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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species (a) in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 19 cannot be grouped as being the same species as claims 11 or 21 and cannot be identified as a different species, and the restriction requirement presents a discrepancy in claim 19, which appears as part of Species (a) and the generic claim group.
Examiner acknowledges the discrepancy regarding claim 19 and agrees claim 19 is a generic claim, not a claim directed to Species (a). Accordingly, Species (a) includes claims 11 and 21, and claims 1-21 has been examined as presented below.
The species restriction requirement between Species (a) and Species (b) is maintained, as the specification discloses clear and distinct embodiments drawn to forming the recess prior to molding and during molding, as presented in [0027].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloud (PG-PUB 2017/0113434) in view of Wylezinski (US 8,424,958), Fenton (6,893,075), and Goehring (PG-PUB 2018/0345121).
Regarding claim 1, McCloud teaches manufacturing a composite structure suitable for use as a cargo body panel (Figure 1, Claim 17, and [0021]-[0024]), the method comprising:
laying an exterior side of an exterior skin down on a platen such that an interior side of
the exterior skin faces upward [0039]-[0042];
laying an exterior side of a core onto the interior side of the exterior skin, wherein the exterior skin is a single, continuous piece whose interior side supports the core for an entirety of the cargo body panel [0042];
laying an exterior side of an interior skin onto the interior side of the core, the interior skin provided in one or more pieces [0042]-[0044]; and
performing a molding step in which the exterior and interior skins are bonded to the exterior and interior sides of the core, respectively [0044]-[0050].
McCloud does not teach positioning a plurality of assembly plates along at least one peripheral edge of the core on one or both of the core's interior and exterior sides, wherein the plurality of assembly plates are embedded into the core.
Wylezinski teaches side walls of a trailer (Figures 2-5). Wylezinski teaches a bottom rail 52 extends from the front of the trailer 30 to the rear of the trailer 30 and joins the base rail 44 to the floor structure 40 and a top rail 54 extends from the front of the trailer 30 to the rear of the trailer 30 and joins the upper ends of the side wall 34 with the roof 36 (Col 3, ln 21-39). Wylezinski teaches the base rail 44 is formed from metal, acts as an external scuff plate to provide resistance against damage from another trailer rubbing against the outside of the trailer 30, and acts as an internal scuff plate to provide resistance against damage from forklifts operating on the inside of the trailer 30.
Wylezinski teaches the base rail 44 is a structural member which carries the bending moments, tensile and shear forces of the side wall, and the base rail 44 offers significant improvements in the side wall strength and stiffness; the base rail 44 expands the trailer payload and boosts the floor load capacity of the trailer, thereby providing a lower trailer maintenance cost, lower repair cost and lower equipment ownership cost (Figures 21-26 and Col 3, ln 40-Col 4, ln 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the cargo body panel of McCloud with a base rail of Wylezinski for the benefit of improving the strength and stiffness of the panel, thereby providing a lower trailer maintenance cost.
Fenton teaches a cargo body having a plurality of overlapping sidewall panels, wherein reinforcing members can be coupled to the sidewall panels to provide added rigidity and strength to the sidewall. Fenton teaches the reinforcing member can include one or more logistics apertures 105, wherein the locations and shapes of the logistics apertures 105 can correspond with those of the logistics apertures 100 such that the sets of logistics apertures 100 and 105 cooperate to enable cargo to be secured and/or stabilized within the trailer 10 (Col 6, ln 42-Col 7, ln 10; Figures 2-3, item 102; Figure 4, item 1102; and Col 9, ln65-Col 10, ln 9).
Goehring teaches a wheeled board comprising a pair of reinforcing plates disposed between a grip material layer and upper surface of a deck, wherein a plurality of fasteners extend downward through the reinforcing plates and attach to a completing mounting structure to fix the grip material to the other structures (Figure 2A and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of McCloud in view of Wylezinski with reinforcing plates embedded within reinforcing the cargo body panel in fastening areas as taught by Goehring for the benefit of reinforcing areas to be used for fastening and enable cargo to be secured and/or stabilized within the trailer as taught by Goehring and Fenton.
Regarding claim 2, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the molding step includes vacuum molding (McCloud, [0044] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the cargo body panel is manufactured as a jointless sidewall for a cargo body (McCloud, Figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 10, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the interior skin is provided in a single, continuous piece spanning the interior side of the core (McCloud, Figures 3-6 and [0042]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloud (PG-PUB 2017/0113434) in view of Wylezinski (US 8,424,958), Fenton (6,893,075), and Goehring (PG-PUB 2018/0345121), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Fenton ‘138 (PG-PUB 2015/0353138) and Wary (US 8,714,633).
Regarding claim 11, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring does not teach CNC-machining the core at a logistics insert receiving position to form a recess and/or a pocket therein.
Fenton ‘138 teaches a composite panel for use as a cargo body panel comprises a pocket or recess 80 for insertion of one or more profile inserts at any predetermined location in the panel [0044]. Fenton ‘138 teaches inclusion of the recess 80 enables a wind drag reduction for better fuel efficiency when transporting the trailer 10 and/or a smoother interior wall surface to reduce cargo hang-up or snagging during loading and unloading [0044]. Fenton ‘138 teaches a profile insert can be a track of a cargo control or shoring system, or auxiliary decking system, such as a track defining one or more longitudinal channels that adjustably receives one or more logistic bars for restraining cargo and/or auxiliary deck beams used for creating a load deck spaced above the trailer floor (Figures 8-10, 16 and [0040]-[0044]).
Wary teaches a laminated floor panel for a vehicle cabin (Col 5, ln 42- Col 6, ln 10). Wary teaches machining a honeycomb core suitable for receiving the fastener element during assembly of the panel (Figures 1-9, Col 6, ln 2-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCloud with recesses in the panel as taught by Fenton ‘138 for the benefit of better fuel efficiency when transporting the trailer 10 and/or a smoother interior wall surface to reduce cargo hang-up or snagging during loading and unloading.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 with the machining technique of Wary, a known suitable technique for forming recesses in a sandwich panel, to yield the predictable result of providing recesses as desired in the process of McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138.
Claim(s) 12-14, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCloud (PG-PUB 2017/0113434) in view of Fenton ‘138 (PG-PUB 2015/0353138) and Wary (US 8,714,633).
Regarding claim 12, McCloud teaches manufacturing a composite structure suitable for use as a cargo body panel (Figure 1, Claim 17, and [0021]-[0024]), the method comprising:
laying an exterior side of an exterior skin down on a platen such that an interior side of the exterior skin faces upward [0039]-[0042];
laying an exterior side of a core onto the interior side of the exterior skin, wherein the exterior skin is a single, continuous piece whose interior side supports the core for an entirety of the cargo body panel [0042];
laying an exterior side of an interior skin onto the interior side of the core, the interior skin provided in one or more pieces [0042]-[0044];
performing a molding step in which the exterior and interior skins are bonded to the exterior and interior sides of the core, respectively [0044]-[0050].
McCloud does not teach prior to or during the molding step, providing a recess by a thickness-reduced area of the core; and positioning a logistics insert at least partially in the recess.
Fenton ‘138 teaches a composite panel for use as a cargo body panel comprises a pocket or recess 80 for insertion of one or more profile inserts at any predetermined location in the panel [0044]. Fenton ‘138 the core 30 may be provided in separate sections on opposing sides of the recess 80 or a reduced (e.g., flat) core section may be provided directly under the recess 80, continuous or discontinuous with one or both of the core sections flanking the recess 80, and the recess(es) 80 can be utilized to accommodate structures (e.g., brackets, electrical wiring, piping, etc.) which may otherwise require an irregular inner or outer shaping of the trailer 10. Fenton ‘138 teaches the inclusion of the recess 80 enables a wind drag reduction for better fuel
efficiency when transporting the trailer 10 and/or a smoother interior wall surface to reduce cargo hang-up or snagging during loading and unloading [0044]. Fenton ‘138 teaches a profile insert can be a track of a cargo control or shoring system, or auxiliary decking system, such as a track defining one or more longitudinal channels that adjustably receives one or more logistic bars for restraining cargo and/or auxiliary deck beams used for creating a load deck spaced above the trailer floor (Figures 8-10, 16 and [0040]-[0044]).
Wary teaches a laminated floor panel for a vehicle cabin (Col 5, ln 42- Col 6, ln 10). Wary teaches machining a honeycomb core suitable for receiving the fastener element during assembly of the panel (Figures 1-9, Col 6, ln 2-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCloud with logistics inserts of Fenton ‘138 for the benefit restraining cargo and/or auxiliary deck beams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 with the machining technique of Wary, a known suitable technique for incorporating a fastener element for fastening vehicle cabin equipment in the panel as desired in the process of McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138.
Regarding claim 13, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the logistics insert is positioned so that an interior surface thereof is flush with an interior side of the interior skin (Fenton, ‘138 and Figures 8-10 and 16 and [0041]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 14, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the molding step includes vacuum molding (McCloud, [0044] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 18, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the logistics insert is secured by one or both of bonding and fasteners (Fenton ‘138, Figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 20, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the logistics insert is positioned such that a portion thereof is laid against the interior side of the exterior skin (Fenton ‘138, Figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 21, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12, further comprising CNC-machining the core prior to the molding step to form the recess (Wary, Figure 1-5).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,904,587B2 in view of McCloud.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, claim 7 and 10 of US11904587B2 recite the same process as the instant claims 1 and 12 respectively, except for a single, continuous piece whose interior side supports the core for an entirety of the cargo body panel.
McCloud teaches manufacturing a composite structure suitable for use as a cargo body panel (Figure 1, Claim 17, and [0021]-[0024]), the method comprising:
laying an exterior side of an exterior skin down on a platen such that an interior side of the exterior skin faces upward [0039]-[0042];
laying an exterior side of a core onto the interior side of the exterior skin, wherein the exterior skin is a single, continuous piece whose interior side supports the core for an entirety of the cargo body panel [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the skin in the process of Claim 7 and 10 of US11904587B2 with a single, continuous skin of McCloud, a known suitable skin for cargo body panels, to yield the predictable result of providing an integral laminate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-9, 15-17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring does not explicitly teach the plurality of assembly plates includes a plurality of inner plates positioned between the core and the interior skin and a plurality of outer plates positioned between the core and the exterior skin.
McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring does not explicitly teach the plurality of assembly plates are distributed along all peripheral edges of the core.
Regarding claim 6, McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
McCloud in view of Wylezinski, Fenton, and Goehring does not teach prior to or during the molding step, a recess is formed at an interior side of the interior skin, the method further comprising positioning a logistics insert into the recess.
As discussed above, Fenton ‘138 teaches logistics inserts and Wary teaches machining a core of a sandwich panel for disposing an insert. However, the combination of limitations of claim 6, respectively, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12.
McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary does not teach a plurality of assembly plates are positioned along at least one peripheral edge of the core prior to the molding step, the plurality of assembly plates being embedded between the interior and exterior skins during the molding step.
The combination of limitations of claim 15 would not have been obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary teaches the process as applied to claim 12.
McCloud in view of Fenton ‘138 and Wary does not teach the logistics insert is laid onto an interior side of the interior skin prior to the molding step, and the interior skin is shaped by the logistics insert during the molding step.
The combination of limitations of claim 19 would not have been obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights