DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 10 July 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-3, and 5-16 are currently presented for examination, of which claim 16 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 10 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3 and 5-15 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 recites “heating the preform to a temperature which is higher than an austenitizing temperature of the steel alloy or, if the individual profiles are provided from different steel alloys, to a temperature of the steel alloy having a highest austenitizing temperature” at lines 6-8. It is unclear whether, when the profiles are formed from different steel alloys having equivalent austenitizing temperatures, how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitation. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the preform must be heated to a temperature above the austenitizing temperature of a steel alloy, however where the austenitizing temperatures are the same, the conditional “if” instructs a person having ordinary skill in the art to heat to the austenitizing temperature, not above. It is unclear whether one having ordinary skill in the art would consider the condition of the heating step met where the temperature is equivalent to the austenitizing temperature rather than exceeding such. It may be that the claim is missing a limitation such as “providing the individual profiles from a same steel alloy or from different steel alloys, the different steel alloys having different austenitizing temperatures” if the Specification as filed provides support for such.
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
German Patent Application Publication DE 102007005301 to Neff et al. teaches a protective element (7a, 7b, 7c) for a vehicle formed of steel, steel plates of the reinforcement member being joined by weld beads (11). Neff does not explicitly disclose that the weld beads are formed of different welding filler materials having different hardnesses.
United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0174760 to Stefansson et al. teaches a steel protective element (10; see Title) which is formed of steel elements which may be welded together (see paragraph [0039]). Stefansson does not explicitly disclose that the weld beads are formed of different welding filler materials having different hardnesses, though it does teach that the protective element may have different hardnesses (see paragraph [0038]; first part hardness and second part hardness).
United States Patent 9,671,199 to Miller et al. teaches a steel armor product (see Title) formed of multiple steel members (see Col. 5, lines 33-37) which are molded (Col. 5, lines 33-36). Miller teaches that its joining technique avoids welding (see Col. 6, lines 15-21), finding such to be potential points of weakness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights