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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 07/22/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length that exceeds 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome each rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 05/18/2026. Applicant's argument with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-5 have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previously presented prior art rejections of claims 1-5, Applicant argues that Richeton in view of Owens fails to disclose a bumper reinforcement formed of a metal sheet as defined by the newly amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Richeton does not recognize that the ratio relationship between sheet thickness and groove depth affects performance, Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding the sheet thickness and groove depth affecting performance (emphasis added) is further limiting than the claim language. Regarding the geometry relationships, Richeton describes a beam element having both absolute and variable dimensional characteristics. Since the disclosed dimensions may be selected and varied relative to one another, their respective relationships, including the ratio between sheet thickness and groove depth, are inherently determinable from the disclosed dimensions. Expressing the relationship between to disclosed dimensions as a ratio does not introduce a new structural feature; it merely characterizes the relative dimensions of known features. Examiner maintains the selection of the relevant dimensions to arrive at the claimed ratio relationship would have been an obvious consideration and the citation of the Richeton is maintained.
However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Richeton et al. (US9,610,909) in view of Nagayama et al. (US2018/0126934).
Claim 1. Richeton discloses: An open cross section bumper reinforcement (100 beam element, Fig. 1) comprising
a top sheet (front facing surface of 100 beam element, Fig. 1),
two walls (101 top wall and 102 bottom walls, Fig. 1-2A; top and bottom as show in Fig. 2A), and
two ridge portions (top and bottom ridges coupled to 100 and 102 profile walls, Fig. 1-2A),
each of the two ridge portions extend between the top sheet and the walls, in a longitudinal direction of the top sheet (Fig. 1),
a cross section of a center portion in the longitudinal direction is an open cross section having a groove shape (212 central corrugation valley, Fig. 1-2A),
in the cross section, the top sheet includes a central groove part extending in the longitudinal direction at a center of a width (Fig. 1),
in the cross section, the top sheet includes a small groove part between the central groove part and each of the ridge portions (215 first peripheral corrugation valley and 214 second peripheral corrugation valley, Fig. 1-2A),
in the cross section, a depth of the central groove part (F depth of central corrugation valley, Fig. 2A) at the center is 15 times or more and 25 times or less a sheet thickness of the top sheet (thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of 15t ≤ F ≤ 25t can be met),
a depth of each of the small groove parts (E depth, Fig. 2A) is 2 times or more and 13 times or less the sheet thickness of the top sheet (thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of 2t ≤ E ≤ 13t can be met), and
an interval (length between 214 second peripheral corrugation valley and top or bottom ridges coupled to 100 and 102 profile walls, Fig. 1-2A) between each of the small groove parts and each of the ridge portions is 30 times or less the sheet thickness of the top sheet (thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of 30 times or less can be met).
Richeton does not disclose: formed from one metal sheet, and tensile strengths are 1470 MPa or more.
Nagayama et al. discloses a structural component comprising of a metal sheet with a tensile strength greater than 1,800 MPa.
Nagayama teaches: formed form one sheet (sheet, [0041]; Fig. 4) and tensile strengths are 1470 MPa or more (1,800 MPa or more, [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, substitute the beam material of Richeton with the sheet metal material of Nagayama with a reasonable expectation of success to form a beam using a single metal sheet with the required geometry because both perform the same function in similar contexts. Such a substitution represents the use of a known element according to its established function, and the results would have been predictable. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 2. Richeton in view of Nagayama teach: The open cross section bumper reinforcement according to claim 1, wherein in the cross section, a total of an extension length of a flat part between each of the ridge portions and each of the small groove parts and an extension length of a flat part between the central groove part and each of the small groove parts (Richeton: front facing surfaces of 100 between walls and valleys, Fig. 1-2A) is 18% or less of an interval between the ridge portions (Richeton: thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of an interval of 18% or less can be met).
Claim 3. Richeton in view of Nagayama teach: The open cross section bumper reinforcement according to claim 1, wherein in the cross section,
each of the central groove part and each of the small groove parts includes a flat bottom portion (Richeton: Fig. 2A), and
a total of an extension length of the bottom portion of the central groove part (Richeton: 212 width, Fig. 2A), an extension length of the bottom portion of each of the small groove parts (Richeton: 215 and 214 width, Fig. 2A), an extension length of a flat part between each of the ridge portions and each of the small groove parts, and an extension length of the flat part between the central groove part and each of the small groove parts (Richeton: front facing surfaces of 100 between walls and valleys, Fig. 1-2A) is 25% or less of an interval between the ridge portions (Richeton: thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of an interval of 25% or less can be met; Fig. 2A).
Claim 4. Richeton in view of Nagayama teach: The open cross section bumper reinforcement according to any one of claims 1, wherein in the cross section,
a width of each of the small groove parts is 5 times or more and 30 times or less the sheet thickness (Richeton: thickness of layers that make up the total thickness of the beam can vary between 0-3mm; Col. 5, lines 20-29; considering a combination of varied layer thicknesses, the limitation of an interval of 5t ≤ F ≤ 30t can be met; Fig. 2A).
Claim 5. Richeton in view of Nagayama teach: The open cross section bumper reinforcement according to any one of claims 1, wherein the tensile strengths of the top sheet and the walls are 1760 MPa or more (Nagayama: tensile greater than 1,800 MPa or more, [0041]).
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 Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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 T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights