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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 1/17/2024 has been considered and is included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “when the garnish is mounted” should be changed to --when the garnish panel is mounted--.
In claim 5, line 1, “discontinuity of the reinforcing ribs” should be changed to --discontinuity of the plurality of reinforcing ribs--.
In claim 14, line 6, “face a vehicle” should be changed to --face the vehicle--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner suggests to remove the phrase all together.
Claims 3, 6-7, 10, 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiya (JP 7298462, machine translation attached) in view of Suzuki (JP 2009051328, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Kiya discloses a garnish panel (30) for a vehicle (vehicle includes (10)), comprising: a surface (Fig. 4 shows the surface that faces the vehicle) configured to face a vehicle upon which the garnish panel is to be mounted (Fig. 1 shows the garnish panel mounted on the vehicle); the surface extending in a direction configured to be oriented substantially vertically when the garnish is mounted on the vehicle (Fig. 1 shows a vertical alignment); the surface including a first lateral edge (this can be the left side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4) and a second lateral edge (this can be the right side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4); and the garnish panel including a plurality of reinforcing ribs (at least (66), (67)) extending discontinuously across the surface from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge (Fig. 4).
Kiya does not explicitly disclose a substantially flat surface.
Suzuki, like Kiya, teaches a garnish panel and further teaches a substantially flat surface (Figs. 1-2, (18)) with a first lateral edge (28) and a second lateral edge (24) and discontinuous ribs ((25),(27)).
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the garnish panel of Kiya with the flat surface of Suzuki dependent upon the desired location along the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 1, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein each discontinuous reinforcing rib includes a first portion extending a first distance from the first lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (27) extending from the first lateral edge) and a second portion extending a second distance from the second lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (25) extending from the second lateral edge).
Regarding claim 3, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 2, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 4 shows the right side portion of the discontinuous ribs are longer in distance than the portion on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 4, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 3, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein the second lateral edge is disposed substantially along a lateral midline of the garnish panel (Fig. 2 shows edge (24) roughly along a midline laterally).
Regarding claim 5, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 1, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the discontinuity of the reinforcing ribs defines a substantially vertically oriented water drainage channel (Fig. 4, paragraph [0011] of the machine translation teaches the downward flow of water).
Regarding claim 6, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 5, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the vertically oriented water drainage channel extends from a top portion of the garish panel to a bottom portion of the garnish panel (Fig. 4 shows the channel runs from the top to the bottom).
Regarding claim 7, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the garnish panel of claim 1, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the plurality of discontinuous reinforcing ribs includes two or more discontinuous reinforcing ribs ().
Kiya as modified by Suzuki does not explicitly teach five or more discontinuous reinforcing ribs, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of reinforcing ribs to be five or more in relation to the length of the garnish panel itself. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding additional ribs does as expected, producing a channel for the water to run down.
Regarding claim 14, Kiya discloses a vehicle (Fig. 1 shows a portion of the vehicle), comprising: a vehicle body defining a structural periphery of the vehicle (Fig. 1, (10)); and a garnish panel arrangement (Figs. 1 and 4), including: a garnish panel (30) configured to be mounted on the vehicle body (Fig. 1); the garnish panel (30) including: a surface (Fig. 4 shows the surface that faces the vehicle) configured to face a vehicle upon which the garnish panel is to be mounted (Fig. 1 shows the garnish panel mounted on the vehicle); the surface extending in a direction configured to be oriented substantially vertically when the garnish is mounted on the vehicle (Fig. 1 shows a vertical alignment); the surface including a first lateral edge (this can be the left side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4) and a second lateral edge (this can be the right side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4); and the garnish panel including a plurality of reinforcing ribs (at least (66), (67)) extending discontinuously across the surface from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge (Fig. 4).
Kiya does not explicitly disclose a substantially flat surface.
Suzuki, like Kiya, teaches a vehicle comprising a garnish panel and further teaches a substantially flat surface (Figs. 1-2, (18)) with a first lateral edge (28) and a second lateral edge (24) and discontinuous ribs ((25),(27)).
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the garnish panel of the vehicle of Kiya with the flat surface of Suzuki dependent upon the desired location along the vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 14, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein each discontinuous reinforcing rib includes a first portion extending a first distance from the first lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (27) extending from the first lateral edge) and a second portion extending a second distance from the second lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (25) extending from the second lateral edge).
Regarding claim 16, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 15, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 4 shows the right side portion of the discontinuous ribs are longer in distance than the portion on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 17, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein the second lateral edge is disposed substantially along a lateral midline of the garnish panel (Fig. 2 shows edge (24) roughly along a midline laterally).
Regarding claim 18, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 14, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the discontinuity of the reinforcing ribs defines a substantially vertically oriented water drainage channel (Fig. 4, paragraph [0011] of the machine translation teaches the downward flow of water).
Regarding claim 19, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 18, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the vertically oriented water drainage channel extends from a top portion of the garish panel to a bottom portion of the garnish panel (Fig. 4 shows the channel runs from the top to the bottom).
Regarding claim 20, Kiya as modified by Suzuki teaches the vehicle of claim 14, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the plurality of discontinuous reinforcing ribs includes two or more discontinuous reinforcing ribs ().
Kiya as modified by Suzuki does not explicitly teach five or more discontinuous reinforcing ribs, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of reinforcing ribs to be five or more in relation to the length of the garnish panel itself. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding additional ribs does as expected, producing a channel for the water to run down.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiya (JP 7298462, machine translation attached) in view of Suzuki (JP 2009051328, machine translation attached) and Imamura et al. (JP 2021142950, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Kiya discloses a garnish panel arrangement for a vehicle (Fig. 1, vehicle includes (10)), comprising: a the garnish panel (30) including: a surface (Fig. 4 shows the surface that faces the vehicle) configured to face a vehicle upon which the garnish panel is to be mounted (Fig. 1 shows the garnish panel mounted on the vehicle); the surface extending in a direction configured to be oriented substantially vertically when the garnish is mounted on the vehicle (Fig. 1 shows a vertical alignment); the surface including a first lateral edge (this can be the left side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4) and a second lateral edge (this can be the right side edges of the garnish panel in Fig. 4); and the garnish panel including a plurality of reinforcing ribs (at least (66), (67)) extending discontinuously across the surface from the first lateral edge to the second lateral edge (Fig. 4).
Kiya does not explicitly disclose a gutter having a substantially U-shaped cross section and configured to be mounted on a vehicle; the garnish panel configured to be mounted within the gutter; and the surface of the garnish panel being a substantially flat surface.
Suzuki, like Kiya, teaches a garnish panel arrangement for a vehicle and further teaches a substantially flat surface (Figs. 1-2, (18)) with a first lateral edge (28) and a second lateral edge (24) and discontinuous ribs ((25),(27)).
It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the garnish panel of Kiya with the flat surface of Suzuki dependent upon the desired location along the vehicle.
Imamura et al., like Kiya, teaches a garnish panel arrangement for a vehicle (Fig. 1) and further teaches a gutter (21) having a substantially U-shaped cross section and configured to be mounted on a vehicle (Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 7); the garnish panel configured to be mounted within the gutter (Fig. 4 shows the garnish panel mounted within the gutter, top portion of garnish panel within the opening of the gutter so that the water dripping from the gutter through the garnish panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of Kiya as modified by Suzuki to include a gutter to place the garnish panel within as taught by Imamura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a pathway for any water to drain/drip from the roof and away from the user.
Regarding claim 9, Kiya as modified by Suzuki and Imamura et al. teaches the garnish panel arrangement of claim 8, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein each discontinuous reinforcing rib includes a first portion extending a first distance from the first lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (27) extending from the first lateral edge) and a second portion extending a second distance from the second lateral edge of the substantially flat surface (Fig. 2 shows (25) extending from the second lateral edge).
Regarding claim 10, Kiya as modified by Suzuki and Imamura et al. teaches the garnish panel arrangement of claim 9, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 4 shows the right side portion of the discontinuous ribs are longer in distance than the portion on the left side of the figure).
Regarding claim 11, Kiya as modified by Suzuki and Imamura et al. teaches the garnish panel arrangement of claim 10, and teaches (references to Suzuki) wherein the second lateral edge is disposed substantially along a lateral midline of the garnish panel (Fig. 2 shows edge (24) roughly along a midline laterally).
Regarding claim 12, Kiya as modified by Suzuki and Imamura et al. teaches the garnish panel arrangement of claim 8, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the discontinuity of the reinforcing ribs defines a substantially vertically oriented water drainage channel (Fig. 4, paragraph [0011] of the machine translation teaches the downward flow of water).
Regarding claim 13, Kiya as modified by Suzuki and Imamura et al. teaches the garnish panel arrangement of claim 12, and teaches (references to Kiya) wherein the vertically oriented water drainage channel extends from a top portion of the garish panel to a bottom portion of the garnish panel (Fig. 4 shows the channel runs from the top to the bottom).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights