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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recessed fastening element of claims 11-21; the “certain portions” (but not other portions) in which the recessed fastening element is held of claim 13; the latching element for “mechanically latching” the recessed fastening element of claim 15; the recessed fastening element comprising a “head portion” of claim 16; the fastening apparatus comprising a central receptacle for the head portion of the “recessed” fastening element of claim 17; and the stop element in conjunction with the recessed fastening element of claims 18-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claims 11-21, it is entirely unclear how the invention of claims 11-21 with a “recessed” fastening element operates or functions to secure the door trim to the door module. That is, it is unclear how a “recessed” fastening element (as amended) functions with the recited fastening apparatus. No further explanation is provided by either the drawings or the specification. It is unclear if applicant intended for the “recessed” fastening element to include the central receptacle into which a head portion of the fastening apparatus is provided such that the elements of the connection remain the same but in a state/configuration where the parts are reversed, or some other arrangement.
The following features of the claims (claims 11-21) are unclear and indefinite: the “certain portions” (but not other portions) in which the recessed fastening element is held of claim 13; the latching element for “mechanically latching” the recessed fastening element of claim 15; the recited “recessed” fastening element comprising a “head portion” of claim 16 (it is unclear how a recessed element can also comprise a head portion); the fastening apparatus comprising a central receptacle for the head portion of the “recessed” fastening element of claim 17; the stop element in conjunction with the recessed fastening element of claims 18-20. Further explanation is requested. For the purposes of examination on the merits as set forth below, the claims will be examined as best understood.
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 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.
Claims 11-13 and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 298.
For claim 11, DE 202005013298 (DE 298) discloses a door assembly (FIGS.1-5) for a vehicle door, comprising:
a frame (8),
a door module (1) fastened to said frame (8), and
a door trim (10) fastened to said door module (1);
said door trim (10) including at least one fastening element (20); and
said door module (1) having a carrier plate formed, at least in certain portions, from a plastics material, and having, in a region of said plastics material, a fastening apparatus (16) formed for destruction-free attachment of said fastening element.
PNG
media_image1.png
679
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DE 298 lacks the carrier plate with fastening apparatus (16) being integral (formed in one piece) in the area of the plastic material as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the fastening apparatus of DE 298 integral with the carrier plate as an obvious matter of engineering choice based on each of manufacturing, materials criteria, and time. The courts have held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in” a prior art reference “would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice". In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
For claim 12, said door trim (10) is fastened only to said fastening apparatus (16) of said door module.
For claim 13, said fastening element (20) is held in said fastening apparatus (16), at least in certain portions, in at least one of a form-fit or a force-fit.
For claim 21, DE 298 discloses a vehicle door of a motor vehicle, comprising a door assembly according to claim 11.
For claims 11-13 and 21, DE 298, as modified, lacks a configuration where the parts of the invention providing the connection of door trim to door module are reversed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the fastening element as a recessed element with the fastening apparatus including a projection because the mere reversal of parts has been held by the court to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, reversing the configuration is an obvious design expedient since applicant has not disclosed that having a recessed fastening element (instead of a projecting fastening element) solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. The original disclosure mentions a recessed fastening element only once (at page 2, lines 19-20) and in the context of being an alternative to a projecting fastening element. The choice to modify is deemed to have been an obvious design choice as it would not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
Claims 14-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 298 in view of EP 961.
For claim 14, EP 2628961 (EP 961) discloses a clip and a fastening device with a clip and discloses (FIGS. 1-4), the fastening device (apparatus) (10) has at least one stop element (30) for mechanically delimiting the axial insertion depth of the fastening element (36).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
446
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 15, EP 961 discloses the fastening device (10) has at least one spring-elastic (resiliently elastic) latching element (18) for mechanically latching the fastening element (36).
For claim 16, EP 961 discloses the fastening element (36) has a head section (40) which rests on the stop element (30) and/or is axially positively snapped by the latching element (18) from the rear.
For claim 17, EP 961 discloses the fastening device (10) has a housing (receptacle) for the center of the head section (4), wherein several stopper elements (30) and/or latching elements (18) project radially into the housing (receptacle).
For claims 18-19, EP 961 discloses the stop element (30) being a plurality of stop elements each integrally formed at an edge (rim) of the receptacle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the fastening apparatus of DE 298 formed as shown in EP 961 with a receptacle, several stop elements integrally formed at an edge thereof, several spring-elastic latching elements and a head section as taught by EP 961 in order to confine, retain, and lock the fastening element.
For claim 20, EP 961 discloses the latching element (18) is formed between two adjacent stop elements (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a freestanding connection bridge between two adjacent stop elements (30, EP 961) of the latching element of DE 298, as modified, as an obvious design expedient absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant, as the courts have held. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Applicant has not disclosed that having the bridge solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose and providing a bridge in this manner would not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614a