DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/823,101 filed on September 3rd, 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application FR 2 309 190 filed on September 1st, 2023. A certified copy has not been received as of September 18th, 2026. Please see the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program Website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx), including practice tips for priority document exchange (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/hbasics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx#Practice22tips).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 3rd, 2024 and March 28th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of implied phraseology. Please remove “invention” from the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 2, please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by at least one sheet made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers” to - - wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by at least one sheet made of the composite material containing the reinforcing fibers - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one profiled member produced by a single sheet of composite material containing reinforcing fibers” to - - wherein the at least one profiled member produced by a single sheet of the composite material containing the reinforcing fibers - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, please change the recitation of “wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by two sheets of composite material containing reinforcing fibers” to - - wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by two sheets of the composite material containing the reinforcing fibers - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10 (line 3), please change the recitation of “two sheets of composite material” to - - two sheets of the composite material - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12 (line 1), please change the recitation of “A method” to - - [[A]] The method - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 9.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 2-3), the recited term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant could recite “having an [[generally]] elongate shape” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben Horin (WO 2022/157724). Ben Horin was cited on the IDS filed March 28th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Ben Horin teaches a shock absorbing structure (Fig. 5B, at least “EAM stack” 44 and “beam” 102) comprising a main direction of shock absorption (see Fig. 2; [073] – “At such a position, the energy absorbing members (EAMs’) are suitably aimed to receive and absorb incoming impact arriving from the side of the beam 102”),
at least one profiled member (“EAM” 103) made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers and having a substantially cylindrical shape (see Fig. 5B) with a straight-line generatrix with the straight-line generatrix being oriented in the main direction of shock absorption (see Figs. 2 and 5B; see [074]; [034] – “”an EAM may be manufactured by winding laminates and/or fibers of composite material(s) about the center axis C).
Regarding Claim 6, Ben Horin teaches the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 1,
having a generally elongate shape (see Fig. 5B) with a longitudinal axis (lengthwise direction of 44), with the straight-line generatrix of the at least one profiled member (103) is being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shock-absorbing structure (44, 102; Claim 20 – “sliding EAM stacks into the beam to position the axes C of the EAM's generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis X of the beam”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ben Horin teaches the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of the profiled members (Fig. 5B, 103) are arranged side by side (see Fig. 5B).
Regarding Claim 8, Ben Horin teaches an assembly (Figs. 1 and 5B; “battery pack” 12) comprising an energy storage device (energy storage portion of 12; [003] – “energy absorbing profiles can be beneficial can protecting battery packs and/or batteries in electric vehicles (EV's) that are used for powering motion of such EV's - since batteries may e.g. rupture or flare up during a vehicle collision or the like”) and a shock-absorbing structure (Fig. 5B, 44, 102) having a main direction of shock absorption (see Fig. 2; see [073]),
at least one profiled member (103) made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers (see [034]) and having a substantially cylindrical shape (see Fig. 5B) with a straight-line generatrix, with the straight-line generatrix being oriented in the main direction of shock absorption (see Fig. 2 and 5B; see [073]; see Claim 20),
the shock-absorbing structure (44, 102) being configured to be placed on a lateral edge of the energy storage device (energy storage portion of 12; see Figs. 1 and 5B).
Regarding Claim 9, Ben Horin teaches a method for manufacturing a shock-absorbing structure (Fig. 5B; 44, 102) having a main direction of shock absorption (see Fig. 2; see [073]), the method comprising:
producing at least one profiled member (103) made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers (see [034]), with the at least one profiled member (103) having a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 5B) with a straight-line generatrix (see Fig. 5B), placing the at least one profiled member (103) within the shock-absorbing structure (44, 102) with an orientation such that the straight-line generatrix is oriented in the main direction of shock absorption (see Figs. 2 and 5B; see [074]; see Claim 20).
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 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Horin (WO 2022/157724), in view of Harada (US 7,842,378). Harada was cited on the IDS filed September 3rd, 2024.
Regarding Claim 2, Ben Horin teaches the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 1.
Ben Horin does not teach “wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by at least one sheet made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers”.
Harada teaches at least one profiled member (Figs. 15b, 16a and 17; “energy absorber” 111) is formed by at least one sheet made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers (col. 17, lines 41-45 – “the energy absorber 111 may be formed of a fiber-reinforced resin that has a fiber structure 112. The fiber structure 112 is formed by binding two three-dimensional fabric sheets (three-dimensional fiber structures) 121 with the binding threads 114”).
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 profiled members taught by Ben Horin with the profile members taught by Harada, such that “wherein the at least one profiled member is formed by at least one sheet made of composite material containing reinforcing fibers”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of absorbing compressive loads due to impacts. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 3, Ben Horin and Harada teach the shock-absorbing structure according to the preceding claim 2,
Harada teaches wherein the at least one profiled member (Figs. 16a and 17; 111) is produced by a single sheet of composite material containing reinforcing fibers (see Figs. 16a and 17).
Regarding Claim 4, Ben Horin and Harada teach the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 2,
Harada teaches wherein the at least one profiled member (Fig. 15b, 111) is formed by two sheets (both “fiber structure” 112) of composite material containing reinforcing fibers (see Fig. 15b).
Regarding Claim 5, Ben Horin and Harada teach the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 4,
Ben Horin teaches wherein at least one of the two sheets (taught in combination with Harada) is produced with interface shapes (Fig. 5B, “organizer” 104;).
Regarding Claim 10, Ben Horin teaches the method according to claim 9.
Ben Horin does not teach “further comprising forming the at least one profiled member by assembling two sheets of composite material, with each profiled member being formed substantially half by one of the sheets and half by the other of the sheets”.
Harada teaches wherein the at least one profiled member (Fig. 15b, 111) is formed half by one of the two sheets (112) and half by the other of the two sheets (112; see Fig. 15b).
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 profiled members taught by Ben Horin with the profile members taught by Harada, such that “further comprising forming the at least one profiled member by assembling two sheets of composite material, with each profiled member being formed substantially half by one of the sheets and half by the other of the sheets”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of absorbing compressive loads due to impacts. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Regarding Claim 11, Ben Horin and Harada teach the shock-absorbing structure according to claim 4,
Harada teaches wherein the at least one profiled member (Fig. 15b, 111) is formed half by one of the two sheets (112) and half by the other of the two sheets (112; see Fig. 15b).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Horin (WO 2022/157724), in view of Schonleber (US 5,116,092). Schonleber was cited on the IDS filed September 3rd, 2024.
Regarding Claim 12, Ben Horin teaches a method according to claim 9.
Ben Horin does not teach “further comprising cutting the at least one profiled member to a predetermined size before placing the at least one profiled member within the shock-absorbing structure” (emphasis added).
Schonleber teaches “impact absorbing tubes can easily be manufactured at low cost. It is particularly advantageous to manufacture the impact absorbing tubes by the cutting of extruded tube sections into lengths” (emphasis added; col. 2, lines 39-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the profiled members taught by Ben Horin as suggested by Schonleber, such that “further comprising cutting the at least one profiled member to a predetermined size before placing the at least one profiled member within the shock-absorbing structure”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of reducing the cost to manufacture the profiled members taught by Ben Horin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Newcomb (US 2021/0156445) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" discloses a similar shock absorbing structure comprising profiled members related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights