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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
“disposed in a recessed portion of a surface of the vehicle” should read “wherein the fascia component is disposed in a recessed portion of a surface of the vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kutchy et al. (US 2023/0339420 A1 – Filed 04/25/2022).
Re: claim 1, Kutchey et al. teaches a recessed portion (Fig. 1B – 115) of a vehicle surface (110) comprising: an upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) surrounding a portion of the recessed portion (115); an inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) of the recessed portion; a plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 1B – protrusions) extending from the inner wall; and a fascia component (Fig. 5 – 120) disposed in a portion of the recessed portion (See Fig. 5), wherein a gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap) is disposed between the fascia component (120) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) and at least some of the plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 1B – protrusions) are a disposed in an air channel (Annotated Fig. 5 – air channel) defined by the gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Kutchey et al. teaches further comprising an intermediate surface (Fig. 5- 117) extending around a portion of the inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) below the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge).
Re: claim 4, Kutchey et al. teaches further comprising a lower surface (Annotated Fig. 1B – lower surface) extending from the inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall), wherein the intermediate surface (Fig. 5 – 117) is disposed between the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 1B – lower surface) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge).
Re: claim 5, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the fascia component (Fig. 5 - 120) comprises a service clip (Fig. 5 – 122 & 123) extending through (See Fig. 5) an opening (Fig. 2 - 112) in the lower surface.
Re: claim 6, Kutchey et al. teaches further comprising a curved intermediate portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – curved portion) extending from the intermediate surface (117) into the recessed portion (115).
Re: claim 10, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the fascia component (120) comprises: a house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) extending to a rear of the fascia component (120); a void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void) disposed between the house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) and a front portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – front portion) of the fascia component (120); and a blocking material (Fig. 5 – 140 & 142) disposed in the void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void).
Re: claim 17, Kutchey et al. teaches a fascia component (120) for a vehicle comprising: a front portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – front portion); a house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) extending to a rear of the fascia component (120), away from the front portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – front portion); a void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void) disposed between the house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) and a front portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – front portion) of the fascia component (120); and a blocking material (Fig. 5 – 140 & 142) disposed in the void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void).
Re: claim 18, Kutchey et al. teaches [wherein the fascia component (120) is] disposed in a recessed portion (Fig. 1B - 115) of a surface of the vehicle (110).
Re: claim 19, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the recessed portion (115) comprises: an upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) surrounding a portion of the recessed portion (115); an inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) of the recessed portion; and a plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 1B – protrusions) extending from the inner wall, wherein the fascia component (120) is disposed in a portion of the recessed portion (115) (See Fig. 5), and wherein a gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap) is disposed between the fascia component (120) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) and at least some of the plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 1B – protrusions) are a disposed in an air channel (Annotated Fig. 5 – air channel) defined by the gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchey et al. (US 2023/0339420 A1 – Filed 04/25/2022) in view of Maier et al. (Patent No. 9,827,934).
Re: claim 3, Kutchey et al fails to teach the plurality of dentil protrusions are formed on the intermediate surface.
However, Maier et al. teaches the plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 5 – protrusions) are formed on the intermediate surface (Annotated Fig. 5 – intermediary surface).
Kutchey et al. and Maier et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fascia badge holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kutchey et al.’s intermediate surface with those of Maier et al.’s protrusions in order to provide the advantage of reducing the size of the gap created between the recessed portion and the fascia component such that air is still able to cycle through and transfer heat but reducing the noise created by the tunnel/whistling of the air.
PNG
media_image3.png
462
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 7, Kutchey et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of dentil protrusions are formed on the curved intermediate portion.
However, Maier et al. teaches wherein the plurality of dentil protrusions (Annotated Fig. 5 – protrusions) are formed on the curved intermediate portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – intermediate surface & curved portion).
Kutchey et al. and Maier et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fascia badge holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kutchey et al.’s curved intermediate portion with those of Maier et al.’s protrusions in order to provide the advantage of reducing the size of the gap created between the recessed portion and the fascia component such that air is still able to cycle through and transfer heat but reducing the noise created by the tunnel/whistling of the air.
Re: claim 11, Kutchey et al. teaches a recessed portion (Fig. 1B - 115) of a vehicle surface (110) comprising: an upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) surrounding a portion of the recessed portion (115); an inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) of the recessed portion (115); a lower edge portion (Fig. 5 - 117) extending around a portion of the inner wall below the upper edge portion (See Annotated Fig. 1B and Fig. 5); a plurality of indentures (Annotated Fig. 1B – indentures) extending from the inner wall (See Annotated Fig. 1B); and a fascia component (Fig. 5 - 120) disposed in a portion of the recessed portion (115) (See Fig. 5), wherein a gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap) is disposed between the fascia component (120) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) and at least some of the plurality of indentures (Annotated Fig. 1 – indentures) are a disposed in an air channel (Annotated Fig. 5 – air channel) defined by the gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap). Kutchey et al. fails to teach a plurality of indentures formed in the lower edge portion.
However, Maier et al. teaches a plurality of indentures (Annotated Fig. 5 – indentures) formed in the lower edge portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – intermediate surface).
Kutchey et al. and Maier et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fascia badge holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kutchey et al.’s lower edge portion with those of Maier et al.’s indentures in order to provide the advantage of controlling the size of the gap created between the recessed portion and the fascia component such that air is still able to cycle through and transfer heat but reducing the noise created by the tunnel/whistling of the air.
Re: claim 12, Kutchey et al. teaches further comprising a lower surface (Annotated Fig. 1B – lower surface) extending from the inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall), wherein the lower edge portion (Fig. 5 – 117) is disposed between the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 1B – lower surface) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – upper edge).
Re: claim 13, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the fascia component (120) comprises a service clip (122 & 123) extending through (Fig. 5) an opening (112) in the lower surface (Annotated Fig. 1B – lower surface).
Re: claim 14, Kutchey et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of indentures have a depth between about 0.5 millimeters and about 1.5 millimeters from an upper surface of the lower edge portion and a spacing between adjacent ones of the indentures between about 2 millimeters and about 8 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kutchey et al. to have the plurality of indentures have a depth between about 0.5 millimeters and about 1.5 millimeters and a spacing between adjacent ones of the indentures between about 2 millimeters and about 8 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kutchey et al. would not operate differently with the claimed depth and spacing and since the indentures are being used to support the spacing of the fascia component and the recessed portion the device would function appropriately having the claimed depth and spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 15, Kutchey et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of indentures have a depth of about 1 millimeter from an upper surface of the lower edge portion and a spacing between adjacent ones of the indentures of about 5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kutchey et al. to have the plurality of indentures have a depth of about 1 millimeter from an upper surface of the lower edge portion and a spacing between adjacent ones of the indentures between about 5 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kutchey et al. would not operate differently with the claimed depth and spacing and since the indentures are being used to support the spacing of the fascia component and the recessed portion the device would function appropriately having the claimed depth and spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 16, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the fascia component (120) comprises: a house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) extending to a rear of the fascia component (120); a void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void) disposed between the house structure (Fig. 5 – 125, 126, 130, 132, 122) and a front portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – front portion) of the fascia component (120); and a blocking material (Fig. 5 – 140 & 142) disposed in the void (Annotated Fig. 5 – void).
Re: claim 20, Kutchey et al. teaches wherein the recessed portion (115) comprises: an upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) surrounding a portion of the recessed portion (115); an inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) of the recessed portion; a lower edge portion (Fig. 5 - 117) extending around a portion of the inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) below the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge); and a plurality of indentures (Annotated Fig. 1B – indentures) extending from the inner wall (Annotated Fig. 1B – inner wall) , wherein the fascia component (120) is disposed in a portion of the recessed portion (115) (See Fig. 5), and wherein a gap (Annotated Fig. 5 – gap) is disposed between the fascia component (120) and the upper edge portion (Annotated Fig. 1B – upper edge) and at least some of the plurality of indentures are a disposed in an air channel (Annotated Fig. 5 – air channel) defined by the gap (See Annotated Fig. 5). Kutchey et al. fails to teach a plurality of indentures formed in the lower edge portion.
However, Maier et al. teaches a plurality of indentures (Annotated Fig. 5 – indentures) formed in the lower edge portion (Annotated Fig. 5 – intermediate surface).
Kutchey et al. and Maier et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of fascia badge holders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kutchey et al.’s lower edge portion with those of Maier et al.’s indentures in order to provide the advantage of controlling the size of the gap created between the recessed portion and the fascia component such that air is still able to cycle through and transfer heat but reducing the noise created by the tunnel/whistling of the air.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutchey et al. (US 2023/0339420 A1 – Filed 04/25/2022).
Re: claim 8, Kutchey et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of dentil protrusions have a height between about 0.5 millimeters and about 1.5 millimeters and a spacing between adjacent ones of the dentil protrusions between about 2 millimeters and about 8 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kutchey et al. to have the plurality of dentil protrusions have a height between about 0.5 millimeters and about 1.5 millimeters and a spacing between adjacent ones of the dentil protrusions between about 2 millimeters and about 8 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kutchey et al. would not operate differently with the claimed height and spacing and since the protrusions are being used to support the spacing of the fascia component and the recessed portion the device would function appropriately having the claimed height and spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 9, Kutchey et al. fails to teach wherein the plurality of dentil protrusions have a height of about 1 millimeter and a spacing between adjacent ones of the dentil protrusions between about 5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kutchey et al. to have the plurality of dentil protrusions have a height of about 1 millimeter and a spacing between adjacent ones of the dentil protrusions between about 5 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kutchey et al. would not operate differently with the claimed height and spacing and since the protrusions are being used to support the spacing of the fascia component and the recessed portion the device would function appropriately having the claimed height and spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP CHARLES ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612