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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 10, Applicant uses the phrase “as viewed in the sheet thickness direction.” This phrase is interpreted as --when viewing the X-Y plane-- according to the coordinate system Applicant uses in the drawings.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 3, “the joint-equipped unit” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously a plurality of joint-equipped units has been recited.
In claim 6, lines 4-5, “the joint that is arranged at a place that deviates from a layout of the joints in the predetermined pattern” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 10, “the annular unit” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, Applicant has recited a plurality of annular units. For purposes of expediting examination this term will be interpreted as --each of the annular units.--
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 6 and 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.
In claim 6, due to what appears to be translation issues, no clear meaning could be discerned from claim 6. It appears that Applicant may be referring to the unit with an additional joint 201 (as shown in Fig. 12 of Applicant’s drawings). For purposes of expediting examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as follows:
--6. The automobile panel according to claim 1, further comprising an additional joint-equipped unit, said additional joint-equipped unit having a further joint in addition to the joints arranged in the predetermined pattern.--
In claim 10, “the annular unit with joints is provided in plurality” appears to be a double recitation. Applicant has already recited (in claim 1) that there are “a plurality of joint-equipped units” and in claim 10 that “the joint-equipped units include an annular unit.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (WO 2020/145198).
With respect to claim 1, Nishimura et al. disclose an automobile panel, comprising:
an outer panel 3,
an inner panel 2, and
a joint 7 that joins the inner panel 2 and the outer panel 3; wherein:
the inner panel 2 includes units 9 which, as viewed in a sheet thickness direction of the outer panel, are arranged in plurality in an aligned relationship in a predetermined first direction and are arranged in plurality in an aligned relationship in a second direction that intersects the first direction (as shown in Fig. 2 of Nishimura et al.);
each of the units 9 includes a flange 11 which is arranged adjacent to the outer panel 3, an inclined wall 12 that extends from the flange 11 so as to separate from the outer panel 3, and a bottom portion 13 that is continuous with the inclined wall 12 and is separated from the flange 11 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Nishimura et al.);
the plurality of units 9 include a plurality of joint-equipped units 9 in which the joint 7 is provided at the flange 11 (as shown in Fig. 5 of Nishimura et al.);
a predetermined first form or second form is provided (Nishimura et al. discloses providing the second form);
in the first form, in some of the joint-equipped units the joints are arranged in an arrangement including a predetermined pattern, and in a remainder of the joint-equipped units the joints are arranged in an arrangement including a part of the predetermined pattern; and
in the second form, in each of the joint-equipped units 9, a plurality of the joints 7 are arranged in an arrangement including the predetermined pattern (joints 7 are arranged on partial units 10a, 10c, 10d, and 10f, as shown in Fig. 9, see middle of pg. 11 of the machine translation of Nishimura et al.).
With respect to claim 2, Nishimura et al. disclose that the plurality of units 9 include a plurality of units including the flanges 11 which have an identical or similar shape to each other (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Nishimura et al.) .
With respect to claim 3, Nishimura et al. disclose that the predetermined pattern is set to a same size in each of a plurality of the joint-equipped units (as shown in Figs. 5-6 of Nishimura et al.).
With respect to claim 4, Nishimura et al. disclose that in the first form, at least one of a part of the predetermined pattern and the predetermined pattern is arranged in an aligned relationship in a rectilinear direction; and in the second form, the predetermined pattern is arranged in an aligned relationship in the rectilinear direction (for example, aligned in the Y direction as shown in Fig. 2 of Nishimura et al.).
With respect to claim 5, Nishimura et al. disclose that the rectilinear direction is at least one of the first direction X, the second direction Y (for example, the rectilinear direction can be the Y direction as shown in Fig. 2 of Nishimura et al.), and a third direction that intersects with both of the first direction and the second direction.
With respect to claim 8, Nishimura et al. discloses that the predetermined pattern is a linear pattern having three or more lines (i.e., adhesive portions at 10a, 10c, and 10d).
With respect to claim 9, Nishimura et al. discloses that 15 or more of the predetermined patters are provided (as show in Fig. 9 of Nishimura et al.).
With respect to claim 12, Nishimura et al. disclose that the outer panel 3 is an aluminum sheet having a sheet thickness of 0.75 mm or less (see top of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Nishimura et al.), and the inner panel 2 is an aluminum sheet having a sheet thickness of 0.75 mm or less (see middle of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Nishimura et al.).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2020/145198).
With respect to claim 6, Nishimura et al. disclose the claimed automobile panel except for the additional joint-equipped unit having a further joint in addition to the joints arranged in the predetermined pattern. However, providing an additional joint at another partial unit (i.e., partial units 10b or 10e) would have been an obvious modification of the prior art. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed. The provision of an additional joint would provide the obvious function of a stronger connection between the outer panel 3 and the unit 9.
With respect to claim 7, Nishimura et al. disclose the claimed automobile panel except for the predetermined pattern being a dotted pattern having three or more dots. Nishimura et al. teach a pattern of adhesive portions at partial units 10a, 10c, 10d, and 10f. These adhesive portions may or may not be considered a pattern of dots.
In the case that they are considered a pattern of dots, providing an additional dot joint at another partial unit (i.e., partial units 10b or 10e) would have been an obvious modification of the prior art. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed. The provision of three adhesive spots (as opposed to two adhesive spots) would provide the obvious function of a stronger connection between the outer panel 3 and the unit 9.
In the case that the adhesive portions shown in Fig. 9 of Nishimura et al. are not considered a pattern of dots, one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that less adhesive could be used so that the pattern forms dots of adhesive for the advantage of using less adhesive. Additionally, three dots of adhesive would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to balance the amount of dots with the desired strength of the bond between the outer panel 3 and the units.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2020/145198), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dan et al. (CN 108179823).
With respect to claim 10, Nishimura et al. disclose the claimed automobile panel except that they are silent on the distance between center as viewed in the sheet thickness direction of two of the annular units with joints that are adjacent to each other. Nishimura et al. disclose that the joint-equipped units 9 include an annular unit 9 with joints 7 in which the joint is provided at the flange 11 which is formed in an annular shape as viewed in the sheet thickness direction (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5 of Nishimura et al.);
the annular unit 9 with joints 7 is provided in plurality (as shown in Fig. 2 of Nishimura et al.).
Dan et al. teach a similar panel including hexagonal annular units in which the side length of the hexagon is 10 mm-100 mm (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Dan et al.). A regular hexagon with a side length of 10 mm-100 mm would have a distance between centers as viewed in the sheet thickness direction of two of the annular units with joints that are adjacent to each other that would be 17.3 mm to 173.2 mm which is 200 mm or less.
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Dan et al. with the automobile panel disclosed by Nishimura et al. because it is known to fabricate honeycomb structures with these dimensions. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determined the optimal dimensions through ordinary, routine experimentation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2020/145198), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al. (US 2018/0001368).
With respect to claim 11, Nishimura et al. disclose the claimed automobile panel except that they are silent on the ultimate yield stress of the outer panel steel sheet. Nishimura disclose that the outer panel 3 is a steel sheet having a sheet thickness of 0.60 mm or less (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Nishimura et al.), and the inner panel 2 is a steel sheet having a sheet thickness of 0.50 mm or less (“0.3 mm,” see middle of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Nishimura et al.).
Otsuka et al. teach a similar automobile panel including a steel sheet with an ultimate yield stress of 400 MPa or more (Otsuka et al., paragraph [0165]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Otsuka et al. with the automobile panel disclosed by Nishimura et al. for the high yield and tensile strengths taught by Otsuka et al. (Otsuka, paragraph [0165]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612