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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al.
For claim 1, Kaneko et al. (2014/0203578) discloses a vehicle impact absorbing structure (FIG.1), comprising:
a side frame (SL, SR) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction in a vehicle front portion;
a bumper beam (BR) that extends in a vehicle width direction in front of the side frame, the bumper beam having a beam end portion located on an outer side of the side frame in the vehicle width direction; and
PNG
media_image1.png
537
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an impact absorber (10) that couples a front end of the side frame and the bumper beam in the vehicle front-rear direction (FIG.2),
the impact absorber being compressively deformable ([0028]) by an impact load that is input to the bumper beam from the front of the vehicle, wherein the impact absorber has
a first portion (20) 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 (30) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle while being inclined outward in the vehicle width direction,
the second portion being joined to the beam end portion of the bumper beam,
PNG
media_image2.png
384
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least a part (rear end of outer wall 32) of a rear end of the second portion is located on an outer side of a rear end of the first portion in the vehicle width direction, and
the rear end of the first portion and the rear end of the second portion overlap the front end of the side frame in a vehicle front view (FIG.2).
For claim 13, the impact absorber has a common member (R8) that is provided across the first portion and the second portion, the common member forming a part of each of the first portion and the second portion.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakanishi et al.
For claim 1, Nakanishi et al. (9266484) discloses a vehicle impact absorbing structure (FIG.11), comprising:
a side frame (12R) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction in a vehicle front portion;
a bumper beam (14) that extends in a vehicle width direction in front of the side frame, the bumper beam having a beam end portion located on an outer side of the side frame in the vehicle width direction; and
an impact absorber (70) that couples a front end of the side frame and the bumper beam in the vehicle front-rear direction (FIG.11),
PNG
media_image3.png
331
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the impact absorber being compressively deformable (Col 10, lines 36-37) by an impact load that is input to the bumper beam from the front of the vehicle,
wherein the impact absorber has
a first portion (31,45) 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 (30,44) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle while being inclined outward in the vehicle width direction,
the second portion being joined to the beam end portion of the bumper beam,
at least a part (30) of a rear end of the second portion is located on an outer side of a rear end of the first portion in the vehicle width direction, and
the rear end of the first portion and the rear end of the second portion overlap the front end of the side frame in a vehicle front view (FIG.11).
For claim 4, the first portion and the second portion each have a closed cross-sectional structure including a corner (FIG.10),
PNG
media_image4.png
336
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a ridgeline (between 30 and 34 FIG.10) of the corner of the second portion continues from the bumper beam to the front end of the side frame,
a part of the rear end of the first portion abuts a side portion of the second portion, and
a remaining part of the rear end of the first portion is joined to the set plate (FIG.11).
For claim 10, a cross-sectional area (see 50 in FIG.10) of the second portion is larger than a cross-sectional area (see 52 in FIG.10) of the first portion.
For claim 11, a width (FIG.10) of the second portion in the vehicle width direction is greater than a width of the first portion in the vehicle width direction.
For claim 13, the impact absorber has a common member (72,74) that is provided across the first portion and the second portion, the common member forming a part of each of the first portion and the second portion.
For claims 5, 16, and 17, in the vehicle front view, an end surface center of the rear end of the first portion and an end surface center of the rear end of the second portion overlap an end surface of the front end of the side frame (implicit as seen in FIG.1 where the width of the side frame is large enough to encompass the centers of the first and second portions). Though the drawings in Nakanishi et al. are not set forth as being to scale, the drawings can be relied upon for what they reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125).
PNG
media_image5.png
509
722
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For claims 6 and 18, in the vehicle front view, an end surface center of the front end of the side frame (12R) overlaps an end surface of the rear end of the second portion (30). Here again, looking to FIG.1 one of ordinary skill in the art notes that the rear end of the second portion (30) attaches to the side frame (12R) at a point more than half of the width of the side frame (12R). The center of the side frame would therefore fall within or overlap an end surface of the rear end of the second portion as recited.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above in view of JP 2017077746 (JP 746) or Yasuhara et al. (2010/0127531).
For claim 2, Nakanishi et al. disclose a set plate (24) that is interposed between the impact absorber and the front end of the side frame, wherein a rear end of the impact absorber is joined to the set plate.
Nakanishi et al. lack the set plate including a convex section that protrudes from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle, and a rear end of the impact absorber is joined to the convex section.
JP 746 teaches a connection where a set plate (19, FIG.5 below left) includes a convex section protruding forward of the side frame (21) to which a rear end of an impact absorber is attached.
Likewise, Yasuhara e al. teach a connection where a set plate (51) has a convex section (FIG.4) protruding forward to engage with a rear end of an impact absorber (FIG.4 below, right).
PNG
media_image6.png
463
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
563
791
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided such a set plate as taught by JP 746 or Yasuhara et al. for use with the impact absorber of Nakanishi et al. in order to strengthen the connection.
For claim 3, Nakashini et al., as modified, disclose the first portion and the second portion each have a closed cross-sectional structure including a corner (FIG.10),
a ridgeline (between 30 and 34 FIG.10) of the corner of the second portion continues from the bumper beam to the front end of the side frame,
a part of the rear end of the first portion abuts a side portion of the second portion, and
a remaining part of the rear end of the first portion is joined to the set plate (FIG.11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. as applied above with respect to claim 5, and in view of Kashiwagi et al. (10131302).
Kashiwagi et al. teach, for claim 9, an upper end of the first portion (25b) and an upper end of the second portion (25a) are located slightly above an upper end of the side frame (FIG.5).
PNG
media_image8.png
480
709
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the first and second portions of Nakanishi et al. each with upper ends which extend slightly above an upper end of the side frame as taught by Kashiwagi et al. as an obvious alternative to fasten the first and second portions to the set plate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kashiwagi et al. (10131302).
For claim 12, Nakanishi et al. disclose the first portion being a closed cross-sectional structure but fail to provide first and second cross sections aligned vertically as recited.
Kashiwagi et al. teach an impact absorbing structure having a first portion (18) with a closed cross-sectional structure having a first closed cross section (33) and a second closed cross section (33, FIG.5 (as shown above)) aligned in an up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Nakanishi et al. with first and second vertically aligned closed cross sections as taught by Kashiwagi et al. in order to stiffen the first portion.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 13 above in view of KR 101359966 (KR 966).
Nakanishi et al. (FIG.10) fail to include a common member with an outer portion of the common member in the vehicle width direction forming a lower plate section of the second portion, and the outer portion having a groove shape that is recessed downwardly, a feature taught by KR 966. Specifically, KR 966 includes an impact absorber (FIGS.4-7) with first and second portions (formed from upper 35 and lower 37 panels) and a common member (lower panel 37,51) which is provided across the first portion and the second portion; the common member (37,51) forming a part of each of the first and the second portions (31,33).
The common member includes an outer portion in the vehicle width direction which forms a lower plate section (FIGS.6-7) of the second portion, wherein the outer portion has a groove shape (37, FIG.6) that is recessed downwardly (FIGS.5-7).
PNG
media_image9.png
275
278
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
242
284
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
174
231
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided for Nakanishi et al. a construction of KR 966 with upper and lower panels, including a common member as taught by KR 966, as an obvious alternative to that structure of Nakanishi et al. (FIG.10) and in order to accomplish the same predictable result of mitigating a collision.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. as applied to claim 13 above in view of Klimek (2011/0193370).
Nakanishi et al. fail to include a common member that is provided across the first portion and the second portion, the common member forming a part of each of the first portion and the second portion with a removed section therebetween.
Klimek teaches such a common member (40) with honeycomb structure (41) (which implicitly includes a removed section) between a first portion (27) and a second portion (26).
PNG
media_image12.png
394
785
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided such a common member with removed section as taught by DE 975 connected to and for use between the first and second portions in order to further absorb collision energy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 are 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 for the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific the first portion and the second portion each have a closed cross-sectional structure including a vertical wall and a horizontal wall, and the vertical walls of the first portion and the second portion overlap the horizontal wall of the side frame in the vehicle front view, in combination with the other elements recited which is not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2004066932 (JP 932) discloses a vehicle impact absorbing structure, comprising:
a side frame (11) that extends in a vehicle front-rear direction in a vehicle front portion;
a bumper beam (12) that extends in a vehicle width direction in front of the side frame, the bumper beam having a beam end portion located on an outer side of the side frame in the vehicle width direction; and
an impact absorber (B) that couples a front end of the side frame and the bumper beam in the vehicle front-rear direction, the impact absorber being compressively deformable by an impact load that is input to the bumper beam from the front of the vehicle,
PNG
media_image13.png
560
603
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
561
636
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein the impact absorber has
a first portion (20) 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 (11) that extends from the front end of the side frame toward the front of the vehicle while being inclined outward in the vehicle width direction,
the second portion being joined to the beam end portion of the bumper beam,
at least a part of a rear end of the second portion is located on an outer side of a rear end of the first portion in the vehicle width direction, and
the rear end of the first portion and the rear end of the second portion overlap the front end of the side frame in a vehicle front view (FIG.4).
For claim 9, JP 932 teaches an upper end of the first portion (see where B2 attaches at a location above the side frame) and an upper end of the second portion (11c) are located slightly above an upper end of the side frame (FIG.4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights