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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate multiple embodiments of the crash management system. Reference character 100 in Fig. 3 should be 100’ and in Fig. 6 should be 100”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
(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 1-3, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10-2015-0080347.
Regarding claim 1, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses a crash management system (1) for a motor vehicle, the crash management system (1) comprising a crossbeam (Fig. 3) extending substantially along a transverse direction, the crossbeam (1) comprising two crash boxes (5) disposed at a distance from one another, the crossbeam (1) being fixable to a vehicle structure, and the crossbeam (1) comprising a closed cross section having a front flange (see annotated Fig. below), a rear flange (see annotated Fig. below) and two transverse walls (see annotated Fig. below) connecting the front flange to the rear flange, characterized in that the crash boxes (5) are disposed within the closed cross section of the crossbeam (Fig. 3), and that the crossbeam (1) is connected to two fastening elements (3) in the area of the rear flange (Fig. 3), the fastening elements (3) being connectable to the vehicle structure and being at least substantially aligned with the crash boxes (Fig. 3) in a longitudinal direction of the crossbeam (1).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crash boxes (5) are disposed in contact with the rear flange (Fig. 6) and the front flange (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the front flange comprises a recess which extends in the transverse direction of the crossbeam and which extends at a distance from the transverse walls of the crossbeam (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crash box (5) is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (translation, paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 13, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crossbeam (1) is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and is configured as an extruded part or is composed of several preformed components which are connected to one another.
Regarding claim 14, KR 10-2015-0080347 discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crossbeam (1) is configured to be disposed at a rear area of the motor vehicle.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR Miskech (US 5,876,078).
Regarding claim 1, Miskech discloses a crash management system (10) for a motor vehicle, the crash management system (10) comprising a crossbeam (Fig. 7) extending substantially along a transverse direction, the crossbeam comprising two crash boxes (66) disposed at a distance from one another, the crossbeam being fixable to a vehicle structure, and the crossbeam comprising a closed cross section (Fig. 3) having a front flange (44), a rear flange (42) and two transverse walls (84/92, 86/94) connecting the front flange to the rear flange, characterized in that the crash boxes (66) are disposed within the closed cross section of the crossbeam (Fig. 3), and that the crossbeam is connected to two fastening elements (12) in the area of the rear flange (Fig. 3), the fastening elements (12) being connectable to the vehicle structure and being at least substantially aligned with the crash boxes (Fig. 3) in a longitudinal direction of the crossbeam.
Regarding claim 2, Miskech discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crash boxes (66) are disposed in contact with the rear flange (Fig. 6) and the front flange (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Miskech discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the front flange comprises a recess (Fig. 3) which extends in the transverse direction of the crossbeam and which extends at a distance from the transverse walls of the crossbeam.
Regarding claim 4, Miskech discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the transverse walls of the crossbeam comprise cross bars (90) which extend in the transverse direction of the crossbeam and which are in contact with the crash box, a distance thus being formed between the respective transverse wall and the crash box.
Regarding claim 14, Miskech discloses the crash management system according to claim 1 characterized in that the crossbeam is configured to be disposed at a rear area of the motor vehicle.
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0080347.
Regarding claim 12, KR 10-2015-0080347 is silent as to the length of the crash box. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to make the crash box at least 75 mm long. The rationale would have been to ensure that the crash box is of sufficient length to be an effective crash box for a vehicle crash management system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskech.
Regarding claim 12, Miskech is silent as to the length of the crash box. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to make the crash box at least 75 mm long. The rationale would have been to ensure that the crash box is of sufficient length to be an effective crash box for a vehicle crash management system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2015-0080347 in view of Ponsonnaille.
Regarding claim 15, KR 10-2015-0080347 does not disclose a tow sleeve disposed in the crossbeam in the area of the crash box.
Ponsonnaille discloses a crash management system with a cross beam and a tow sleeve (40) in the area of the crash box of KR 10-2015-0080347.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include a tow sleeve in the area of the crash box since it is a known element for vehicle cross beams for crash management systems.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskech in view of Ponsonnaille.
Regarding claim 15, Miskech does not disclose a tow sleeve disposed in the crossbeam in the area of the crash box.
Ponsonnaille discloses a crash management system with a cross beam and a tow sleeve (40) in the area of the crash box of Miskech.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to include a tow sleeve in the area of the crash box since it is a known element for vehicle cross beams for crash management systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L ENGLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30 am-4 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, Fenn Matthew can be reached at 571-272-4978. 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.
/PATRICIA L ENGLE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights