DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/946,150 filed on November 13, 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3, 11-13 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,1, 5, 6, 7, 1, and 4, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,208,758 (Farooq) in view of Mutter (US2142328).
With regard to claim 1, applicant claims a vehicle comprising: a vehicle frame having a frame-rail end, the frame-rail end having a vehicle-forward face and a vehicle-rearward face; a bumper vehicle-forward of the frame-rail end; a rod supporting the bumper on the frame-rail end, the rod being fixed to the bumper and slidably extending through the vehicle-forward face and the vehicle-rearward face of the frame-rail end; a head fixed to the rod and retained vehicle-rearward of the vehicle-rearward face by the frame-rail end; and a spring on the rod, the spring having a progressive non-linear spring rate.
In Claim 1, Farooq ‘758 claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed “stud” is the equivalent of “the rod” claimed in the present application. Farooq claims the limitations of claim 1, but lacks the teaching of a spring with a progressive non-linear spring rate. Mutter ‘328 teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a frame rail (Fig. 1), a bumper 15, a rod 14, a head 16, a spring 18 on the rod, the spring having a progressive non-linear spring rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Farooq to employ a spring with a progressive non-linear spring rate in view of Mutter in order to improve damping characteristics as well as employ a desired spring rate.
With regard to claim 2, applicant claims: The vehicle as set forth in claim 1, wherein the bumper is moveable vehicle-rearward from an extended position toward the frame-rail end, the spring being loaded between the vehicle frame and the bumper in the extended position.
Farooq ‘758 claims in claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, applicant claims: The vehicle as set forth in claim 2, wherein the spring is resiliently compressible between the frame-rail end and the bumper.
Farooq ‘758 claims in claim 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
30
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, applicant claims: The vehicle as set forth in claim 1, wherein the spring is a conical coil spring.
Farooq ‘758 claims in claim 6:
PNG
media_image3.png
28
301
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And Mutter ‘328 teaches the conical coil spring.
With regard to claim 12, applicant claims: The vehicle as set forth in claim 11, wherein the conical coil spring is coiled around the rod.
Farooq ‘758 claims in claim 7:
PNG
media_image4.png
27
301
media_image4.png
Greyscale
And Mutter ‘328 teaches the conical coil spring.
With regard to claim 13, applicant claims: The vehicle as set forth in claim 11, wherein the conical coil spring abuts the bumper and the frame-rail end.
Farooq ‘758 claims in claim 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
252
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And Mutter ‘328 teaches the conical coil spring.
With regard to claim 19, applicant claims:
The vehicle as set forth in claim 1, wherein the frame-rail end includes a base elongated along a vehicle-longitudinal axis and a flange extending radially from the base, and the flange includes the vehicle-forward face and the vehicle-rearward face.
Farooq claims in claim 4:
PNG
media_image6.png
76
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-10 depend on claim 3. Claims 14-18 depend on claim 1.
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) 1-3, 11-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faruque (US 8113555). With regard to claim 1, Faruque teaches a vehicle comprising: a vehicle frame 110 having a frame-rail end 220, the frame-rail end having a vehicle-forward face and a vehicle-rearward face (top/bottom; Fig. 3/Fig. 6a); a bumper 120 vehicle-forward of the frame-rail end; a rod 190 supporting the bumper on the frame-rail end, the rod being fixed to the bumper and slidably extending through the vehicle-forward face and the vehicle-rearward face of the frame-rail end; a head 230/245 fixed to the rod and retained vehicle-rearward of the vehicle-rearward face by the frame-rail end; and a spring 18 on the rod. Faruque lacks the specific teaching of a spring with a progressive non-linear spring rate. Mutter ‘328 teaches a similar vehicle comprising: a frame rail (Fig. 1), a bumper 15, a rod 14, a head 16, a spring 18 on the rod, the spring having a progressive non-linear spring rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Faruque to employ a spring with a progressive non-linear spring rate in view of Mutter in order to improve damping characteristics as well as employ a desired spring rate. With regard to claim 2, Faruque teaches the vehicle, wherein the bumper is moveable vehicle-rearward from an extended position toward the frame-rail end, the spring being loaded between the vehicle frame and the bumper in the extended position (Col. 5-6). With regard to claim 3, Faruque teaches the vehicle, wherein the spring 200 is resiliently compressible between the frame-rail end 220 and the bumper 120. With regard to claim 11, Faruque and Mutter teach the vehicle, wherein the spring 18 is a conical coil spring. With regard to claim 12, Faruque and Mutter teach the vehicle, wherein the conical coil spring 200/18 is coiled around the rod 190/14. With regard to claim 13, Faruque and Mutter teach the vehicle, wherein the conical coil spring 200/18 abuts the bumper 120 (via 210) and the frame-rail end 220 (via 210). With regard to claim 14, Faruque teaches the vehicle, further comprising a latch 305 releasably connecting the rod with the frame-rail end. With regard to claim 18, Faruque teaches the vehicle, wherein the latch 305 is inertia-driven (inertia of actuation fluid) from a locked position connecting the rod with the frame-rail end and an unlocked position disconnected from the rod and/or the frame-rail end. With regard to claim 19, Faruque teaches the vehicle, wherein the frame-rail end includes a base 100 elongated along a vehicle-longitudinal axis and a flange 220 extending radially from the base, and the flange includes the vehicle-forward face and the vehicle-rearward face (Fig. 3).
Suggestions for Applicant
Claims 4-10 and 15-17 contain allowable subject matter should the double patenting rejections be overcome. Should applicant amend claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 4 or claims 15-17 (including intervening claim 14), a terminal disclaimer would not be necessary as the double patenting issues would be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davidson (US 1396026) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: frame rails A, a bumper B, a rod 12, a spring E and a head 13.
Leach (US 2717224) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: frame rails 18, a bumper 14, a rod 24, a spring 40 comprising bowing portions and a head 32.
Weed (US 3756643) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: frame rails 12, a bumper 16, a rod 26, a spring 30 and a head 24.
Shyi (US 4807915) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: frame rails 10, a bumper 1, a rod 8, a spring 4 and a head 9.
Faruque (US 20250256671), Faruque (US 20250269813), Faruque (US 20250282315) and Farooq (US 12617360) have been cited to show similar vehicles from the same assignee/inventors that do not have double patenting issues.
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
June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights