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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 18 claim 4 recites “boning.” It appears the claim should recite “bonding.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 2010/0092733 A1) (“Blank”).
With respect to claim 1, Blank discloses a system of a reinforced structural element (abstr.), comprising a structural element comprising a cavity (abstr., 0001, 0020), a reinforcing element which is disposed in the cavity of the structural element (0020), the reinforcing element comprising at least one channel on an outside of the reinforcing element, the outside of the reinforcing element forming a shoulder alongside the channel (0084, Fig. 4), and an adhesive disposed in the channel and at least partly on the shoulder – the recitation “The adhesive is distributed in the region of the channels 6” (0084) has been interpreted as disclosing the adhesive disposed in the channel and at least partly on the shoulder, the adhesive bonding the reinforcing element to the structural element – the adhesive is present between the structural element and the reinforcing element (0022, 0025, 0084). Blank suggests a joining region directly adjoining the shoulder on the outside of the reinforcing element (Fig. 4) and suggests that when the reinforcing element and the structural element are in a bonded state the joining region directly adjoining the shoulder is free of adhesive when that is beneficial based on the design of the reinforcing element as the amount of the adhesive joining the reinforcing element and the structural element is adjusted locally according to where it is necessary depending on the design of the reinforcing element (0090). Blank also discloses that a specific seal can be provided such that there are regions of the reinforcing element where no adhesive is present (0088).
Blank discloses a first space between the shoulder and the structural element and a second space between the joining region and the structural element are open to one another – the area parallel to the longer channel 6 has been interpreted as the shoulder and the area directly adjoining the shoulder has been interpreted as the joining region in Fig. 4.
Blank discloses the reinforcing element forms an open system with the structural element during adhesive bonding (0022, 0023, 0025, Fig. 4), and the first space and the second space are fluid-permeable and unsealed during and after the adhesive bonding in relation to a bordering cavity of the structural element (0088, 0090, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Blank teaches the system of claim 1. Blank discloses a spacing between the shoulder and the structural element of from 2 to 4 mm (0022). The range of the spacing overlaps the range recited in claim 2; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 3, Blank teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing element has at least one channel on the outside (0084, Fig. 4), and the outside of the reinforcing element forms the shoulder next to the channel (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank et al. (US 2010/0092733 A1) (“Blank”).
With respect to claim 4, Blank teaches a method for reinforcing a structural element, the method comprising: providing a structural element having a cavity (0020, 0022, 0025), disposing a reinforcing element in the cavity of the structural element (0020, 0084), the reinforcing element having a channel on the outside of the reinforcing element, the outside of the reinforcing element forming a shoulder alongside the channel (0084, Fig. 4); introducing an adhesive into the channel (0084). Regarding spreading the adhesive at least partly in the channel and at least partly on the shoulder”, Blank discloses that the adhesive is distributed in the region of channels 6 and in the regions which are at a distance from the bodywork (the structural element) (0084), the adhesive being “distributed in the region of channels 6” has been interpreted as spreading the adhesive at least partly in the channel and at least partly on the shoulder; bonding the reinforcing element to the structural element with the adhesive (0084, 0090).
Blank discloses stopping the spreading of the adhesive on the shoulder prior to a bonded state of the reinforcing element and the structural element - Blank suggests that the amount of the adhesive joining the reinforcing element and the structural element is adjusted locally according to where it is necessary depending on the design of the reinforcing element (0090), thus, suggesting that the spreading of the adhesive is stopped on the shoulder when that is beneficial based on the design of the reinforcing element, suggesting that the joining region directly adjoining the shoulder is free of adhesive when that is beneficial based on the design of the reinforcing element.
Blank discloses a first space between the shoulder and the structural element and a second space between the joining region and the structural element are open to one another – Blank suggests that the amount of the adhesive joining the reinforcing element and the structural element is adjusted locally according to where it is necessary depending on the design of the reinforcing element (0090), the joining region directly adjoining the shoulder on the outside of the reinforcing element (Fig. 4), the area parallel to the longer channel 6 has been interpreted as the shoulder and the area directly adjoining the shoulder has been interpreted as the joining region in Fig. 4.
Blank discloses the reinforcing element forms an open system with the structural element during adhesive bonding (0022, 0023, 0025, Fig. 4), and the first space and the second space are fluid-permeable and unsealed during and after the adhesive bonding in relation to a bordering cavity of the structural element (0088, 0090, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Blank teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the method comprises curing the adhesive by application of a temperature of 165-180˚C (0025). The temperature range overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 6, Blank teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the adhesive, on introduction into the channel, is conveyed through a filling opening in the structural element (0084, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 9, Blank teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the spreading of the adhesive on the shoulder is stopped by solidification of the adhesive on the shoulder (0086).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Blank fails to teach or suggest a width of the shoulder as recited in claim 7.
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art Blank fails to teach or suggest a width of the shoulder as recited in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Dec. 4, 2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued that Blank fails to teach or suggest the features of the first space and the second space being fluid permeable and unsealed, during and after the adhesive bonding, in relation to a bordering cavity of the structural element. The Applicant discussed par. [0084] and [0087] of Blank with respect to seal 11 in the end regions of the interior space between the carrier element and bodywork, wherein the interior space between the carrier element and bodywork that is defined by channel 6 is sealed off and no adhesive can emerge in these regions. The Examiner notes the claim requires the first space and the second space to be fluid-permeable and unsealed during and after adhesive bonding, in relation to a bordering cavity of the structural element. Seal 11 in the end regions does not preclude the first space and the second space to be fluid-permeable and unsealed during and after adhesive bonding, in relation to the bordering cavity of the structural element as the seal is present only at the ends of the structural element.
The Examiner notes the seals are disclosed as optional (0090). The reinforcing element of Blank forms an open system with the structural element during adhesive bonding – seal 11 is formed at the end regions enclosing the “open system” formed by the reinforcing element and the structural element (Fig. 4). Seal 11 also does not prevent the first space and the second space to be fluid-permeable and unsealed to a bordering cavity of the structural element (Fig. 4).
The Applicant argued that the features of the joining regions directly adjoining the shoulder on the outside of the reinforcing element being free of adhesive when the reinforcing element and the structural element are in a bonded state are not obvious based on par. [0088] and [0090] of Blank, stating that par. [0090] is about optimizing reinforcement, not creating a specific adhesive-free joining region adjacent the shoulder. The Applicant argued claim 4 is patentable for reasons similar to claim 1.
The Examiner notes, while par. [0090] can be interpreted as related to optimizing reinforcement, par. [0090] discloses that there are areas, such as a joining region, free of adhesive when that is beneficial based on the design of the reinforcing element as the amount of the adhesive joining the reinforcing element and the structural element is adjusted locally according to where it is necessary depending on the design of the reinforcing element. Blank also discloses that a specific seal can be provided such that there are regions of the reinforcing element where no adhesive is present (0088).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783