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
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dividing walls" in line 2. Claim 5 depends on claim 1. See same deficiency in claim 8 in line 2. Claim 1 mentions “at least one dividing wall” (line 9) and “said dividing wall” (line 13). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 (cited on IDS dated 01/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses a crash management system for a motor vehicle, the crash management system comprising a crossbeam (bumper reinforcement R in paragraph [0022] shown in Figure 3) for being connected to a body shell structure of the motor vehicle, the crossbeam (bumper reinforcement R in paragraph [0022] shown in Figure 3) comprising a front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3), a rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026]) shown in Figure 3) and at least two transverse walls (upper wall 2, lower wall 3 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) connecting the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) to the rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) in order to form a closed cross section of the crossbeam (bumper reinforcement R in paragraph [0022] shown in Figure 3), at least one partition wall (partition wall 5 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) extending at least approximately parallel to the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] in Figure 3) and/or to the rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) being disposed between the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) and the rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) the crash management system also comprising at least one dividing wall (support walls 6, 7 and 8 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) protruding from the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, is silent about the exact location of the neutral axis which geometrically results as the center of mass of the cross section of the crossbeam (bumper reinforcement R in paragraph [0022] shown in Figure 3), it has been estimated from the cross-section area in the drawings.
Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 does not state in the description that the neutral axis is disposed in the range between 30% and 40% of the depth of the crossbeam in a direction extending from the rear flange in the direction of the front flange.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nuetral axis of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 disposed in the range between 30% and 40% of the depth of the crossbeam in a direction extending from the rear flange in the direction of the front flange that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, but does not show that the wall thickness of the rear flange is greater, preferably three times, than the wall thickness of the front flange.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with the wall thickness of the rear flange is greater, preferably three times, than the wall thickness of the front flange because limitation relating to the thickness of the rear flange were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 4, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, characterized in that several chambers (V1-V5 in paragraphs [0041] and [0044] shown in Figure 3) are disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall (partition wall 5 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) in a direction extending parallel to the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 4, characterized in that the dividing walls (support walls 6, 7 and 8 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) separating the chambers (V1-V5 in paragraphs [0041] and [0044] as shown in Figure 3) from one another are offset to one another in a direction extending parallel to the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) and/or to the rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system according to claim 4 characterized in that the number of chambers (V1-V5 in paragraphs [0041] and [0044] as shown in Figure 3) disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall (partition wall 5 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) is different, namely preferably in such a manner that their number differs by one (shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 6, characterized in that the number of chambers (V3, V4 and V5 in paragraph [0044] as shown in Figure 3) on the side facing the rear flange (rear wall 1 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3) is greater than the number of chambers (V1 and V2 in paragraph [0041] shown in Figure 1) on the side facing the front flange (front wall 4 in paragraph [0026] shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 4, but does not show number of chambers disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall is the same.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with number of chambers disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall is the same mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 9, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 4, but does not show that at least one of the dividing walls is plane and is disposed parallel to at least one transverse wall.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with at least one of the dividing walls is plane and is disposed parallel to at least one transverse wall, the configuration of the claimed dividing walls was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 10, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 4, but does not show that at least one of the dividing walls comprises a curved section or a section extending at an oblique angle to a partition wall, the oblique section or the curved section ending at the joint.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A that at least one of the dividing walls comprises a curved section or a section extending at an oblique angle to a partition wall, the oblique section or the curved section ending at the joint, the configuration of the claimed dividing walls was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Regarding claim 11, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 4, but does not show that at least one of the dividing walls is arched, the curvature protruding to the side having a smaller distance to the transverse wall.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the dividing walls of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 is arched, the curvature protruding to the side having a smaller distance to the transverse wall, the configuration of the claimed dividing walls was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 12, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, does not show that the height of the front flange and the height of the rear flange are different.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with the height of the front flange and the height of the rear flange are different because limitations relating to the height of the flanges were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 13, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 but does not show wall thickness of the at least one partition wall is smaller than the wall thickness of the at least one dividing wall.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with wall thickness of the at least one partition wall is smaller than the wall thickness of the at least one dividing wall because limitations relating to the thickness were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 14, Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, but does not show that the width of the chambers disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall is the same.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crash management system of Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 with the width of the chambers disposed on both sides of the at least one partition wall is the same because the width of the chambers are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Regarding claim 15,Terada et al. US 2016/0121826 A1 discloses the crash management system, according to claim 1, characterized in that the crossbeam (bumper reinforcement R in paragraph [0025]) is made of aluminum (in paragraph [0025]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights