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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1 and the addition of new claims 21 – 26. Claims 4, 7 – 8, 13, & 17 – 18 have been cancelled.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 22 – 26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the reasons given below.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22 – 26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 – 12, 14 – 16, & 19 – 21 drawn to a vehicle component.
Groups II, claim(s) 22 – 26, drawn to a vehicle component.
Groups I – II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of original claim 1:
“A vehicle component construct comprising:
A panel formed of a composite sandwich material comprising an open area core defining a plurality of pores, a high gloss surface sheet adhered to a first face of the open area core by a first adhesive layer, and a structural skin adhered to a second face of the open are core by a second adhesive layer.”
This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Wang et al. (CN 106003850 A) (2016), in view of Guha et al. (WO 2018/102420 A1, provided with IDS filed 12/10/2021).
Wang et al. teach a composite sandwich structure comprising a first fiber-reinforced (e.g. glass fibers) thermoplastic panel (i.e., “surface sheet”), honeycomb core (i.e., “open core”) (14), a second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (i.e., “structural skin”), a first hot-melt adhesive layer (i.e., “first adhesive layer” and “second adhesive layer”) between each fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel and said honeycomb core (paragraph [0023] & Fig. 1 below). The first adhesive layer is a hot melt adhesive layer, and therefore flows into the interior of the honeycomb while in a molten state. The hot melt adhesive inherently contacts a first face of the walls and an interior of the walls of the honeycomb cells during bonding, and thus partially fills the cells (pores). Furthermore, Fig. 1 suggests the hot adhesive film layer is a continuous layer. Therefore, the high gloss surface sheet and the structural skin are adhered to the interior of walls of the open area core by each of the adhesive layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang et al. do not teach the composite sandwich is a panel within a vehicle component. Also, Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the first (glass) fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (i.e., “surface sheet’) has a high gloss property.
Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a fiber reinforced resin layer, such as glass fiber-based SMC, with a high gloss sheen. High quality high gloss surfaces are generally required for vehicle surface panels, such as doors, hoods, quarter panels, trunks, and roof structures (paragraphs [0005], [0014] – [0016]). The automotive exterior panel high gloss is obtainable by sanding, priming and paint finishing (paragraphs [0018] & [0033]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guha et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sand, prime, or paint the outer glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel taught by Wang et al. in order to provide the desirable high quality high gloss finish to an outer surface of a vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 – 12, 14 – 16, & 19 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, the claim amendment recites “wherein the vehicle component construct further comprises a divot formed along a seam between the high gloss surface sheet and the structural skin.”
The specification, paragraph [0036], teaches “According to embodiments, excess material is cut from the composite sandwich once the edge seal is formed. As shown in Fig. 4A, excess material of the structural skin 16 has been trimmed from the composite sandwich assembly 10 by a knife or router that presses against the divot 35A that is formed by the surface sheet 14.” Fig. 4A shows the divot is formed by the shoulder of the surface sheet where the edge seal is formed.
Applicant’s claim does not recite the divot is formed by a shoulder of the surface sheet and does not recite the seam is an edge seam. Applicant’s claim recites a broader scope of embodiments than the specification teaches. Therefore, Applicant’s claim recites genus, but the specification only supports a species within the recited genus. Applicant’s specification does not support other species regarding the recited divot that are within the recited genus.
Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 – 12, 14 – 16, 19 – 21 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include a divot formed along a seam between the high gloss surface sheet and the structural skin. Support for this amendment is found in the application as filed in Paragraph [0036] and FIG. 4A. No new matter is added” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
“Applicant respectfully notes that as Claim 1 is amended, the art of record does not anticipate or render Claim 1 obvious. As such, Applicant respectfully suggests that Claim 1 is in condition for allowance” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously cited prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 and claims dependent thereon over the cited prior art have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claims 22 – 26 recite a conduit system embedded in the open area core of the panel of the vehicle component construct. Support for this subject matter is included at Paragraph [0040] of the application as filed. No new matter has been added. Applicant respectfully submits that new Claims 21 – 26 are allowable over the art of record” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the restriction requirement above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights