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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moss et al. (US 2021/0016833) in view of Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041), further in view of Sprowl et al. (US 2015/0131241).
Moss et al. discloses a method for producing a body component of a vehicle body of a vehicle by providing a structural part (32) of the body component with an adhesive (34) applied to an adhesive surface of the structural part (32), as shown in Figures 5-7. A second part (30) is bonded to the structural part (32) by means of the adhesive to obtain the body component, as shown in Figures 5-7. The structural part (32) is an aluminum part, as disclosed in paragraph [0037]. In reference to claim 3, at least one surface of the structural part is exposed to the environment which inherently results in forming an oxide layer. In reference to claim 8, the adhesive surface is uncoated, as broadly claimed, since no additional coatings are applied. In reference to claim 9, the structural part (32) is an extruded profile, as disclosed in paragraph [0037]. In reference to claims 12 and 13, the claimed body component is disclosed as a result of the method. In reference to claim 14, the structural part (32) is aluminum. The exposed surface oxidizes more than the adhesive surface since it is exposed to the environment for a longer period of time. This results in the exposed surface having a thicker oxide layer than the adhesive surface. In reference to claim 15, a vehicle body of a vehicle has the at least one body component of claim 12, as shown in Figures 1-7. However, Moss et al. does not disclose the adhesive film.
Belpaire et al. teaches using tape to connect a structural part (12) to another part of a vehicle body component (20), as shown in Figures 4a-4f and disclosed in paragraph [0032] and . Tape includes an adhesive film with adhesive paste on the adhesive film. In reference to claim 5, the adhesive film is thermally cured after application to an adhesive surface, as disclosed in paragraph [0030]. In reference to claim 11, the adhesive film inherently has two layers of adhesives to connect to both the structural part (12) and the other part (20).
Sprowl et al. teaches pre-forming the tape (130) with only 1 side of adhesive and later applying an adhesive to the opposing side, as disclosed in paragraph [0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
use double-sided tape as the adhesive to connect the structural part and other part of Moss et al., as taught by Belpaire et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide an alternate adhesive that simplifies the process of applying adhesives to the parts by eliminating the step of measuring the amount of adhesive to be applied during application of the adhesive to the parts; and,
forming the double-sided tape with a pre-applied adhesive on only one side and later applying adhesive on the opposing side, as taught by Sprowl et al., with a reasonable expectation for success resulting in the pre-applied adhesive being cured before application of the later adhesive to improve application of the tape by reducing instances of the tape attaching to itself.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moss et al. (US 2021/0016833) and Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041), as applied to claim 1, in view of Walker (US 2018/025967).
Moss et al., as modified, does not disclose the adhesive is a 1-component adhesive in paste form.
Walker teaches using a one-part adhesive paste in an automobile, as disclosed in [0001] and [0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive of Moss et al., as modified, as a one-part adhesive paste, as taught by Walker, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide the adhesive connection with improved fire retardancy characteristics to improve safety.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moss et al. (US 2021/0016833) and Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041), as applied to claim 1, in view of Saßmannshausen et al. (US 2015/0258764).
Moss et al., as modified, does not disclose the adhesive film comprises an epoxy resin.
Saßmannshausen et al. teaches forming an adhesive tape from acrylate-epoxy hybrid adhesive, as disclosed in paragraph [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive film of Moss et al., as modified, from a material comprising epoxy resin, as taught by Saßmannshausen et al., with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious material choice to provide a specific material to form the tape to withstand the expected loads.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moss et al. (US 2021/0016833) and Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041), as applied to claim 1.
Moss et al. does not explicitly disclose a time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesive film to the structural part of Moss et al., as modified, within 3 hours after production of the structural part with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious step in an efficient assembly line so parts do not need. Part storage would drive up manufacturing costs.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moss et al. (US 2021/0016833) and Belpaire et al. (US 2019/0144041), as applied to claim 1.
Moss et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose step (a) takes place at a different location from where step (c) takes place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out step (c) to produce the adhesive tape at one location and use the adhesive tape in step (a) in another location to assemble the structure of Moss et al., as modified, as an obvious expedient since the adhesive tape and the vehicle structure are made by different companies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 April 6, 2026