DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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 1, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Saeki discloses “A vehicle impact absorbing structure, comprising: a side frame (11; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction in a vehicle front portion; a bumper beam (12; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) that extends in a vehicle width direction in front of the side frame, the bumper beam having a beam end portion (Saeki Annotated Fig 3) located on an outer side of the side frame in the vehicle width direction; and an impact absorbing member (Saeki Col 3 lines 34-38) that couples a front end of the side frame and the bumper beam in the vehicle front-rear direction, the impact absorbing member being compressively deformable by an impact load that is input to the bumper beam from the front of the vehicle, wherein: the impact absorbing member has: a first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle in the vehicle front-rear direction, the first portion being joined to the bumper beam; and a second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle and inclined outwardly in the vehicle width direction, the second portion being joined to the beam end portion of the bumper beam, and a bending rigidity of the second portion against a load in the vehicle width direction is higher than a bending rigidity of the first portion against the load in the vehicle width direction.”
While Saeki does not explicitly disclose “a bending rigidity of the second portion against a load in the vehicle width direction is higher than a bending rigidity of the first portion against the load in the vehicle width direction,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention could achieve this limitation.
Saeki annotated Fig 3 shows both the first and second portion in the same orientation as the pending application. In the event of a small overlap collision a force would be applied to the vehicle front body structure on an axis perpendicular to the axis that runs from the front to the rear of the vehicle, or along the width of the vehicle. The force would be perpendicular to member 20, thus the entire force is applied on that axis, resulting in a large moment. Since the force applied to member 11F would not be perpendicular to the beam, nor qualify as an axial force, the force is broken down into x and y axis components. In short, the entire force is not distributed in a single direction through the second portion, thus making it less likely to fail. Additionally, member 20 has notches 21 and 22, acting as stress risers that weaken the beam. Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to conclude that the second portion is more rigid than the first portion when a load is applied in the vehicle width direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, Saeki discloses “The vehicle impact absorbing structure according to claim 1, wherein each of the first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) and the second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) is a closed cross-sectional structure including a corner, a ridgeline of the corner of the second portion extends continuously from the bumper beam to the front end of the side frame (Saeki Annotated Fig 2), and a part of the rear end of the first portion abuts a side portion of the second portion (11Ff; Saeki Fig 15).”
PNG
media_image2.png
666
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 13, Saeki discloses “The vehicle impact absorbing structure according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the rear end of the second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) is located on an outer side of the rear end of the first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) in the vehicle width direction (11Ff; Saeki Fig 15).”
6. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2) in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 9266484 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Saeki teaches a first (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) and second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3), but not a second portion with a larger cross-sectional area.
However, Nakanishi et al. teaches a first portion (22; Nakanishi et al. Fig 4) and a second portion (35; Nakanishi et al. Fig 4) with a larger cross section area as indicated by the second portions longer width in Fig 4.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the second portion with a greater cross-sectional area of Nakanishi et al. with the front body structure of Saeki with a reasonable expectation of success for a safer front body structure more equipped to protect the passengers in a small overlap collision.
In reference to claim 3, Saeki teaches a first (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3) and second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3), but not a second portion with a longer width.
However, Nakanishi et al. teaches a first portion (22; Nakanishi et al. Fig 4) and a second portion (35; Nakanishi et al. Fig 4) with a longer width as seen in Fig 4.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the second portion with a greater cross-sectional area of Nakanishi et al. with the front body structure of Saeki with a reasonable expectation of success for a safer front body structure more equipped to protect the passengers in a small overlap collision.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2) in view of Soevik et al. (US 20230271583 A1) .
Regarding claim 4, Saeki teaches a first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3), but not one with a first and second closed cross section.
However, Soevik et al. teaches “…the first portion (1; Soevik et al. Fig 1) is a closed cross-sectional structure that has a first closed cross section (5; Soevik et al. Fig 1) and a second closed cross section (6; Soevik et al. Fig 1) aligned in an up-down direction.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first and second closed cross sections of Soevik et al. with the first portion of Saeki with a reasonable expectation of success for a front body structure better suited to keep passengers in head-on collisions, too.
8. Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2) in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 9266484 B2) as applied to claims 2-3 above, and further in view of Soevik et al. (US 20230271583 A1) .
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Saeki and Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 2 teaches a first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3).
The combination of prior art does not teach a first and second closed cross section.
However, Soevik et al. teaches “…the first portion (1; Soevik et al. Fig 1) is a closed cross-sectional structure that has a first closed cross section (5; Soevik et al. Fig 1) and a second closed cross section (6; Soevik et al. Fig 1) aligned in an up-down direction.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first and second closed cross sections of Soevik et al. with the first portion of Saeki and Nakanishi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a front body structure better suited to keep passengers in head-on collisions, too.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Saeki and Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 3 teaches a first portion (20; Saeki Annotated Fig 3).
The combination of prior art does not teach a first and second closed cross section.
However, Soevik et al. teaches “…the first portion (1; Soevik et al. Fig 1) is a closed cross-sectional structure that has a first closed cross section (5; Soevik et al. Fig 1) and a second closed cross section (6; Soevik et al. Fig 1) aligned in an up-down direction.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first and second closed cross sections of Soevik et al. with the first portion of Saeki and Nakanishi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a front body structure better suited to keep passengers in head-on collisions, too.
In reference to claim 11, the combination Saeki, Nakanishi et al. and Soevik et al. as applied to claim 6, teaches “The vehicle impact absorbing structure according to claim 6, wherein the ridgelines extend in a direction that is inclined with respect to the vehicle front-rear direction (Saeki Annotated Fig 2).”
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2) in view of Soevik et al. (US 20230271583 A1) . as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US 5803514 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Saeki and Soevik et al., as applied to claim 4, teaches a second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3).
The combination of prior art fails to teach an upper and lower plate section joined by a flange.
However, Shibuya et al. teaches a bumper beam support with “a closed cross-sectional structure in which an upper plate section (21; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) and a lower plate section (31; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) are stacked and joined in the up-down direction, and at least one of the upper plate section and the lower plate section has a joint flange (34; Shibuya et al. Fig 5).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the cross-sectional structure of Shibuya et al. with the second portion of Saeki and Soevik et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a second member designed to absorb the energy of a small overlap collision instead of fully transferring the force into the remainder of the chassis.
10. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki (US 6957846 B2) in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 9266484 B2) in further view of Soevik et al. (US 20230271583 A1) as applied to claims 5-6 above, and further in view of Shibuya et al. (US 5803514 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Saeki, Nakanishi et al. and Soevik et al. as applied to claim 5 teaches a second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3).
The combination of prior art fails to teach an upper and lower plate section joined by a flange.
However, Shibuya et al. teaches a bumper beam support with “a closed cross-sectional structure in which an upper plate section (21; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) and a lower plate section (31; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) are stacked and joined in the up-down direction, and at least one of the upper plate section and the lower plate section has a joint flange (34; Shibuya et al. Fig 5).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the cross-sectional structure of Shibuya et al. with the second portion of Saeki and Soevik et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a second member designed to absorb the energy of a small overlap collision instead of fully transferring the force into the remainder of the chassis.
In reference to claim 9, the combination of Saeki, Nakanishi et al. and Soevik et al. as applied to claim 5 teaches a second portion (11F; Saeki Annotated Fig 3).
The combination of prior art fails to teach an upper and lower plate section joined by a flange.
However, Shibuya et al. teaches a bumper beam support with “a closed cross-sectional structure in which an upper plate section (21; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) and a lower plate section (31; Shibuya et al. Fig 5) are stacked and joined in the up-down direction, and at least one of the upper plate section and the lower plate section has a joint flange (34; Shibuya et al. Fig 5).”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the cross-sectional structure of Shibuya et al. with the second portion of Saeki and Soevik et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a second member designed to absorb the energy of a small overlap collision instead of fully transferring the force into the remainder of the chassis.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, Kaneko et al. (US 20140203578 A1) teaches a first and second portion of a front body structure with a common member. However, the common member is not a forming part of the first and second portion. The features of this art would not be obvious to incorporate into the base reference because they are too structurally distinct. Therefore, claim 12 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.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US-8764096-B2) teaches a first and second portion, but they do not abut.
Kuriyama et al. (US-20140361561-A1) teaches a first and second portion, but they do not abut.
Hara (US-20150329144-A1) teaches a first and second portion, but they do not abut.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights