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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments, filed 10th August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Regarding Prior art of record Seong (KR 200321305 Y1), Duckett (US 6428237 B1), and Stewart (US 20100019518 A1) Examiner finds Applicants Arguments Persuasive. Regarding prior art of record Elmore (US 20200248419 A1) applicant contends Elmore does not disclose a “front wall having vertically-spaced and horizontally-extending slots” this is not persuasive. Even if Elmore disclosed a pair of “score lines” which are “surface indentions”, as suggested by Applicant, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) these “score lines” are considered “vertically-spaced and horizontally-extending slots”. Additionally, even mere “surface indentions” have a space defined between the outer edges creating a “hollow central opening”, the limitations “hollow central opening” and “slots”, as claimed, does not require the openings to go through the wall. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, have been made as seen below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR 200321305 Y1) in view of Hirano et. al. (US 4272114 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Seong discloses An intermediate transition for connecting a crash cushion to a rigid structure, the intermediate transition comprising: a housing defining an inner space and comprising: a top wall (50); a front wall (31) operatively associated with the top wall (50) and operable to connect to the crash cushion (30); a rear wall (10) operatively associated with the top wall (50) and operable to connect to the rigid structure (W); and one or more side wall (40) operatively associated with the top wall (50) and including one or more weakened portions (see crease and folds of side wall 40; Fig. 4) and one or more energy absorbing module (20) located in the inner space (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
Seong does not disclose wherein the weakened portions comprising a plurality of vertically-extending slots extending through the one or more sidewalls, each slot having a hollow central opening.
Hirano teaches an intermediate transition (1) for connecting a crash cushion (17) to a rigid structure (13), wherein the intermediate transition (1) includes weakened portions (3) comprising a plurality of vertically-extending slots (3) extending through the one or more sidewalls, each slot (3) having a hollow central opening (see Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the weakened portions of Hirano with the intermediate transition of Seong in order to improve the sidewalls’ ability to absorb impacts (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; 1:59–2:3).
Regarding Claim 2, Seong modified by Hirano teaches wherein the vertically-extending slots (3) are horizontally-spaced with a solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slots, wherein a width of the hollow central opening in each slot is less than a width of the solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slot (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Seong modified by Hirano teaches wherein the width of the solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slots is less than twice the width of the hollow central opening in each slot one (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 7).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR 200321305 Y1) as modified by Hirano et. al. (US 4272114 A) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Elmore et. al. (US 20200248419 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Seong modified by Hirano teaches the intermediate transition of Claim 1.
Seong modified by Hirano does not teach wherein the front wall includes two or more horizontally extending slots.
Elmore teaches a crash cushion system wherein a front wall (46) includes two or more horizontally extending slots (X) (see Annotated Fig. 9 below, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of slots on a front wall of Elmore with the intermediate transition of Seong modified by Hirano in order to improve the control of vehicle impact with the intermediate transmission (see US 20200248419 A1 [Elmore]; [0038]).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9
Regarding Claim 5, Seong modified by Hirano and Elmore teaches wherein the two or more horizontally extending slots (X) define a middle region located at a height for receiving a front end of a vehicle during a crash (see US 20200248419 A1 [Elmore]; Fig. 9, [0038]).
Regarding Claim 6, Seong modified by Hirano and Elmore teaches wherein the vertically-extending slots span (3) spans a height of the middle region (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Seong modified by Hirano and Elmore teaches wherein the one or more energy absorbing modules (50) span the height of the middle region (see KR 200321305 Y1 [Seong]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckett (US 6428237 B1) in view of Seong (KR 200321305 Y1) further in view of Hirano et. al. (US 4272114 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Duckett discloses a crash cushion system for connecting to a rigid structure and absorbing energy when impacted by a vehicle, the crash cushion system comprising: a plurality of energy absorbing cushions (12); and an intermediate transition (14) attached to the plurality of energy absorbing cushions (12) and operable to connect to the rigid structure (18), the intermediate transition comprising: a housing comprising: a top wall; a front wall operatively associated with the top wall and operable to connect to the plurality of energy absorbing crash cushions; a rear wall operatively associated with the top wall and operable to connect to the rigid structure (14); a pair of side walls operatively associated with the top wall (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Duckett does not disclose the housing defining an inner space, each side wall including a plurality of vertically-extending slots extending through the sidewall, each vertically-extending slot having a hollow central opening; and one or more energy absorbing module located in the inner space, and one or more energy absorbing module located in the inner space.
Seong teaches an intermediate transition wherein the housing defines an inner space and one or more side wall (40) operatively associated with the top wall (50) and one or more energy absorbing module (20) located in the inner space (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the intermediate transition impact absorption of Seong with the crash cushion system of Duckett in order to provide shock absorbing between a rigid structure and other structures in the system (see KR 200321305 Y1 [Seong]; [0016]).
Duckett modified by Seong does not teach each side wall including a plurality of vertically-extending slots extending through the sidewall, each vertically-extending slot having a hollow central opening.
Hirano teaches an intermediate transition (1) for connecting a crash cushion (17) to a rigid structure (13), wherein the intermediate transition (1) comprises a plurality of vertically-extending slots (3) extending through the one or more sidewalls, each slot (3) having a hollow central opening (see Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the weakened portions of Hirano with the Crash Cushion system of Duckett modified by Seong in order to improve the sidewalls’ ability to absorb impacts (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; 1:59–2:3).
Regarding Claim 9, Duckett modified by Seong and Hirano teaches wherein the vertically-extending slots are horizontally-spaced with a solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slots, wherein a width of the hollow central opening in each slot is less than a width of the solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slots (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Duckett modified by Seong and Hirano teaches wherein the width of the solid region between each adjacent pair of vertically-extending slots is less than twice the width of the hollow central opening in each slot one (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 7).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duckett (US 6428237 B1) as modified by Seong (KR 200321305 Y1) and Hirano et. al. (US 4272114 A) in Claim 8, above, further in view of Elmore et. al. (US 20200248419 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Duckett modified by Seong and Hirano teaches the crash cushion system of Claim 8.
Duckett modified by Seong and Hirano does not teach wherein the front wall includes two or more horizontally extending slots.
Elmore teaches a crash cushion system wherein a front wall (46) includes two or more horizontally extending slots (X) (see Annotated Fig. 9 above, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of slots on a front wall of Elmore with the Crash Cushion system of Duckett modified by Seong and Hirano in order to improve the control of vehicle impact with the intermediate transmission (see US 20200248419 A1 [Elmore]; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 12, Duckett modified by Seong, Hirano, and Elmore teaches wherein the two or more horizontally extending slots (X) define a middle region located at a height for receiving a front end of a vehicle during a crash (see US 20200248419 A1 [Elmore]; Fig. 9, Annotated Fig. 9 above, [0038]).
Regarding Claim 13, Duckett modified by Seong, Hirano, and Elmore teaches the vertically-extending slots (3) span a height of the middle region (see US 4272114 A [Hirano]; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Duckett modified by Seong, Hirano, and Elmore teaches wherein the one or more energy absorbing modules (20) span the height of the middle region (see KR 200321305 Y1 [Seong]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As individuals nor combination does prior art of record Duckett, Seong, Hirano, or Elmore teach the intermediate transition of Claim 15 specifically wherein “each vertically-extending slot having a hollow central opening and a height equal to a vertical distance between the pair of horizontally extending and vertically- spaced slots in the front wall”. It should be noted the limitation “a height” recited in the allowable Claim 15 is being interpreted, in light of the applications specification and drawings, as referring to the height as an inherent property of the Slot also known as the maximum vertical length of the slot, not the existence of an arbitrary height within the range of the slot that is equal to the vertical distance between the pair of horizontally extending slots. Claims 16-20 are allowed based on their dependance on an allowed Claim 15.
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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights