abstract, [0002] of Konishi) wherein the aluminum alloy has a tensile strength of 400 MPa or more ([0036] of Konishi). According to Konishi, the use of such aluminum alloys increases the energy absorption of the bending strength member ([0036] of Konishi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum alloy having a tensile strength of 400 MPa or more in the modified process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the energy absorption of the bumper as taught by Konishi ([0036] of Konishi).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Takahashi as evidenced by Mizoguchi and Kaji as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Teshima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0050736 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hashida does not specifically disclose that the resin reinforcing portion includes a resin having an elastic modulus of 5 GPa or more at 80 °C. Teshima, however, discloses a resin structure having impact absorbing properties which can be used as a bumper (Abstract, [0002] of Teshima). According to Teshima, the resin structure can include fiber reinforcements ([0077] of Teshima) and the tensile modulus of the fiber reinforced resin material is preferably 20 GPa or higher ([0099] of Teshima). Also according to Teshima, the tensile modulus of the fiber reinforced resin material affects the impact absorbing properties of the structure and the modulus can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the tensile modulus of the matrix resin ([0099] of Teshima). Teshima therefore establishes that resin tensile modulus is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., affecting the tensile modulus and the impact absorbing properties of the fiber reinforced resin) ([0099] of Teshima). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize elastic modulus of the resin in the modified method, including providing a resin having an elastic modulus as recited in claim 9. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashida in view of Takahashi as evidenced by Mizoguchi and Kaji as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gibeau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0268976 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hashida does not specifically disclose that the reinforcing portion includes a second reinforcing rib extending in a vehicle up-down direction. Gibeau, however, discloses a bumper beam comprising a resin reinforcement part #4 having reinforcement ribs #24 extending in a vehicle vertical direction (FIG. 3 of Gibeau). As disclosed by Gibeau, the vertical reinforcement ribs #24 contribute to energy absorption during a crash ([0049] of Gibeau). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include vertical reinforcement ribs in the reinforcing plate in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a rib structure which contributes to energy absorption during a crash as taught by Gibeau ([0049] of Gibeau).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746