DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed February 25th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 23, 25, and 28 have been amended.
The Section 112 2nd, paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed December 11th, 2026 have been partially maintained despite Applicant’s amendment due to Applicant’s arguments not being persuasive. The rejections as recited below have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Sperow (as the primary reference) made in the Office action mailed December 11th, 2026 have been maintained despite Applicant’s amendment due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive. The rejections as recited below have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the indefiniteness issues, Applicant argues that the perimeter and first location and second location are not confusing and/or indefinite as claimed because the specification and figures make them clear. The Examiner disagrees.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While maybe Applicant is clear on what a perimeter of a palnut might be, it is less clear to the Examiner, and possibly even less so to a court. Is the perimeter defined by the interior edge of the fastener opening having a plurality of teeth or something else?
The Examiner wasn’t asking how the first and second location are chosen for an explanation of it referring to the specification, the Examiner was asking for the claim language to clarify where the first and second location are in relation to the structural features of the palnut and the panel assembly as claimed. This is still unclear as claimed, regardless of what the specification states.
Regarding the Section 102/103 rejections, Applicant argues that since the palnut is not formed in the panel during the process of making the panel, specifically injection molding, that then the panel assembly is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art. The Examiner disagrees.
This claim is now a product-by-process type claim. Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter. There is nothing available in the specification and/or the claims that prevents the prior art product of Sperow, structurally or functionally, from being exactly the same as the claimed invention, other than the method of making.
The known beneficial nature of thermoplastic articles is their reshapability either via during the creation thereof like injection molding or following the creation thereof like heat-stake molding. Therefore, without additional evidence that Applicant’s process improves the structural, mechanical, or functional qualities of the claimed panel assembly in a novel and/or nonobvious manner.
For instance, if one were to additively manufacture a bowl, would this bowl be novel and/or nonobvious enough to deserve a patent over a prior art conventionally injection molded or compression molded bowl? While there may be some benefits to the process such as increased availability of hardware, ease of at-home manufacturing, or even unique types of bowls one could design, the structural and functional properties of the bowl would be essentially identical, unless one either claims a structural feature of the bowl that could only be made via the process of additive manufacturing OR provides substantial and/or substantive evidence (i.e. mechanical testing) that the additive manufacturing provides a “baked-in” structural quality that is unexpected or previously unavailable in the prior art bowl.
In conclusion, if a prior art product cannot be structurally or functionally differentiated from the product as claimed, then the prior art product either anticipates or makes obvious the claimed product, regardless of the by-process type limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3, 7, 25-26, 28-33 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 3, 25, and 28, the claim contains a flange width measured from the interior portion to the perimeter, but then what is the perimeter of the palnut. Is it the boundaries of the interior portion, the fastener opening having a plurality of teeth, or another structural feature?
Regarding claim 7, 26, and 28, it is unclear along what line or how the first location and the second location relate to the structural features of the palnut.
Claims 29-33 are rejected for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sperow (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0031022 A1) (hereinafter “Sperow”), wherein claim 2 is evidenced by Advance Components (5 Types of Push-On Fasteners) (hereinafter “AC”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 21-22, Sperow teaches an automotive component and vehicle comprising thereof [0006], wherein the automotive component/arrangement comprises a base member (panel) having first and second opposing main sides with an interior wall therethrough defining an aperture extending at least partially through the panel body, the interior wall forming a channel therein for receiving and embedding a flange/outer perimeter of a retention means comprising a palnut comprising an interior portion having a shaft (fastener) receiving opening a plurality of prongs (teeth), giving a serrated PV style as evidenced by AC, the prongs provided an hexagonal arrangement [Figs. 4-7, 0024-0025], wherein a circular configuration of the interior wall is depicted, a circle comprising two concave segments and the flange portion extending into the wall is different distances thereinto at different points along any radial line along the flange portion.
While the channel formation and embedding of the flange is not taught to be performed via injection molding, the limitation regarding this feature is considered a product-by-process type limitation. Although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipates or strongly suggests the claimed subject matter. It is the Examiner’s position that there nothing in the claims that prevents the prior art panel comprising a molded-in and embedded palnut of Sperow, structurally or functionally, from being exactly the same or obviously identical to the claimed invention, other than the method of making.
Claims 3, 5-6, & 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sperow, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by or in view of Advance Components (5 Types of Push-On Fasteners) (hereinafter “AC”), optionally further in view of Blessing (CA 2226515 A1) (hereinafter “Blessing”) AND/OR JP 50-019270 U (hereinafter “JP 50”).
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, and 23-33, Sperow teaches an automotive component and vehicle comprising thereof [0006], wherein the automotive component/arrangement comprises a base member (panel) having first and second opposing main sides with an interior wall therethrough defining an aperture extending at least partially through the panel body, the interior wall forming a channel therein for receiving and embedding a flange/outer perimeter of a retention means comprising a palnut comprising an interior portion having a shaft (fastener) receiving opening a plurality of prongs (teeth), giving a serrated PV style as evidenced by AC, the prongs provided an hexagonal arrangement [Figs. 4-7, 0024-0025], wherein a circular configuration of the interior wall is depicted, a circle comprising two concave segments and the flange portion extending into the wall is different distances thereinto at different points along any radial line along the flange portion.
Further regarding claims 3, 5-6, and 23-33, a hexagonal aperture/interior wall is not taught, a variable flange width extending from the interior portion along the perimeter/periphery, and a rectangular/triangular palnut are not taught, the aforementioned limitations are seen as a mere change in shape, wherein it has been held that configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
This is evidenced by/motivated by AC demonstrating the PV Style push-on palnut having a hexagonal toothed opening/deformation shape, wherein a hexagonal aperture formed by the base member could serve as a visual identifier, especially in the event that the surface were flattened. AC further evidences another type of palnut that is rectangular having two pairs of opposing sides of differing width.
In the event that AC is not evidentiary or properly motivating alone:
Blessing teaches a flanged female fastener that is molded in bore contained a plastic body, the bore having a radially extending channel containing the radially extending flange portion, wherein the flange portion is preferably hexagonal to prevent rotation upon use, unless the bore itself is hexagonal, then the hexagonal flange is unnecessary (pg. 4), wherein, in either form, it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form an (hexagonal) aperture and/or causing the flange to have a variable width.
AND/OR
JP-50 teaches a fixing device comprising a leaf spring (flat disc) comprising inwardly facing tongues forming a fastener catch, wherein the leaf spring is molded within a plastic housing, wherein the molded housing strengthens the deflection of the tongues, providing increased resistance to its non-deformed state (pushing out the male fastener), wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form an (hexagonal) aperture in a shape corresponding to strengthening the deformation of the prongs/teeth of Sperow/AC, wherein the molding may further extend over part of the prongs/teeth forming a plurality of concave portions.
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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 19th, 2026