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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0265407).
Re claim 14, Hutter et al. discloses a plastic component for a motor vehicle comprising a main body (12, figure 2) which has a matrix material (a matrix of plastic and magnetic material, see paragraph 0018), the main body having at least one fastening portion (flange 22, figure 2) which is configured to mount on a vehicle component (16, figure 2), and at least one magnet (18, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 52, see figure 1) which is also incorporated into the matrix material (by overmolding, see paragraph 0018) and that is provided in the fastening portion.
Re claim 24, Hutter et al. discloses a method for producing a plastic component for a motor vehicle, comprising: producing a main body (12, figure 2) with a matrix material (a matrix of plastic and magnetic material, see paragraph 0018), and introducing at least one magnet (18, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 52, see figure 1) into a fastening portion (flange 22, figure 2) of the main body, such that the magnet is incorporated in the matrix material (by overmolding, see paragraph 0018).
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 (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 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 15-20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0265407) in view of Jost et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0047820).
Re claim 15, Hutter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim as applied above, except for the plastic component being fiber-reinforced, and the main body further comprises a fiber reinforcement which is incorporated into the matrix material. Hutter et al. does teach that main body 14 can be made of a composite material.
Jost et al. teaches a plastic component (1) being fiber-reinforced and a main body (1, shown in figure 2) further comprising a fiber reinforcement (CFRP, see paragraph 0023) which is incorporated into a matrix material (the combination of plastic and fiber in the CFRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct a plastic component, such as that disclosed by Hutter et al., to be being fiber-reinforced, and the main body further comprise a fiber reinforcement which is incorporated into the matrix material, as taught by Jost et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and doing so would make the device both lighter and stronger. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re claim 16, Hutter et al. further discloses two or more magnets (18, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 52, see figure 1) are provided in the fastening portion.
Re claim 17, Hutter et al. further discloses a multiplicity of magnets (18, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 52, see figure 1) which are spaced apart from one another are provided in the fastening portion.
Re claim 18, Hutter et al. further discloses the at least one magnet is a permanent magnet (the magnets are not disclosed as being electromagnets or some other type of temporary magnetic device and are permanently attached to the device by overmolding).
Re claim 19, Hutter et al. discloses a component assembly for a motor vehicle with a vehicle component (16) which has at least one ferromagnetic portion (steel, see paragraph 0018), and a plastic component according to claim 18, wherein the plastic component is adhered magnetically to the vehicle component, and the fastening portion of the plastic component is adhesively bonded (by adhesive 20, figure 2) to the vehicle component.
Re claim 20, Hutter et al. further discloses the vehicle component is a steel component (see paragraph 0018).
Re claim 25, Hutter et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the plastic component being a fiber-reinforced plastic component, to which end the main body is produced with a fiber reinforcement which is incorporated into the matrix material.
Jost et al. teaches a plastic component (1) being fiber-reinforced (CFRP, see paragraph 0023) and a main body 1, shown in figure 2) further comprises a fiber reinforcement which is incorporated into a matrix material (the combination of plastic and fiber in the CFRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct a plastic component, such as that disclosed by Hutter et al., to be being fiber-reinforced, and the main body further comprise a fiber reinforcement which is incorporated into the matrix material, as taught by Jost et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and doing so would make the device both lighter and stronger. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Re claim 26, Hutter et al. further discloses a method for producing a component assembly, the component assembly having a vehicle component and a plastic component according to claim l8, comprising providing the vehicle component which has at least one ferromagnetic portion (steel, see paragraph 0018); arranging the plastic component on the vehicle component such that the at least one magnet of the plastic component adheres to the ferromagnetic portion of the vehicle component (as shown in figure 2) ; arranging an adhesive layer (20)between the fastening portion of the plastic component and the vehicle component; and curing the adhesive layer in order to configure an adhesive bond between the vehicle component and the plastic component.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutter et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0265407) in view of Jost et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0047820) as applied to claims 15-23, 25, and 26 above, and further in view of Nadler (German Patent Publication 102011087746).
Re claim 21, Hutter et al. in view of Jost et al. disclose all the limitations of the claim, as applied to claims 15-20, 25, and 26 above, except for the vehicle component being configured from a light metal or plastic with or without fiber reinforcement, and the at least one ferromagnetic portion is formed by way of a ferromagnetic additional component.
Nadler teaches a vehicle component (1) being configured from a plastic and the at least one ferromagnetic portion (5) being formed by way of a ferromagnetic additional component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle component, such as that disclosed by the combination of Hutter et al. and Jost et al. above, to have the vehicle component be configured from plastic and the at least one ferromagnetic portion be formed by way of a ferromagnetic additional component, as taught by Nadler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the overall weight of the vehicle component (see the Abstract of Nadler which suggests such a motivation).
Re claim 22, Hutter et al. in view of Jost further discloses the plastic component is a fiber-reinforced plastic component, as applied above, and the vehicle component is a vehicle body component, and the plastic component forms a local reinforcement of the latter (this is inherent to the overlapping of the plastic component with the body component as shown in figure 2 of Hutter et al.).
Re claim 23, Hutter et al. in view of Jost further discloses the plastic component is a fiber-reinforced plastic component, as applied above, and the vehicle component and the plastic component are each vehicle body components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose vehicle joint mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612