DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. JP 2007126079 A (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 1, Watanabe et al. discloses [a tow hook assembly mounted on a bumper beam 3 disposed in a vehicle width direction,] (Fig. 2; Page 4, lines 1-12) the tow hook assembly comprising:
[a strengthening member 30, 31 connected to the bumper beam;] (Fig. 2; Page 5, lines 3-17) and
[a tow hook 20 connected to the strengthening member along a front-to-back direction of a vehicle body.] (Fig. 3; Page 6, lines 12-16)
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe et al. further discloses [wherein the bumper beam and the strengthening member are provided as a rigidity unit connected to each other.] (Fig. 2; Page 5, lines 3-17)
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Kim US 20220266910 A1.
Regarding independent claim 3, Watanabe et al. discloses [a tow hook assembly mounted on a bumper beam 3] (Fig. 2; Page 4, lines 1-12), the tow hook assembly comprising:
[a mounting bracket 30, 31 disposed on a front bumper skin of the bumper beam and connected to the bumper beam;] (Fig. 2; Page 5, lines 3-17) and
[a tow hook 20 connected to the mounting bracket along a front-to-back direction of a vehicle body.] (Fig. 3; Page 6, lines 12-16)
Watanabe et al. does not disclose the bumper beam being connected to a front of a stay connected to a front side member
Kim teaches [the bumper beam being connected to a front of a stay connected to a front side member;] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Kim illustrates wherein the bumper beam 160 is connected to a front of a stay 162 connected to a front side member.) [wherein the stay is connected to a rear bumper skin, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the bumper beam;] (Fig. 1; As shown in Fig. 1, Kim illustrates the stay 162 is connected to a rear bumper skin, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the bumper beam 160.) wherein: [the mounting bracket includes a lower bracket 100 and an upper bracket 70 that are connected to each other,] (Fig. 4-6; Paragraph 0102) [the lower bracket includes a bracket front side 10, a bracket lower side, two lower bracket side surfaces 110, 114, and an upper flange 112 extending rearwardly from an upper portion of the bracket front side formed by folding predetermined portions of a plate,] (Fig. 4-6; Paragraph 0102) and [the upper bracket includes a bracket upper side 80 and two upper bracket side surfaces 62, 72 formed by folding predetermined portions of another plate;] (Fig. 4-6; Paragraph 0095 and 0098-0100) [wherein: the upper flange 112 is spaced from the bumper beam;] (Fig. 4-6) [the upper flange and the bracket upper side are connected by welding;] (Fig. 4-6; Paragraph 0100) and [the lower bracket side surface and the upper bracket side surface are welded.] (Fig. 4-6; Paragraph 0100)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the bumper beam arrangement and the lower and upper brackets of Kim with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a stronger and more rigid support structure for the tow hook by distributing towing loads through the stay and bumper beam into the vehicle frame, thus improving the structural integrity and the load-bearing capability of the tow hook assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the mounting bracket 30, 31 is connected to the front bumper skin of the bumper beam 3,] (Fig. 2 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 3-17 of Watanabe et al.) and wherein [the mounting bracket is connected to an upper flange 2c and a lower flange 2b of the stay,] (Fig. 2-4 of Watanabe et al.; Page 4, lines 21-27) and the stay and bumper beam arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including wherein the mounting bracket comprises: [a bracket upper side 30b where a first flange 30a is formed at a rear;] (Fig. 5 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 7-11 of Watanabe et al.) [a bracket front side 30c extending downward from a front of the bracket upper side;] (Fig. 5 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 7-11 of Watanabe et al.) [a bracket lower side 30b extending rearward from a lower part of the bracket front side and including a second flange 30a;] (Fig. 5 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 7-11 of Watanabe et al.) and [bracket side surfaces 31b that respectively extend rearward from both ends of the bracket front side and include a third flange 31a.] (Fig. 6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 12-17 of Watanabe et al.)
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above including [wherein the first flange 30a comprises an up-flange portion bent in an upward direction; and the second flange 30a comprises a down-flange portion bent in a downward direction.] (Fig. 5 of Watanabe et al.; As shown in Fig. 5, Watanabe et al. illustrates wherein the first flange 30a comprises an up-flange portion bent in an upward direction; and the second flange 30a comprises a down-flange portion bent in a downward direction.)
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above including [wherein the third flange 31a comprises at least one forming part protruded in a forward direction.] (Fig. 6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 12-17 of Watanabe et al.)
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above including [wherein one sheet forms the bracket upper side, the bracket front side, the bracket lower side, and the bracket side surfaces of the mounting bracket;] (Fig. 5-6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 7-17 of Watanabe et al.; Watanabe et al. discloses wherein the mounting brackets 30, 31 are bent to form the bracket upper side, the bracket front side, the bracket lower side, and the bracket side surfaces.) and
[the mounting bracket further comprises a patch member 15 connected to the bracket side surfaces.] (Fig. 2 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 35-37)
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above including wherein the mounting bracket includes:
[a first bracket 30 and a second bracket 31 that are joined to each other;] (Fig. 2 and 5-6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 3-6 of Watanabe et al.) and [bracket side surfaces including a first bracket side surface and a second side surface,] (Fig. 6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 12-17 of Watanabe et al.) [wherein the first bracket includes a bracket upper surface, a bracket front surface, a bracket lower surface, and a first bracket side surface, which are formed by one plate, and wherein the second bracket includes a second bracket side surface.] (Fig. 5-6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 7-17 of Watanabe et al.; Watanabe et al. discloses wherein the mounting brackets 30, 31 are bent to form the bracket upper side, the bracket front side, the bracket lower side, and the bracket side surfaces.)
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the upper and lower brackets recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including the upper flange and bracket configuration recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 6-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Kim and further in view of Ando US 8419040 B2.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe et al., as modified does not disclose wherein each of the bracket side surfaces comprises:
an upper reinforcing portion extending from an upper portion of the bracket side surface in a vehicle width direction; and a lower reinforcing portion extending from a lower portion of the bracket side surface in the vehicle width direction, wherein the upper reinforcing portions of the bracket side surfaces face each other, and the lower reinforcing portions of the bracket side surfaces face each other.
Ando teaches wherein each of the bracket side surfaces comprises: [an upper reinforcing portion extending from an upper portion of the bracket side surface 38 in a vehicle width direction;] (Annotation of Fig. 3b; Col. 8, lines 30-54; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3b below, Ando illustrates wherein the bracket side surfaces 38 comprise an upper reinforcing portion extending from the bracket side surface in a vehicle width direction.) and [a lower reinforcing portion extending from a lower portion of the bracket side surface in the vehicle width direction,] (Annotation of Fig. 3b; Col. 8, lines 30-54; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3b below, Ando illustrates wherein the bracket side surfaces 36 comprise a lower reinforcing portion extending from the bracket side surface in a vehicle width direction.) [wherein the upper reinforcing portions of the bracket side surfaces face each other,] (Annotation of Fig. 3b; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3b below, Ando illustrates wherein the upper reinforcing portions point in a direction that face each other.) and [the lower reinforcing portions of the bracket side surfaces face each other.] (Annotation of Fig. 3b; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3b below, Ando illustrates wherein the lower reinforcing portions point in a direction that face each other.)
PNG
media_image1.png
549
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3b of Ando
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the upper and lower reinforcing portions of Ando with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for increased rigidity and reinforcement of the bracket side surfaces, thus improving structural strength and durability of the mounting bracket.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including wherein: [the upper reinforcing portions are connected to the bracket upper side by welding;] (Col. 8, lines 55-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-22) and [the lower reinforcing portions are connected to the bracket lower side by welding.] (Col. 8, lines 55-67 and Col. 9, lines 1-22)
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the lower bracket further comprises lower reinforcing portions, extending in a vehicle width direction, facing each other.
Ando teaches [wherein the lower bracket further comprises lower reinforcing portions, extending in a vehicle width direction, facing each other.] (Annotation of Fig. 3b; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3b below, Ando illustrates wherein the lower reinforcing portions point in a direction that face each other.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the upper and lower reinforcing portions of Ando with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for increased rigidity and reinforcement of the bracket side surfaces, thus improving structural strength and durability of the mounting bracket.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Kim and further in view of Oiki JP 2001171560 A (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe et al., as modified further discloses [wherein the third flange 31a overlaps the front bumper skin of the bumper beam 3 along the front-to-back direction of the vehicle body and is fixedly connected to the front bumper skin of the bumper beam.] (Fig. 6 of Watanabe et al.; Page 5, lines 12-17 of Watanabe et al.)
Watanabe et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the first flange overlaps an upper flange of the stay that is connected to a rear bumper skin, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the bumper beam, and wherein the first flange is bolted and connected to the upper surface of the bumper beam.
Oiki teaches [wherein the first flange overlaps an upper flange of the stay that is connected to a rear bumper skin, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the bumper beam,] (Fig. 3 and 6; Page 5, lines 34-37; As shown in Fig. 3 and 6, Oiki illustrates wherein a first flange 22c overlaps an upper flange 35 of the stay 31 that is connected to a bumper skin, an upper surface, and a lower surface of the bumper beam 41.) and [wherein the first flange is bolted and connected to the upper surface of the bumper beam;] (Fig. 3 and 6; Page 5, lines 34-37) [wherein the second flange overlaps the lower flange of the stay in a vertical direction and is connected to the lower surface of the bumper beam.] (Fig. 3 and 6; Page 5, lines 20-23; As shown in Fig. 3 and 6, Oiki illustrates wherein the second flange 22d overlaps the lower flange of the bumper beam.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the first and second flange configuration of Oiki with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al., as modified with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the mounting bracket to be securely fastened to the bumper beam and stay through the overlapping upper and lower flanges, thus providing a more durable connection between the tow hook assembly and the vehicle frame.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the second flange arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the third flange arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. in view of Kim and further in view of Akimoto et al. WO 2023139896 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe et al., as modified, further discloses [wherein the tow hook 20d has a “U” shape.] (Fig. 3 of Watanabe et al.)
Watanabe et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the tow hook is fixedly connected to the bracket side surfaces.
Akimoto et al. teaches [wherein the tow hook is fixedly connected to the bracket side surfaces.] (Fig. 7; As shown in Fig. 7, illustrates wherein the tow hook 22 is fixedly connected to the bracket side surfaces 413, 414.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tow hook and bracket side arrangement of Akimoto et al. with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the towing loads to be directly transferred from the tow hook into the bracket side surfaces, thus providing stable tow hook mounting and improved structural integrity during towing operations.
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the tow hook comprises: a pair of leg portions connected to the bracket side surfaces; and a hook connected to the pair of leg portions.
Akimoto et al. teaches [wherein the tow hook 22 comprises: a pair of leg portions connected to the bracket side surfaces; and a hook connected to the pair of leg portions;] (Annotation of Fig. 7; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 7 below, Akimoto et al. illustrates wherein the tow hook 22 comprises: a pair of leg portions connected to the bracket side surfaces; and a hook connected to the pair of leg portions.) [wherein the hook 22 is formed slanted at a predetermined angle from a virtual horizontal line along a vehicle width direction.] (Fig. 7 of Akimoto et al.; As shown in Fig. 7, Akimoto et al. illustrates wherein the hook 22 is formed slanted at a predetermined angle from a virtual horizontal line along a vehicle width direction.)
PNG
media_image2.png
547
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Akimoto et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tow hook leg portions of Akimoto with the tow hook assembly of Watanabe et al., as modified with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the towing loads to be distributed through the pair of leg portions into the bracket side surfaces, thus improving the structural stability and strength of the tow hook assembly during operation.
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations including the slanted tow hook recited in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hodoya et al. JP 2008007044 A – comprises a towing hook mounting structure capable of preventing any deflection and breakage of a fixed portion of a towing hook even when a load is applied to the towing hook while ensuring the energy absorbing function caused by crush of a section of a bumper reinforcement in a collision.
Kim et al. KR 102130351 B1 – comprises a vehicle towing device mounted on the bumper beam to be fastened with a towing hook includes: a first reinforce bracket mounted on a front side of the bumper beam having an assembly hole formed in an axle direction and integrally formed with a first thickening nut protruding rearward at a position corresponding to the assembly hole; and a second reinforce bracket mounted on a rear side of the bumper beam and integrally formed with a second thickening nut protruding forward at the position corresponding to the assembly hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:30 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights