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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0221692).
Re claim 10, Wang et al. discloses a crash box (82, figure 8) for a motor vehicle having a vehicle longitudinal member (86, figure 8) which extends in a vehicle longitudinal direction and having a crossmember (84, figure 8) which extends in a vehicle width direction, comprising a rear end and a front end of the crash box (see the annotated figure below), wherein on a side of the longitudinal member facing away from a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, the rear end of the crash box is fastenable (the rear end is fastened as shown in figure 8), and on a side of the crossmember which faces the passenger compartment, the front end of the crash box is fastenable (as shown in figure, the front end is fastened); a cable (88, figure 8) which extends along the vehicle longitudinal direction from the front end of the crash box to the rear end of the crash box (as shown in figure 8), is connected to the rear end of the crash box (as shown in figure 8), and is connectable to the crossmember (as shown in figure 8), and at least one spring element (881, see paragraph 0103) by which the cable is connected to the rear end of the crash box.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, the cable is arranged inside the crash box (as shown in figure 8).
Re claim 16, the crash box is configured to deform in the vehicle longitudinal direction by folding under a force of predefined size acting on the crash box from the front in the vehicle longitudinal direction (see paragraph 0010 which describes the functioning of a crash box).
Re claim 18, Wang et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising: a crash box (82, figure 8), a vehicle longitudinal member (86, figure 8) which extends in the vehicle longitudinal direction and to which, on the side facing away from the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, a rear end of the crash box is fastened (see the annotated figure above); and a crossmember (84, figure 8) which extends in the vehicle width direction and to which, on the side facing the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, a front end of the crash box is fastened (see the annotated figure above), wherein the crash box has a cable (88) which extends along the vehicle longitudinal direction from the front end of the crash box to the rear end thereof, is connected to the rear end of the crash box (as shown by figure 8), and is connected to the crossmember (as shown by figure 8), and wherein the cable is connected to the rear end of the crash box via at least one spring element (881, see paragraph 0103) .
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0221692).
Wang et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the cable being a steel cable and/or a plastic cable. Wang et al. is silent as to the material of which the cable is constructed.
The examiner takes Official Notice that steel cabling is old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct a cable, such as that disclosed by Wang et al., from steel, as is old and well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0221692) in view of Anzai (Japanese Patent Publication 2021088325).
Wang et al. discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the cable being connectable to the crossmember via a connecting element held at the front end of the crash box, the connecting element is arranged inside the crash box, and the connecting element has an internal thread, so that the crash box is fastenable to the crossmember via a screw connection.
Anzai teaches a connecting element (Bolt B3, figure 1) held at the front end of a crash box (22), the connecting element being arranged inside the crash box (as shown in figure 1), and the connecting element having an internal thread (it is a bolt with a nut), so that the crash box is fastenable to a crossmember (4) via a screw connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a crash box for a motor vehicle, such as that disclosed by Wang et al. to have the cable be connectable to the crossmember via a connecting element held at the front end of the crash box, the connecting element being arranged inside the crash box, and the connecting element has an internal thread, so that the crash box is fastenable to the crossmember via a screw connection, as taught by Anzai, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to fasten the cable in place using a common fastener that easily obtained, manufactured, and cost effective.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the spring element being arranged as a spring clip. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0221692), the closest prior art of record, uses a spring in a different manner and using a spring clip would not allow the device of Wang et al. to operate correctly as it would not provide the necessary energy to provide for a winding of the cable required by Wang et al.
Kurai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/012869A1) discloses a tensioning member for a crush can (5D, figure 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose vehicle crash box structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights