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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, “an opening of a carrier component” in line 3 should be “the opening of the carrier component” and “an edge of the opening” in the last line should be “the edge of the opening”.
Regarding claim 8, “an opening of a carrier component” should be “the opening of the carrier component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims 1 and 7.
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.
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conn (GB 1583044 A) in view of Bockenheimer (EP 0779203 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Conn discloses a closing disc (Conn, Fig. 1) for closing openings (Conn, Fig. 2, closes opening 17), in particular in motor vehicles (Conn, page 1 line 80), comprising: a plate-shaped carrier body (Conn, 11 in Fig .1) made of a component with a covering side (Conn, exposed top side in Fig. 2) and a closing side (Conn, bottom side in contact with 18 in Fig. 2); and a soft component (Conn, 15 in Fig. 2) arranged on the closing side, wherein the soft component is formed from an activatable adhesive material (Conn, page 1 lines 75-77, heated to fuse), and wherein the closing disc is free of latching means (Conn, Fig. 1-2, show no latching structures) for latching the closing disc in an opening.
Conn fails to disclose the component is a hard component.
Bockenheimer teaches a hard component (Bockenheimer, abstract).
Bockenheimer is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle closing discs as Conn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn to incorporate the teachings of Bockenheimer with a reasonable expectation of success and have the component made as a hard component. Doing so provides a strong core body for the closing disc and resists damage.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches the closing disc (1) according to claim 1, wherein a centering/distancing element (10) (Conn, see annotated Fig. 2, vertical sections extending downward) is formed on the carrier body (2) on the closing side (4).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 2 for claim 4
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches the closing disc (1) according to claim 1, wherein the carrier body (2) comprises a planar covering side (3) (Conn, see annotated Fig. 2 for claim 5, portion of the carrier side opposite the adhesive and expose to the top) and a closing side (4) (Conn, see annotated Fig. 2 for claim 5, portion of the carrier side in contact with the adhesive and at the bottom) that is similarly planar and a planar circumferential side wall (8) (Conn, see annotated Fig. 2), such that a surface (Conn, see annotated Fig. 2 for claim 5, a surface that extends from the covering side to the closing side, and to the side wall) of the carrier body (4) only consists of these three planar surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
411
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 2 for claim 5
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches a method for manufacturing a closing disc (1) according to claim 1, wherein the closing disc (1) is manufactured by means of a 2-component injection molding process (Bockenheimer, third to the last paragraph on page 2 of machine translation).
Bockenheimer is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle closing discs as Conn.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn to incorporate the teachings of Bockenheimer with a reasonable expectation of success and use 2-component injection molding process. Doing so results in very effective manufacturing process (Bockenheimer, ninth paragraph in page 3 of machine translation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howe et al. (US 20080029919 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches the closing disc (1) according to claim 1, but fails to teach meltable or activatable via one or more of ultrasound, laser, hot air, induction, or infrared light.
Howe teaches hot air or infrared light (Howe, paragraph 51, radiant heater or infrared lamp).
Howe is considered to be analogous art because it is solving the same problem of sealingly closing an opening in a vehicle as Conn in view of Bockenheimer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn in view of Bockenheimer to incorporate the teachings of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success and use infrared lamp or radiant heater for the heating/activation of the adhesive. Doing so provides a means to heat the targeted adhesive area and therefore achieves a stronger bond; also allows a user to use infrared light or radiant heater to activate the adhesive without having to purchase additional equipment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huebner et al. (US 20170152948 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 7 when used in normal and usual operation. The combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer teaches sealingly (Conn, page 1 line 76) closing an opening (Conn, 17 in Fig. 2) of a carrier component (Conn, 18 in Fig. 2), in particular of a motor vehicle (Conn, page 1 line 80), having a closing disc (1) according to claim 1, wherein the closing disc (1) is arranged on an edge (Conn, Fig. 2, edge of 17; page 1 lines 68-70 described the step of arranging the disc into the opening therefore contacting the edge) that delimits an opening of a carrier component, and subsequently a soft component (7) of the closing disc (1) is thermally activated (Conn, page 1 lines 74-77, heating after press the disc into the opening) such that the soft component (7) is sealingly connected to an edge of the opening.
The combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer fails to teach melted.
Huebner teaches melted (Huebner, paragraph 11).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the adhesives in Conn and Huebner have similar functions. Since both Conn and Huebner teach adhesives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known adhesive for another adhesive with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so allows the adhesive to fill up the small gaps and corners to provide better sealing effect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Evans (GB 1288392 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein there is an inner sheath wall (Conn, Fig. 2, vertical wall of the opening 17 in direct contact with the carrier body) of an opening of a carrier component.
The combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner fails to teach the soft component (7) is at least partially connected to the inner sheath wall.
Evans teaches the soft component (7) is at least partially connected to the inner sheath wall (Evans, Fig. 2, soft component 23/22 extends into the opening therefore connected to the inner sheath wall of the opening).
Evans is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle closing discs as Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner to incorporate the teachings of Evans with a reasonable expectation of success and have the soft component connected to the inner sheath wall. Doing so allows more contact area for the adhesive and therefore stronger bond.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Howe et al. (US 20080029919 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner teaches the method according to claim 7, but fails to teach meltable or activatable via one or more of ultrasound, laser, hot air, induction, or infrared light.
Howe teaches hot air or infrared light (Howe, paragraph 51, radiant heater or infrared lamp).
Howe is considered to be analogous art because it is solving the same problem of sealingly closing an opening in a vehicle as Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner to incorporate the teachings of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success and use infrared lamp or radiant heater for the heating/activation of the adhesive. Doing so provides a means to heat the targeted adhesive area and therefore achieves a stronger bond; also allows a user to use infrared light or radiant heater to activate the adhesive without having to purchase additional equipment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Turner (US 20190134817 A1) and Howe et al. (US 20080029919 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner teaches the method for sealingly closing an opening of a carrier component, in particular of a motor vehicle, according to claim 7 with a closing disc (1) according to claim 1.
The combination of Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner fails to teach a reservoir for storing closing discs; and a device for generating ultrasound or for generating infrared radiation or for generating laser radiation or for generating hot air in order to melt the soft component.
Turner teaches a reservoir for storing closing discs (Turner, abstract).
Turner is considered to be analogous art because it is solving the same problem of sealingly closing an opening in a vehicle as Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn in view of Bockenheimer and Huebner to incorporate the teachings of Turner with a reasonable expectation of success and use an apparatus with a reservoir. Doing so provides a storage for the discs that can be easily access when sealing openings therefore increases work efficiency.
Howe teaches a device for generating ultrasound or for generating infrared radiation or for generating laser radiation or for generating hot air in order to melt the soft component (Howe, paragraph 51, radiant heater generates hot air or infrared lamp generates infrared radiation).
Howe is considered to be analogous art because it is solving the same problem of sealingly closing an opening in a vehicle as Conn in view of Bockenheimer, Huebner, and Turner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing disc as taught by Conn in view of Bockenheimer, Huebner, and Turner to incorporate the teachings of Howe with a reasonable expectation of success and use infrared lamp or radiant heater for the heating/activation of the adhesive. Doing so provides a means to heat the targeted adhesive area and therefore achieves a stronger bond; also allows a user to use infrared light or radiant heater to activate the adhesive without having to purchase additional equipment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the soft component (7) has a structure on the closing side (1), and wherein discharge channels (26) are configured in the structure which extend at least in sections approximately outwardly towards an edge of the carrier body (2). Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. There are limitations that teaches discharge channels such as JP 3311546 B2, which teaches channels 9, but they are formed by the hard component or the carrier body, not by the soft component as required by claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle opening sealing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612