DETAILED ACTION
Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action
In accordance with the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA), a review of the application was completed. Upon review of the final rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 10 June 2026, it was decided to reopen prosecution of the application. The finality of the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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 .
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.
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 1-14 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.
Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed consistently describes an apparatus for handling and applying a sealing profile. The disclosure describes the sealing profile as an elongated profile stored in the form of an endless profile and manipulated by the disclosed roller and drilling assemblies. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed does not reasonably convey possession of the broader genus of a “seal component” now recited in the claims, nor does the disclosure describe the recited seal component as being configured to seal a cover to a body component to seal a body opening. Accordingly, the originally-filed disclosure fails to provide adequate written description support for the amended claim language.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s newly added claims 11-13 merely specify particular examples of the body opening and cover recited in claim 1. As set forth in the preamble of claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an application apparatus for applying a seal component to a body component of a motor vehicle, wherein the seal component is configured to seal a cover to the body component and thereby seal a body opening in the body component. The recited door opening, trunk opening, and roof opening are therefore features of the motor vehicle body component being worked upon and are not structural limitations of the claimed application apparatus itself. Accordingly, the apparatus of Florentz, as modified by Stewart, remains fully capable of applying a seal component to body components associated with such vehicle openings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentz et al. (EP 1 502 790 A1) as provided by (EP 1 502 790 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent in view of Stewart (US 2003/0188425 A1).
Claim 1:
Florentz discloses an application apparatus for applying a seal component (3) to a body component of a motor vehicle the seal component (3) configured to seal a cover to the body component (P) to seal a body opening in the body component (P) (fig. 8, [0001]), the application apparatus comprising:
a roller head (10) configured to, as a first station step, apply the seal component (3) to a receiving surface of the body component (P) (figs 1-3, [0022]), wherein the roller head (10) includes:
a storage unit (P1) that stores the seal component (3) in the form of an endless profile;
a guide roller (G4) configured to guide the seal component (3) from the storage unit (P1) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (fig. 1, [0022]);
a drive unit (G2) configured to drive the guide roller (G4) to convey the seal component (3) from the storage unit (P1) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (fig. 3, [0025]); and
a pressing unit (G4) configured to press the seal component (3) onto the receiving surface of the body component (P) (figs. 1-8, [0026]).
Florentz fails to disclose a drilling unit having a drill bit. Instead, Florentz discloses a means for drilling holes (62) (fig. 3, [0031]).
Stewart discloses drilling machines for processing sealing materials for forming seals about vehicle door openings (abstract, [0031]), comprising a drilling unit (80) having a drill bit, wherein the drilling unit is configured to, as a further station step, drill holes into a seal component (12) (figs 1-5, [0084], [0085], [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic hole drilling means of Florentz for the power head comprising a drill bit of Stewart since it was known that generic hole drilling means and drill bits are analogues for producing holes in elongated elastomeric articles because Stewart further demonstrates a known and predictable mechanism for drilling holes in elastomeric sealing material, thereby providing an alternative known drilling structure for producing the desired openings in the seal profile (Stewart, [0084], [0085], [0086]). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2:
Florentz in view of Stewart renders obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Florentz, 62 in view of Stewart, 80) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the seal component (Florentz, 3) as further station step prior to an application of the seal component (Florentz, 3) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (Florentz, fig. 3, [0029] and [0030] and Stewart, figs. 1-4, [0084], [0085] and [0086]).
Claim 3:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Florentz, 62 in view of Stewart, 80) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the seal component (Florentz, 3) as further station step during an application of the seal component (Florentz, 3) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (Florentz, fig. 3, [0029] and [0030] and Stewart, figs. 1-4, [0084], [0085] and [0086]).
Claim 4:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Florentz, 62 in view of Stewart, 80) is assigned to an arrangement position which defines a drilling of the seal component (Florentz, 3) as further station step after an application of the seal component (Florentz, 3) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (Florentz, fig. 3, [0029] and [0030] and Stewart, figs. 1-4, [0084], [0085] and [0086]).
Claim 5:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the application apparatus is assigned a control unit (Florentz, U), wherein the control unit is configured to control the roller head (10) and the drilling unit (Florentz, 62 in view of Stewart, 80) (Florentz, figs. 1-7, [0040]).
Claim 9:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the drilling unit (Stewart, 80) comprises at least one sensor unit (Stewart, sensor) which is configured to monitor a drilling operation carried out by the drill bit of the drilling unit (Stewart, 80) (figs 1-5, [0048], [0052], [0084], [0085], [0086]).
Claim 10:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising an arrangement interface by way of which the application apparatus is arranged on a movable robot arm (Florentz, R) (Florentz, fig. 9, [0042]).
Claim 11:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body opening is a motor vehicle door opening (Florentz, 3a) and the cover is a motor vehicle door (Florentz, P) (Florentz, fig. 9, [0042]). Florentz expressly recognizes application of sealing joints to various motor vehicle bodywork elements and openings. Florentz explains that the robotic sealing-cell technology may be used on different body components and supports associated with vehicle bodywork elements and openings, including doors, body structures, glazing, and other vehicle body components. A door opening, trunk opening and a roof opening constitute well-known vehicle body openings of the same type as those disclosed by Florentz. Therefore, specifying that the body opening is a motor vehicle door opening, trunk opening or a motor vehicle roof opening would have been an obvious matter of design choice and intended use for the application apparatus as taught by Florentz in view of Stewart.
Claim 12:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body opening is a motor vehicle trunk opening and the cover is a motor vehicle trunk lid (Florentz, figs. 1-10, [0007]). Florentz expressly recognizes application of sealing joints to various motor vehicle bodywork elements and openings. Florentz explains that the robotic sealing-cell technology may be used on different body components and supports associated with vehicle bodywork elements and openings, including doors, body structures, glazing, and other vehicle body components. A trunk opening and a roof opening constitute well-known vehicle body openings of the same type as those disclosed by Florentz. Therefore, specifying that the body opening is a motor vehicle trunk opening or a motor vehicle roof opening would have been an obvious matter of design choice and intended use for the application apparatus as taught by Florentz in view of Stewart. Thus, Florentz in view of Stewart renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 12.
Claim 13:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of claim 1, wherein the body opening is a motor vehicle roof opening and the cover is a sliding roof element (Florentz, figs. 1-10, [0007]). Florentz expressly recognizes application of sealing joints to various motor vehicle bodywork elements and openings. Florentz explains that the robotic sealing-cell technology may be used on different body components and supports associated with vehicle bodywork elements and openings, including doors, body structures, glazing, and other vehicle body components. A trunk opening and a roof opening constitute well-known vehicle body openings of the same type as those disclosed by Florentz. Therefore, specifying that the body opening is a motor vehicle trunk opening or a motor vehicle roof opening would have been an obvious matter of design choice and intended use for the application apparatus as taught by Florentz in view of Stewart. Thus, Florentz in view of Stewart renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 13.
Claim 14:
Florentz in view of Stewart render obvious the application apparatus of claim 1, wherein the storage unit (Florentz, P1) is a spool (reel) (Florentz, fig. 1, [0022]).
In an alternative, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentz et al. (EP 1 502 790 A1) as provided by (EP 1 502 790 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 1:
Florentz discloses an application apparatus for applying a seal component (3) to a body component of a motor vehicle the seal component (3) configured to seal a cover to the body component (P) to seal a body opening in the body component (P) (fig. 8, [0001]), the application apparatus comprising:
a roller head (10) configured to, as a first station step, apply the seal component (3) to a receiving surface of the body component (P) (figs 1-3, [0022]), wherein the roller head (10) includes:
a storage unit (P1) that stores the seal component (3) in the form of an endless profile;
a guide roller (G4) configured to guide the seal component (3) from the storage unit (P1) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (fig. 1, [0022]);
a drive unit (G2) configured to drive the guide roller (G4) to convey the seal component (3) from the storage unit (P1) to the receiving surface of the body component (P) (fig. 3, [0025]); and
a pressing unit (G4) configured to press the seal component (3) onto the receiving surface of the body component (P) (figs. 1-8, [0026]).
Florentz discloses a drilling means (62) configured to drill holes in the seal component (fig. 3, [0031]). Although Florentz does not expressly identify the hole-forming element as a “drill bit,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the disclosed drilling means using a drill bit because a drill bit was a well-known and conventional cutting element for producing drilled holes. Employing a drill bit in the drilling means would merely represent the use of a known hole-forming component to perform the expressly taught drilling operation. Therefore, Florentz renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Pringle, IV et al. (US 2019/0168388 A1).
Claim 6:
Florentz renders obvious the application apparatus of claim 1. Pringle discloses a robotic work machine having interchangeable end effectors including drills and further discloses a wrist (70) configured to adjust the roll, pitch, and yaw orientation of the end effector. Thus, when the end effector is a drill, the orientation of the drill and its associated drilling axis are adjustable by the wrist actuator (Pringle, figs. 6, [0052], [0068], [0186], [0234]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the drilling means of Florentz with the articulated wrist actuator taught by Pringle in order to selectively adjust the orientation of the drilling tool and thereby adjust the drilling axis for positioning the holes at desired locations and orientations. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7:
Florentz in view of Pringle render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 6. Pringle discloses the wrist is configured to adjust the roll, pitch, and yaw orientation of the end effector with respect to the telescoping arm, and further discloses a prismatic joint comprising a telescoping arm configured to extend and retract. Thus, Pringle teaches adjustment of the drill end effector in multiple spatial directions corresponding to movement along and/or about orthogonal axes (Pringle, fig. 6, [0173]-[0180] and [0234]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florentz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Cai et al. (US 2018/0111701 A1).
Claim 8:
Florentz render obvious the application apparatus of Claim 1. Cai discloses an application apparatus (abstract) comprising a drilling unit (50) including a suction-removal unit which is configured for suction removal of chips produced during drilling (figs. 5-6, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the application apparatus of Florentz by providing a suction-removal unit as taught by Cai in order to remove cutting debris including dust and chips from the drilling process (Cai, [0025]). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 06 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Florentz et al. (EP 1 502 790 A1) as provided by (EP 1 502 790 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent and Stewart (US 2003/0188425 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pedigo (US 11,192,245 B2) discloses systems for controlling robots and their end effectors. Erker et al. (US 2016/0279691 A1) discloses a steering roller head for hemming or seaming metal sheets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights