DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s Amendment, filed 2/27/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14-20 are pending with claims 3-5 and 13 being currently cancelled.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1, last line, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is a cold resistant EPDM rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the EPDM as a “cold resistant” EDPM. Although EPDM can have low temperature resistance, such is not clear of the EPDM described in the specification.
Claim 11, line 18, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is a solvent resistant nitrile rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the nitrile rubber as a “solvent resistant” nitrile rubber. Although nitrile rubber material can be formulated to have certain chemical resistance, such is not clear of the nitrile rubber described in the specification.
Claim 20, line 26, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is an oil resistant EPDM rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the EPDM as an “oil resistant” EDPM. Although EPDM can have oil resistance, such is not clear of the EPDM described in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 11, line 19, it appears that “further comprises a electrical circuit” should be “further comprises an electrical circuit”; and
in claim 20, line 27, it appears that “further comprises a electrical circuit” should be “further comprises an electrical circuit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 6-12, and 14-20 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.
Claim 1, last line, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is a cold resistant EPDM rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the EPDM as a “cold resistant” EDPM. Although EPDM can have low temperature resistance, such is not clear of the EPDM described in the specification.
Claim 11, line 18, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is a solvent resistant nitrile rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the nitrile rubber as a “solvent resistant” nitrile rubber. Although nitrile rubber material can be formulated to have certain chemical resistance, such is not clear of the nitrile rubber described in the specification.
Claim 20, line 26, recites “wherein the molded rubber frame is an oil resistant EPDM rubber frame”. The specification does not appear to describe the EPDM as an “oil resistant” EDPM. Although EPDM can have oil resistance, such is not clear of the EPDM described in the specification.
Dependent claims 2, 6-10, 12, and 14-19 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claims 1and 11 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donabedian (US 20150266518) in view of DeWees (US 5131487), in view of Aisenbrey (US 20080036241), and in view of Lee (US 20210340348).
Regarding claim 1: Donabedian discloses a vehicle interior structure 10 forming a stable shape (Fig. 2; [0015]). Donabedian discloses a vehicle interior structure 10 having a frame for forming a support frame of a vehicle (Fig. 2; [0015]). Donabedian discloses the frame having a screen cavity (Fig. 2 – near element 82). Donabedian discloses a pair of screen pillars (unnumbered – Fig. 2 near element 82), a roof panel (unnumbered – Fig. 2 between elements 82 and 26), a rear quarter panel, a front panel, a base member 90, and a pair of center pillars 92 (Fig. 2; [0015], [0020]).
Donabedian does not explicitly disclose that the frame is a one-piece structure. DeWees discloses the molded rubber frame is a one-piece structure (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 55-60). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Donabedian so that the frame is a one-piece structure as taught by DeWees. As Donabedian and DeWees both disclose vehicle frames, as vehicle frames are well known in the art, and as DeWees explicitly discloses a one-piece structure, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specifically desired frame configuration from a finite selection of frame configurations (i.e. modular or integral). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the screen cavity having a frame for installing a windshield (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the roof panel is formed between the pair of screen pillars and the rear quarter panel (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the front panel having a front cavity for accommodating an engine and other electronic vehicle components (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 49-66; claim 1). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the front panel having a scuttle member for supporting the front panel (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2 – near section). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the base member (Donabedian – 90; DeWees -142, 144) supports a base of the vehicle (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 26- 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, discloses the pair of center pillars (Donabedian – 92) providing support to doors and sides of the vehicle in conjunction with the frame (Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25).
Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, does not explicitly disclose that the frame is a molded rubber frame. Aisenbrey discloses that a frame can be a molded rubber frame ([0004], [0049], [0053]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, so that the frame is a molded rubber frame as taught by Aisenbrey. As Donabedian, DeWees, and Aisenbrey disclose vehicle frames, as vehicle frames are well known in the art, and as Aisenbrey explicitly discloses a molded rubber frame, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specifically desired frame configuration from a finite selection of frame configurations (i.e. molded, cast, 3D printed, metal worked, forged or stamped). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, and Aisenbrey, does not explicitly disclose that the molded rubber frame is a cold resistant EPDM rubber frame. Lee discloses that a vehicle molded rubber frame can be a cold resistant EPDM rubber frame ([0007], [0009]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, and Aisenbrey, so that the molded rubber frame is a cold resistant EPDM rubber frame as taught by Lee. As Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee disclose vehicle frames (or in Lee’s case, material for vehicle frames), as vehicle frames are well known in the art, as Aisenbrey explicitly discloses a molded rubber frame and as Lee explicitly teaches that the frame can be EPDM, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specifically desired frame material from a finite selection of frame material (i.e. rubber, molded, cast, 3D printed, metal worked, forged or stamped). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses that molded rubber frame can be formed from injection molding (Aisenbrey – Figs. 6a, 6b; [0034], [0047]).
Regarding claim 6: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the molded rubber frame having automotive metal body components fastened thereto for forming the vehicle (Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.).
Regarding claim 7: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, disclose the automotive metal body components having a plurality of doors, a roof, and a front portion (Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.).
Regarding claim 8: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the fastened metal body components having mechanical fasteners (Donabedian – [0017]).
Regarding claim 9: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the fastened metal body components having adhesive fasteners (Donabedian – [0017]).
Regarding claim 10: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a car, a truck, an SUV, and an aircraft (Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – Fig. 1).
Claims 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donabedian (US 20150266518) in view of DeWees (US 5131487), in view of Aisenbrey (US 20080036241), in view of Lee (US 20210340348), and in view of Brands et al. (US 20220203907).
Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11: Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses a vehicle interior structure forming a stable shape (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015]). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses a vehicle interior structure (Donabedian – 10) having a molded rubber frame for forming a support frame of a vehicle (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015]; Aisenbrey – molded rubber frame - [0004], [0049], [0053]). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the molded rubber frame having a screen cavity (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2 – near element 82; Aisenbrey – molded rubber frame). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses a pair of screen pillars (Donabedian - unnumbered – Fig. 2 near element 82), a roof panel (Donabedian - unnumbered – Fig. 2 between elements 82 and 26), a rear quarter panel, a front panel, a base member (Donabedian – 90), and a pair of center pillars (Donabedian - 92) (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015], [0020]). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the screen cavity having a frame for installing a windshield (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the roof panel is formed between the pair of screen pillars and the rear quarter panel (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the front panel having a front cavity for accommodating an engine and other electronic vehicle components (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 49-66; claim 1). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the front panel having a scuttle member for supporting the front panel (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2 – near section). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the base member (Donabedian – 90; DeWees -142, 144) supports a base of the vehicle (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 26- 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses the pair of center pillars (see above; Donabedian – 92) providing support to doors and sides of the vehicle in conjunction with the molded rubber frame (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25; Aisenbrey – molded frame). Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, discloses that the molded rubber frame is a solvent resistant nitrile rubber frame (Lee –[0043]).
Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, does not explicitly disclose that the molded rubber frame further comprises an electrical circuit recess channel along a length of the molded rubber frame. Brands discloses that the molded rubber frame can comprise an electrical circuit recess channel 36 along a length of the molded rubber frame (Figs. 6-10; [0043]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Donabedian, as modified by DeWees, Aisenbrey, and Lee, so that the molded rubber frame further comprises an electrical circuit recess channel along a length of the molded rubber frame as taught by Brands. As Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, disclose vehicle frames (Lee - material for vehicle frames), as vehicle frames are well known in the art, as running electrical circuit wires along a vehicle frame is very well known in the art, and as Brands explicitly discloses a channel for the running of electric circuitry, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specifically desired configuration for passing electrical circuitry along a frame from a finite selection of configurations (i.e. a formed channel, a conduit, or banding the wiring to the frame). Such a simple addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses that molded rubber frame can be formed from injection molding (Aisenbrey – Figs. 6a, 6b; [0034], [0047]).
Regarding claim 14: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame is a one-piece structure (see above; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 55-60; Aisenbrey – molded frame).
Regarding claim 15: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame is a one-piece structure (see above; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 55-60; Aisenbrey – molded frame).
Regarding claim 16: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame having automotive metal body components fastened thereto for forming the vehicle (Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.).
Regarding claim 17: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, disclose the automotive metal body components having a plurality of doors, a roof, and a front portion (Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.).
Regarding claim 18: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the fastened metal body components having mechanical fasteners (Donabedian – [0017]).
Regarding claim 19: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the fastened metal body components having adhesive fasteners (Donabedian – [0017]).
Regarding claim 20: Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses a vehicle interior structure forming a stable shape (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015]). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses a vehicle interior structure (Donabedian – 10) having a molded rubber frame for forming a support frame of a vehicle (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015]; Aisenbrey – molded rubber frame - [0004], [0049], [0053]). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame having a screen cavity (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2 – near element 82; Aisenbrey – molded rubber frame). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses a pair of screen pillars (Donabedian - unnumbered – Fig. 2 near element 82), a roof panel (Donabedian - unnumbered – Fig. 2 between elements 82 and 26), a rear quarter panel, a front panel, a base member (Donabedian – 90), and a pair of center pillars (Donabedian - 92) (see above; Donabedian - Fig. 2; [0015], [0020]). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the screen cavity having a frame for installing a windshield (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). ). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the roof panel is formed between the pair of screen pillars and the rear quarter panel (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the front panel having a front cavity for accommodating an engine and other electronic vehicle components (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 49-66; claim 1). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the front panel having a scuttle member for supporting the front panel (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2 – near section). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the base member (Donabedian – 90; DeWees -142, 144) supports a base of the vehicle (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 26- 67-col. 4, line 25). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the pair of center pillars (see above; Donabedian – 92) providing support to doors and sides of the vehicle in conjunction with the molded rubber frame (see above; Donabedian – Fig. 2; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 25; Aisenbrey – molded frame). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame is a one-piece structure (see above; DeWees - Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 55-60; Aisenbrey – molded frame). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the molded rubber frame having automotive metal body components fastened thereto for forming the vehicle (see above; Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the automotive metal body components having a plurality of doors, a roof, and a front portion (see above; Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – abstr.). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the fastened metal body components having mechanical fasteners (see above; Donabedian – [0017]). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a car, a truck, an SUV, and an aircraft (see above; Donabedian – Figs. 1, 2; DeWees – Figs. 1, 2; Aisenbrey – Fig. 1). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses that the molded rubber frame is an oil resistant EPDM rubber frame (see above; Lee - [0007], [0009]). Donabedian, DeWees, Aisenbrey, Lee, and Brands, discloses that the molded rubber frame further comprises an electrical circuit recess channel along a length of the molded rubber frame (see above; Brands - Figs. 6-10; [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 2/27/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14-20 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
3/11/2026