DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger (US 2022/0032555 A1) in view of Tsai (US 8,167,369 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Czinger discloses an assembly, comprising:
a first structure (see Fig. 6) including an outer wall (A in annotated Figure 6 below) and an inner wall (B in annotated Figure 6 below), wherein the outer wall and the inner wall extend from a base (C in annotated Figure 8C below) and define a groove (602), and a plurality of connecting walls (D in annotated Figure 6 below) extending between the outer wall and the inner wall such that the groove is divided into a plurality of groove segments defined by the outer wall, the inner wall, and the plurality of connecting walls (see Fig. 6);
a second structure (826 in Fig. 8E) including a plurality of tongue segments (E-G in annotated Figure 8E below) extending into the plurality of groove segments (see Fig. 8F); and
a first adhesive in the groove (see Fig. 8C), the first adhesive bonding the plurality of tongue segments in the plurality of groove segments such that the first and second structures are fixed together (see Fig. 8C).
Czinger fails to disclose as claimed wherein the groove includes a curved section, wherein at least one of the plurality of connecting walls is located within the curved section.
However, Tsai teaches a connection assembly having a groove (opening in member 1 that accepts member 2, see embodiment of Figs. 5-6) that includes a curved section of the groove (see Figs. 5-6), wherein at least one of the plurality of connecting walls (12 in Figs. 5-6) is located within the curved section (see Figs. 5-6), in order to provide a tongue and groove adhesive connection for circumstances that require two round tube members to be efficiently and steadily connected.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Czinger, with Tsai, such that the groove comprises a curved shape, in order to provide a tongue and groove adhesive connection for circumstances that require two round tube members to be efficiently and steadily connected.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
385
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 8C.
PNG
media_image3.png
423
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
326
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 8E.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein a first tongue segment (E in annotated Figure 8E above) of the plurality of tongue segments (E-G in annotated Figure 8E above) extends a first distance, and wherein a second tongue segment (F in annotated Figure 8E above) of the plurality of tongue segments extends a second distance less than the first distance (see Fig. 8E of Czinger).
NOTE: The distance that each segment extends is viewed in the width direction in Fig. 8E of Czinger.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein the groove (see Fig. 6 of Czinger for example) includes a curved section (see NOTE below), wherein at least one of the plurality of connecting walls (D in annotated Figure 6 above) is located outside of the curved section (see Fig. 6 of Czinger).
NOTE: The curved section is considered to be the edges of windows 204 in Fig. 2B that are on the structure of the Fig. 6 embodiment.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein a first groove segment (I in annotated Figure 6 below) and a second groove segment (H in annotated Figure 6 below) of the plurality of groove segments respectively have a first groove length and a second groove length (see Fig. 6 of Czinger), wherein the first groove length is greater than the second groove length (see Fig. 6 of Czinger).
PNG
media_image5.png
526
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 6.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein a first tongue segment (E and G in annotated Figure 8E above) and a second tongue segment (F in annotated Figure 8E above) of the plurality of tongue segments are respectively aligned with the first groove segment (I in annotated Figure 6 above) and the second groove segment (H in annotated Figure 6 above), and wherein the first tongue segment and the second tongue segment respectively have a first tongue length and a second tongue length, wherein the first tongue length is greater than the second tongue length (see Fig. 8E of Czinger), and wherein the first tongue length is sized to fit within the first groove segment and the second tongue length is sized to fit within the second groove segment (see Fig. 8F-8G of Czinger).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein each of the plurality of groove segments (See Fig. 6 of Czinger for example) have a same groove segment length (see L in annotated Figure 8B below).
PNG
media_image6.png
361
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 8B.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein each of the plurality of tongue segments (E-G in annotated Figure 8E above) have a same tongue length (J in annotated Figure 8E below) and are configured to fit within a respective one of the plurality of groove segments (see Figs. 6 and Fig. 8F-8G of Czinger for example).
PNG
media_image7.png
135
219
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 8E.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein the first structure (804 of Czinger) further includes a plurality of second connecting walls (M in annotated Figure 6 below) extending between the outer wall (A in annotated Figure 6 above) and the inner wall (B in annotated Figure 6 above) such that the groove is further divided into a plurality of second groove segments (duplicated section H in annotated Figure 6 above) defined by the outer wall, the inner wall, and the plurality of second connecting walls, the second structure (826 of Czinger) further includes a plurality of second tongue segments (duplicated members F in annotated Figure 8E above) extending into the plurality of second groove segments, and a second adhesive (822 in Fig. 8C of Czinger) in the second groove segments, wherein the second adhesive is a faster-curing adhesive (see Fig. 8C of Czinger) than the first adhesive (816 in Fig. 8C of Czinger), the second adhesive bonding the plurality of second tongue segments in the plurality of second groove segments (see Fig. 8F-8G of Czinger).
PNG
media_image8.png
563
509
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8. Annotated Figure 6.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein the second adhesive (822 in Fig. 8C of Czinger) includes an ultraviolet (UV) cured adhesive (see paragraph [0049] of Czinger).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein the outer wall (A in annotated Figure 6 above) includes openings (windows 204 in Fig. 2B of Czinger) to the second groove segments (H in annotated Figure 6 above), the openings being configured to allow a UV light to expose and cure the second adhesive (see paragraph [0059] of Czinger).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of connecting walls (D in annotated Figure 6 above) extend to a bottom of the groove (C in annotated Figure 8C above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of connecting walls (D in annotated Figure 6 above) does not extend to a bottom of the groove (K in annotated Figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
303
618
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 9. Annotated Figure 6.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of connecting walls (D in annotated Figure 6 above) includes an opening (N in annotated Figure 6 below) between adjacent ones of the plurality of groove segments (H and I in annotated Figure 6 above).
PNG
media_image10.png
477
497
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 10. Annotated Figure 6.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches wherein the opening (N in annotated Figure 6 above) includes at least a mesh or a fork (F in annotated Figure 8E above, see NOTE below).
NOTE: The fork is considered to be the tongue elements (F in annotated Figure 6 above) that extend into the opening (N in annotated Figure 6 above), see Fig. 8F of Czinger.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger (US 2022/0032555 A1) and Tsai (US 8,167,369 B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bilstein Suspension (DE 102010007404 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Czinger and Tsai teaches the outer (A in annotated Figure 6 above) and inner walls (B in annotated Figure 6 above).
The combination of Czinger and Tsai fails to teach as claimed that the outer wall extends further than the inner wall.
However, Bilstein Suspension teaches an adhesive assembly comprising an outer wall that is shown to extend less than the inner wall (see Fig. 1), the same as the inner wall (see Fig. 2), or more than the inner wall (see Fig. 3), in order to provide an assembly having an outer wall extending further than the inner wall so that the adhesive within the groove does not overflow onto the outside of the outer wall, therefore providing a clean and aesthetically pleasing adhesive assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Czinger and Tsai, with Bilstein Suspension, such that it comprises an outer wall that extends further than the inner wall, in order to provide an assembly having an outer wall extending further than the inner wall so that the adhesive within the groove does not overflow onto the outside of the outer wall, therefore providing a clean and aesthetically pleasing adhesive assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026, page 2, recites: “…Nor is Tsai reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventors in the this application. The inventors address the problem of providing a joint architecture that isolates contamination, terminates crack propagation, improves corrosion resistance, and allows for the use of multiple adhesives within a segmented structure. Tsai does not address any of these problems; rather, Tsai addresses the different problem of efficiently and steadily connecting two round tube members. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to solve the segmentation and isolation problems addressed by the inventors would not have looked to Tsai's tubular pipe fittings for guidance…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant relies upon Tsai when arguing that the prior art is not analogous art. The base reference of Czinger used in the rejection of claim 1 is analogous art and addresses joint structure comprising multiple adhesives as mentioned by Applicant. Prior art Tsai is used as a teaching reference to change the mating portion shape of Czinger. Tsai is a relevant reference with regard to Czinger as they both deal with prong and recess joint construction. Accordingly, the combination of Czinger and Tsai is obvious and teaches the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026, pages 2-3, recite: “…Second, there is no legal basis to combine the teachings of Tsai with the Czinger system in the manner necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. The stated motivation in the Office Action is "to provide a tongue and groove adhesive connection for circumstances that require two round tube members to be efficiently and steadily connected." This stated motivation is entirely specific to Tsai's own disclosure to connecting round tube members. It provides no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art working with a planar tongue-and-groove fixtureless assembly system for vehicle structural components would look to a tubular pipe fitting and decide to place connecting walls within curved sections of the groove. Moreover, the Office Action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying Tsai's radially extending ribs within a cylindrical groove to a structurally distinct planar tongue-and-groove joint. Tsai's ribs (connecting walls 12) extend radially between concentric tubular members in a fundamentally different geometric configuration than connecting walls extending between an outer wall and inner wall of a planar groove. The structural and functional context of Tsai's ribs has no bearing on the placement of connecting walls within curved sections of a planar segmented joint…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner has not found in the disclosure of Czinger a limitation requiring the tongue and groove segments to be in a linear layout while explicitly warning against curved shapes. Further, it is understood that Tsai teaches a functional curved tongue and groove joint for connecting objects. In re Dailey teaches that changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. Accordingly, routine skill in the art in combination with the structure of Tsai known in the art, provides motivation and support for the combination of Czinger and Tsai. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect success from a curved structure type joint due to the support of Tsai showing the structure and functionality of a curved structure type joint. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the prior art does provide a reasonable expectation of success with regard to ribs in a cylindrical groove.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026, page 3, recites: “…Third, the Office Action's reliance on In re Dailey is inapplicable. The Office Action relies on this case for the proposition that changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. However, In re Dailey applies where the change in shape has no functional significance, namely, where the shape change is merely aesthetic or produces no patentable distinction. Here, the placement of at least one connecting wall within a curved section is not a mere change in shape; it is a specific structural configuration that produces distinct functional results…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections reliance on In re Dailey is only further motivation to use the teachings of Tsai. The structure of Tsai teaches all necessary structure and further is a relevant and similar art with regard to Czinger. Therefore, the mentioning of In re Dailey is further support to the motivation and reasoning to combine Czinger and Tsai. Accordingly, the combination and motivations are held.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026, page 3, recites: “…As disclosed in the specification, positioning connecting walls within curved sections allows "at least one of the corresponding groove segments of a plurality of groove segments 216 to include only a portion of respective curved sections 224 of the outer wall 204 and the inner wall 206." Specification at [0039]. This configuration enables discretization of the joint at curved locations, i.e., locations that may experience different stress concentrations, thermal expansion, or loading conditions. The segmentation benefits described in the specification, including robustness to contamination, termination of crack propagation, improved corrosion resistance, and flexibility in adhesive selection, are achieved at these curved locations precisely because the connecting walls are placed within the curved sections…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art is only required to meet the claim limitations and not what is suggested from the specification. Accordingly, any comments with regard to the prior art being required to meet limitations within the specification are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678