DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/868,843 filed on November 25, 2024.
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 .
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.
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 12, applicant uses the term “in particular” and/or “preferably.” An expression beginning with the phrase “in particular” or “preferably” is to be regarded as entirely optional, with no limiting effect on the subject matter of a claim. The claim will be treated as best understood, and it is suggested applicant remove the “in particular” or “preferably” language and positively claim any limitations that are intended to be claimed.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are dependent on claim 1.
Claim Interpretations
In the claims, the “longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element” has been interpreted as the direction of the crossbeam (transverse to the vehicle), which is not the same as the longitudinal direction of the vehicle.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitakata (JP 2015147437A from IDS). With regard to claim 1, Kitakata teaches a crash management system for a motor vehicle, the crash management system comprising a crossbeam 24 for being connected to a body shell structure of the motor vehicle, the crossbeam comprising a front flange 32A, a rear flange 34A, and at least two transverse flanges 32B/34B;32C/34C connecting the front flange to the rear flange, said flanges forming a closed cross section of the crossbeam (Fig. 3), and the crash management system comprising a reinforcing element 26 disposed in the cross section of the crossbeam and having multiple recesses (formed by crossed ribs) in a front wall 26A of the reinforcing element on the side facing the front flange of the crossbeam (Fig. 5A), characterized in that the reinforcing element is aligned at least essentially centrally with a center plane (Fig. 1) of the crossbeam and in that the multiple recesses (Fig. 5A) being at least essentially disposed in a direction running perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element (Fig. 5A) and of the crossbeam or at an angel between 10 and 45 degrees relative to the center plane perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element and of the crossbeam, preferably the multiple recesses are provided (Fig. 5A), that the total area of the preferably multiple recesses in the front wall is between 1% and 70%, preferably between 1% and 10% of the area of the front wall. With regard to claim 2, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses are in particular in the form of slots (Fig. 5A). With regard to claim 3, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses extend across the entire height of the front wall of the reinforcing element (Fig. 5A). With regard to claim 5, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses are each in the form of a hole or a similar opening having a closed shape (Fig. 5A). With regard to claim 6, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element has at least one transverse wall 26D protruding from the front wall in the direction of the rear flange 34A of the crossbeam, and that the depth of the multiple recesses in the at least one transverse wall is no more than 2/3 of the width of the reinforcing element (Fig. 3) when viewed in the direction of the rear flange of the crossbeam. With regard to claim 10, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 26 is accommodated and fixed in the crossbeam 24 by a form fit or a clamping fit in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam (Figs. 1-3). With regard to claim 12, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 36 extends across no more than a portion of the inner height of the crossbeam at least in the area of the front wall (Fig. 3) and is preferably disposed symmetrically with respect to a center plane of the crossbeam (Fig. 1). With regard to claim 13, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the cross section of the reinforcing element 26 comprises at least one chamber (Fig. 5A). With regard to claim 14, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the cross section of the reinforcing element 26 comprises a rear wall 26G disposed parallel to the front wall 26Aand connected to the front wall via at least one transverse wall 26E. With regard to claim 15, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the rear wall 26G of the reinforcing element has a greater wall thickness than the front wall (Figs. 5A-5B; front wall only considered outer front edge of the ribs 36/38).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norlin (US 3997207). With regard to claim 1, Norlin teaches a crash management system for a motor vehicle, the crash management system comprising a crossbeam 14 for being connected to a body shell structure of the motor vehicle, the crossbeam comprising a front flange, a rear flange, and at least two transverse flanges (Fig. 3) connecting the front flange to the rear flange, said flanges forming a closed cross section of the crossbeam (Fig. 3), and the crash management system comprising a reinforcing element 12 disposed in the cross section of the crossbeam and having multiple recesses (cells) in a front wall (Figs. 1 and 3) of the reinforcing element on the side facing the front flange of the crossbeam, characterized in that the reinforcing element is aligned at least essentially centrally with a center plane (Fig. 3) of the crossbeam and in that the multiple recesses (3) being at least essentially disposed in a direction running perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element (Figs. 1, 3A) and of the crossbeam or at an angle between 10 and 45 degrees relative to the center plane perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element and of the crossbeam, preferably the multiple recesses are provided (Fig. 3), that the total area of the preferably multiple recesses in the front wall is between 1% and 70%, preferably between 1% and 10% of the area of the front wall. With regard to claim 2, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses are in particular in the form of slots (Figs. 1, 3). With regard to claim 3, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses extend across the entire height of the front wall of the reinforcing element (Figs. 1, 3). With regard to claim 5, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses are each in the form of a hole or a similar opening having a closed shape (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 6, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element has at least one transverse wall 5 protruding from the front wall in the direction of the rear flange of the crossbeam (Fig. 3), and that the depth of the multiple recesses in the at least one transverse wall is no more than 2/3 of the width of the reinforcing element (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 55-65) when viewed in the direction of the rear flange of the crossbeam. With regard to claim 7, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that between two and six recesses (Fig. 3), preferably four recesses (Fig. 3), are provided, and that the recesses are in particular disposed at equal distances in a direction running in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element (Figs. 1 and 3). With regard to claim 10, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 12 is accommodated and fixed in the crossbeam 14 by a form fit or a clamping fit in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 11, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 12 extends across the entire inner height of the crossbeam 14 at least in the area of the front wall (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 12, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 12 extends across no more than a portion of the inner height of the crossbeam at least in the area of the front wall (Fig. 4) and is preferably disposed symmetrically with respect to a center plane of the crossbeam (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 13, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the cross section of the reinforcing element 12 comprises at least one chamber (Fig. 3). With regard to claim 14, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the cross section of the reinforcing element 12 comprises a rear wall disposed parallel to the front wall and connected to the front wall via at least one transverse wall (Fig. 1, wall is the outer edges of the front and rear of the reinforcement element).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitakata ‘437. With regard to claim 4, Kitakata teaches the system,, characterized in that the multiple recesses are in the form of a slot (Fig. 5A), but lacks the specific teaching wherein the slots having a slot width between 1mm and 6mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kitakata to employ slots with slot widths of between 1mm and 6mm with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a desired slot/reinforcement element size. Also, since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). With regard to claim 8, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the reinforcing element 26 has a minimum length and crash boxes 22 connectable to the crossbeam 24 when viewed in the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam. Kitakata lacks the specific teaching wherein the reinforcing element has a minimum length of 400mm and a maximum length at which the reinforcing element reaches outer sides of crash boxes connectable to the crossbeam when viewed in the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kitakata to employ a reinforcing element having a minimum length of 400mm and a maximum length at which the reinforcing element reaches outer sides of crash boxes connectable to the crossbeam when viewed in the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a desired reinforcement element size. Also, since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norlin ‘207. With regard to claim 4, Norlin teaches the system, characterized in that the multiple recesses are in the form of a slot (Figs. 1, 3), but lacks the specific teaching wherein the slots having a slot width between 1mm and 6mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Norlin to employ slots with slot widths of between 1mm and 6mm with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a desired slot/reinforcement element size. Also, since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitakata ‘437 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winberg (US 20150298633). With regard to claim 9, Kitakata teaches the system, characterized in that the crossbeam 24 and/or reinforcement element 26 are sections consisting of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (paragraph 74). Kitakata lacks the specific teaching of said crossbeam reinforcement elements being extruded aluminum. Winberg teaches a system comprising a reinforcement element 102 with recesses 122A-D, wherein said element consists of extruded aluminum (paragraphs 3 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Kitakata to employ extruded aluminum in view of Winberg with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a lightweight, strong and more cost-effective section.
Suggestions for Applicant
The embodiments of Figures 1 and 12-14 have distinguishing features that are not taught by the cited prior art.
For Figures 1 and 12-13, applicant can claim the recesses are continuous vertical slots in the front wall that are spaced apart by sections of the front wall that are wider than the width of said slots in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcement element (this would distinguish over a reference such as Braun ‘272 cited below).
For Figures 12-13, applicant can claim the recesses are continuous vertical slots in the front wall, and are at an angle between 10 and 45 degrees relative to the center plane perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element.
For Figure 14, applicant can claim the recess are continuous holes that extend from the front wall to the rear wall, and are positioned at an angle between 10 and 45 degrees relative to the center plane perpendicularly to a longitudinal direction of the reinforcing element.
Should applicant include these suggested limitations, it is suggested applicant amend claim 1 and add 1 or 2 more independent claims (each respective independent claim would not be generic to all the species) and then amend the dependencies of the dependent claims to be upon the respective independent claim the species would read on. Applicant should also definitively claim all the limitations that are intended to be claimed (removing the “preferably” or “in particular” phrases, as well as any range within ranges (i.e. claiming a large range followed by a specific smaller range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 20010017473) has been cited to show a similar crash management system comprising: a cross beam 3 with a front flange, rear flange and transverse flanges (Fig. 1B), a reinforcement element 4 with multiple recesses 5 on a front wall 4C of the reinforcement element.
Braun (US 629022) has been cited to show a similar crash management system comprising: a cross beam 3 with a front flange, rear flange @2 and transverse flanges (Fig. 1), a reinforcement element 4 with multiple recesses (between walls 5) on a front wall 6 of the reinforcement element.
Hashida (US 9908492) has been cited to show a similar crash management system comprising: a cross beam 12 with a front flange 20, rear flange 22 and transverse flanges (Fig. 1), a reinforcement element 14 with multiple recesses 16 on a front wall 14F of the reinforcement element.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights