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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/02/2026 has been entered.
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 1-15 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 the limitation “the vehicle bumper complies with established safety standards for a vehicle bumper” which is indefinite. The examiner notes that the claim refers to an arbitrary standard which is not clearly defined and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is noted that various countries can have various safety standard for a vehicle bumper therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. The examiner is not considering the limitation in view of the prior art reference Ogawa et al. (US 4,563,028).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “designing the vehicle bumper to comply with established safety standards for a vehicle bumper” which is indefinite. The examiner notes that the claim refers to an arbitrary standard which is not clearly defined and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is noted that various countries can have various safety standard for a vehicle bumper therefore the scope of the claim is unclear. The examiner is not considering the limitation in view of the prior art reference Ogawa et al. (US 4,563,028).
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejected since they are dependent upon claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (US 4,563,028) (hereinafter Ogawa).
Claim 1: As best understood, Ogawa discloses a vehicle bumper comprising: a main bumper (10, fig. 1) having first and second light bar mounting surfaces (surfaces of 22a and 23a with 34 and 36, fig. 2); a first light bar (20, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 20, fig. 1); and a second light bar (21, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 21, fig. 1); wherein: 1) the first light bar (20) is selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 34, fig. 2) the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34, fig. 2); 2) the second light bar (21) is selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 35, fig. 2) to the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35, fig. 2)
Claim 2: Ogawa discloses the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34, fig. 2) has a flange (bottom flange of 34, fig. 2) defined as a first flange (bottom flange of 34); the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35, fig. 2) has a flange (bottom flange of 35, fig. 2) defined as a second flange (bottom flange of 35); the first light bar (20) has a flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34, fig. 2) defined as a third flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34); the second light bar (21) has a flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35, fig. 2) defined as a fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35); the third flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34) engages with the first flange (bottom flange of 34) to selectively attach the first light bar (20) to the main bumper (10); and the fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35) engages with the second flange (bottom flange of 35) to selectively attach the second light bar (21) to the main bumper (10).
Claim 3: Ogawa discloses the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34) is positioned on a first end of the main bumper (right end of 10, fig. 2); and the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35) is positioned on a second end of the main bumper (left end of 10, fig. 2).
Claim 4: Ogawa discloses when the first light bar (20) is attached to the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34) and the second light bar (21) is attached to the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35): the first and second light bars extend along a common axis (horizontal axis in fig. 1).
Claim 5: Ogawa discloses the vehicle bumper (10) is designed to replace an original bumper on an associated vehicle (see abstract).
Claim 6: Ogawa discloses the main bumper (10) has a support member (11, fig. 2) formed integrally with a mounting plate (12, fig. 2).
Claim 9: As best understood, Ogawa discloses a vehicle bumper method comprising the steps of: A) providing a vehicle bumper (10, fig. 1) having: 1) a main bumper (10) having first and second light bar mounting surfaces (surfaces of 22a and 23a with 34 and 36, fig. 2); 2) a first light bar (20, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 20, fig. 1); and 3) a second light bar (21, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 21, fig. 1); B) designing the first light bar (10) to be selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 34, fig. 2) to the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34); C) designing the second light bar (20) to be selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 35, fig. 2) to the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35).
Claim 10: Ogawa discloses designing the first light bar (20) to be selectively detachable (detachable via crews of 20) from the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34); and designing the second light bar (21) to be selectively detachable (detachable via crews of 21) from the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35).
Claim 11: Ogawa discloses step A comprises the step of: providing the main bumper (10) with a support member (11, fig. 1) formed integrally with a mounting plate (12, fig. 1).
Claim 12: Ogawa discloses: step A comprises the steps of: 1) providing the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34, fig. 2) with a flange (bottom flange of 34, fig. 2) defined as a first flange (bottom flange of 34); 2) providing the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35, fig. 2) with a flange (bottom flange of 35, fig. 2) defined as a second flange (bottom flange of 35); 3) providing the first light bar (20) with a flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34, fig. 2) defined as a third flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34); 4) providing the second light bar (21) with a flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35, fig. 2) defined as a fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35); step B comprises the step of: engaging the third flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34) with the first flange (bottom flange of 34) to selectively attach the first light bar to the main bumper (see fig. 1); and step C comprises the step of: engaging the fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35) with the second flange (bottom flange of 35) to selectively attach the second light bar to the main bumper (see fig. 1).
Claim 13: Ogawa discloses designing the vehicle bumper (10) to replace an original bumper on an associated vehicle (see abstract).
Claim 16: Ogawa discloses a replacement vehicle bumper for use with an associated vehicle having an original bumper, the replacement vehicle bumper comprising: a main bumper (10, fig. 1) having first and second light bar mounting surfaces (surfaces of 22a and 23a with 34 and 36, fig. 2); a first light bar (20, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 20, fig. 1); and a second light bar (21, fig. 1) designed to receive and mount at least one light (lamp within 21, fig. 1); wherein: 1) the first light bar (20) is selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 34, fig. 2) the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34, fig. 2); 2) the second light bar (21) is selectively attachable (selectively attachable via 35, fig. 2) to the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35, fig. 2); and 3) the replacement vehicle bumper (10) is designed to replace the original bumper (provide improvement reinforcement member for a vehicle bumper, see Col. 1 lines 34-37).
Claim 17: Ogawa discloses the main bumper (10, fig. 2) has a support member (11, fig. 1) formed integrally with a mounting plate (12, fig. 1).
Claim 18: Ogawa discloses the first light bar mounting surface (surface of 34, fig. 2) has a flange (bottom flange of 34, fig. 2) defined as a first flange (bottom flange of 34); the second light bar mounting surface (surface of 35, fig. 2) has a flange (bottom flange of 35, fig. 2) defined as a second flange (bottom flange of 35); the second light bar (21) has a flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35, fig. 2) defined as a fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35); the third flange (flange of 20 for mounting to 34) engages with the first flange (bottom flange of 34) to selectively attach the first light bar (20) to the main bumper (10); and the fourth flange (flange of 21 for mounting to 35) engages with the second flange (bottom flange of 35) to selectively attach the second light bar (21) to the main bumper (10).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 4,563,028) in view of Tetsuyoshi (JPH 9254725).
Claims 7 and 19: Ogawa fails to teach the first light bar has a plurality of holes where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light; and the second light bar has a plurality of holes where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light with respect to claims 7 and 19.
Tetsuyoshi teaches a first light bar (10, fig. 3) has a plurality of holes (11a,b,c, fig. 5) where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light (3, fig. 5); and a second light bar (10, fig. 3) has a plurality of holes (11a,b,c, fig. 5) where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light (3, fig. 5) with respect to claims 7 and 19.
Therefore, in view of Tetsuyoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second light bar of Ogawa with the first and second light bar of Tetsuyoshi where the first light bar has a plurality of holes where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light; and the second light bar has a plurality of holes where each hole is designed to receive and mount at least one customizable light, in order to improve the assembly and disassembly of the light source.
Claim 15: Ogawa fails to teach step A comprises the steps of: 1) providing the first light bar with a plurality of holes; and 2) providing the second light bar with a plurality of holes; and the method further comprises the step of: designing each hole in the first light bar and in the second light bar to receive and mount at least one customizable light.
Tetsuyoshi teaches providing a first light bar (10, fig. 3) with a plurality of holes (11a,b,c, fig. 5); and a second light bar (10, fig. 3) has a plurality of holes (11a,b,c, fig. 5); andthe method further comprises the step of: designing each hole (11a,b,c) in the first light bar (10) and in the second light bar (10) to receive and mount at least one customizable light (3, fig. 5)
Therefore, in view of Tetsuyoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second light bar of Ogawa with the first and second light bar of Tetsuyoshi where step A comprises the steps of: 1) providing the first light bar with a plurality of holes; and 2) providing the second light bar with a plurality of holes; and the method further comprises the step of: designing each hole in the first light bar and in the second light bar to receive and mount at least one customizable light, in order to improve the assembly and disassembly of the light source.
Claim(s) 8, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 4,563,028) in view of Newbill (US 2008/0011793).
Claims 8 and 20: Ogawa teaches the main bumper (10, fig. 1) has a component mounting surface (surface of 12) having: an array of mounting holes (13, fig. 1) for use in attaching an associated first component (14, fig. 1) to the vehicle bumper with respect to claims 8 and 20.
However, Ogawa fails to teach a pair of D rings for use in attaching an associated second component to the vehicle bumper with respect to claims 8 and 20.
Newbill teaches a pair of D rings (153, fig. 2) for use in attaching an associated second component to a vehicle bumper (101, fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Newbill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pair of D rings to the vehicle bumper of Ogawa, in order to allow mounting of other objects via the D rings.
Claim 14: Ogawa teaches step A comprises the step of: providing the main bumper (10) with a component mounting surface (surface of 12) having an array of mounting holes (13); and the method further comprises the steps of: 1) designing the array of mounting holes (13) for use in attaching an associated first component (14) to the vehicle bumper (10).
However, Ogawa fails to teach a pair of D rings; and 2) designing the D rings for use in attaching an associated second component to the vehicle bumper.
Newbill teaches a pair of D rings (153, fig. 2); 2) designing the D rings (see fig. 1a) for use in attaching an associated second component to a vehicle bumper (101, fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Newbill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pair of D rings to the vehicle bumper of Ogawa where the D rings are designed for use in attaching an associated second component to the vehicle bumper, in order to allow mounting of other objects via the D rings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “It is certainly true that various countries can have various safety standards for a vehicle bumper, but Applicant contends that the conclusion reached by the Examiner, that this leads to "an arbitrary and unknown standard where the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and indefinite," is incorrect”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the issue lies in the limitation “established safety standard” rather than “a safety standard”. By reciting an “established safety standard” would impart a standard of time for a particular period of time which is not defined in the claims, whereas “a safety standard” would impart a standard for any period of time.
Regarding applicant’s reference to “Applicant refers the Examiner to 49 U.S.C. § 32501-32511 (See Exhibit A provided herewith) which provides the current requirements for vehicle bumpers in the United States”, the examiner notes that the originally filed specification makes no mention of 49 U.S.C. § 32501-32511. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the standard in applicant’s reference was established in 2022. It is not clear in the claims that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to refer to the US standards established in 2022 considering the application is effectively filed for 4/05/2021 in the parent application 17/222,338.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “If the Examiner's requirements to avoid indefiniteness were applied, Applicant's claimed "the vehicle bumper complies with established safety standards for a vehicle bumper" would have to be replaced with the hundreds, if not thousands, of words provided in 49 U.S.C. § 32501-32511”, the examiner notes that such an amendment would not be necessary. The examiner notes that to overcome the rejection, the claims would either need to specify the specific standard the applicant is referring to or broaden the scope to include any standard from any period of time.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Applicant contends that the Examiner's requirements are far beyond what is required in 35 U.S.C. § 112 because, as the Examiner admits, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know full well what the requirements are in any given jurisdiction and would design and produce the claimed vehicle bumpers accordingly”, the examiner notes that the claims should reflect that the bumper “is designed to meet whatever safety standards are applicable in the relevant market” by broadening the claim limitation to “a safety standard” rather than the recited limitation of “established safety standard”.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Section 2173 of the MPEP allows Applicants to submit evidence from secondary sources to rebut a rejection based on indefiniteness. This is described in several instances in MPEP § 2173 as noted below … reading the disclosure”, the examiner notes that applicant’s reference to 49 U.S.C. § 32501-32511 was not included in the originally filed disclosure. The examiner notes that MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV) states “When a subjective term is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification supplies some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970)”, the examiner notes that the originally filed disclosure and specification makes no mention to any established safety standard or the standard “49 U.S.C. § 32501-32511” which the applicant refers to in the arguments.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “the examiner should provide enough information in the Office action to permit applicant to make a meaningful response, as the indefiniteness rejection requires the applicant to explain or provide evidence as to why the claim language is not indefinite or amend the claim. See MPEP 2173.02(III)(B)”, the examiner notes that the 112(b) rejection provided by the examiner includes sufficient explanation as to why the limitation “established safety standard” limitation is indefinite. It is the applicant’s specification which lacks explanation as to what the established safety standard is.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “However, applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366, 84 USPQ2d 1749, 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying the claims at the application stage"); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential). See MPEP 2173.02(I).”, the examiner notes that the claims were not amended and the evidence was not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “No where does Ogawa describe the reinforcement member 10 and the bumper 14 as constituting a single unitary piece or that these two components may be collectively referred to as a bumper”, the examiner notes that the title of Ogawa reference is “Reinforcement member for a vehicle bumper” implying that the reinforcement member is to be used in connection to the vehicle bumper. The examiner notes that the claims do not require the bumper to be a single unitary piece and therefore it is reasonable for the examiner to interpret the reinforcing member 11 to be a part of the bumper.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Applicant contends that this statement is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, the Examiner's statement that Ogawa's reinforcement member 10 is "a main bumper" is directly opposed to the teaching of Ogawa, and to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, because Ogawa's reinforcement member 10 is clearly distinct from Ogawa's bumper 14, as explained above. Secondly, Applicant notes that there is no support provided by the Examiner to explain why a claimed vehicle bumper must be "a single unitary piece"”, the examiner notes that the claims only recite “a main bumper” and provides no further limiting structure where the combination of the reinforcement member 11 and bumper 14 of Ogawa cannot be interpreted as the main bumper.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Secondly, Applicant notes that there is no support provided by the Examiner to explain why a claimed vehicle bumper must be "a single unitary piece"”, the examiner notes that the claim does not require the main bumper to be a single unitary piece and therefore the reinforcement member and bumper in combination can be interpreted as the main bumper of claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would never think of Ogawa's reinforcement member FOR a vehicle bumper (See Col. 1, Lines 8-9) as being PART OF the vehicle bumper which it is designed to support” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the function of a bumper would be to absorb impact to prevent damage to other components of the vehicle. The reinforcement member of Ogawa is used to increase the mechanical strength of a bumper. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the reinforcement member 11 of Ogawa can be considered a part of the bumper while being distinct from the bumper 14.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Applicant further notes that all of the pending claims require that the vehicle bumper includes first and second light bars. These are shown, for example, with reference numbers 20a and 20b in Applicant's Fig. 2. In dependent claims, the light bars may receive lights. Applicant notes that Ogawa's bumper 14 has no light bars or any lights. Even Ogawa's reinforcement member 10 has no light bars. Rather, Ogawa discloses indicator lamps that are mounted to reinforcement member 10 (i.e., in recesses 48, 49 formed on housing portions 22, 23 for housing indicator lamps 20, 21). See Ogawa at Col. 2, Lines 52-59 and FIGS. 1 and 2. This is a fundamentally different structure and arrangement than what is claimed.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the direction indicator lamps 20 and 21 of Ogawa are in a bar shape in fig. 1 and contain a lamp. Although the structure of Ogawa and applicant’s invention are indeed different, the claims do not reflect the difference in the structure. The claims do not further distinguish the light bar from the directional lamps 20, 21 of Ogawa.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Moreover, it is difficult to ascertain how Ogawa's reinforcement member 10 would be capable of engaging light bars in view of the fact that the bumper 14 is positioned over the reinforcement member 10 and Ogawa teaches that the reinforcement 11 is bent along the longitudinal direction to conform to the front shape of the vehicle, thereby suggesting it is streamlined to overlap with the contour of the vehicle. See Ogawa at Col. 2, Lines 46-48. A modification to allow for this, would destroy the functionality and purpose of Ogawa's reinforcement member 11 and bumper 14”, the examiner notes that Ogawa is not being modified in anyways since Ogawa discloses all of the claimed features. Therefore, applicant’s argument about the functionality and purpose of Ogawa is moot.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to the combination of Ogawa in view of Newbill that “Applicant submits that because Ogawa fails to disclose the fundamental structure of the claimed vehicle bumper with selectively attachable light bars, Ogawa cannot serve as a proper primary reference for the obviousness rejections. Neither Tetsuyoshi nor Newbill can cure the deficiencies of Ogawa with respect to the base claim limitations. The secondary references are relied upon only for additional features such as plurality of holes in the light bars and D rings, but they do not provide the missing elements of the independent claims upon which claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20 depend”, the examiner notes that Ogawa teaches the fundamental structure of the claimed vehicle bump with selectively attachable light bars for the reasons set forth above and would be appropriate as a primary reference for the obviousness rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights