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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate both a connecting wall of the base body (Fig. 5) and a connecting wall of the sealing fastening device (Fig. 12). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "9" and "14" have both been used to designate the same structural element in Figures 10 to 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because numeral 11 in Fig. 2 is only described in the specification as pertaining to the second example of Figures 6 to 12. It is thought that numeral 11 should be removed from Fig. 2. Also, in Figs. 10 to 12, it is thought that the lead line for numeral 9, which identifies the same structural element as numeral 14, is incorrect. It is thought that the lead line for numeral 9 should be pointing to an outer peripheral edge portion of the base body 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the last line of para. [0100], it is thought that “outwardly” should be changes to --inwardly— as illustrated in Fig. 2.
On line 2 od para. [0104] it is not clear to what the “outer edge” refers. It is thought that the outer edge of the base body is being referenced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The use of “/” in the term “sealing/fastening” in claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, should be replaced with –and—, --or--, or
–and/or--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-11 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 use of the phrase “in particular” on line 3 of claim 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
For treatment of claim 7 based upon prior art, the claim has been interpreted as reciting the narrower “circumferential manner”.
Also, In claim 7, line 6, “first form-fit recesses” and “second form-fit elements” lack clear antecedent basis. In addition, on line 7-8, “second form-fit recesses” lacks clear antecedent basis. These terms would have proper antecedence is claim 7 where to be changed to depend from claim 4. Such dependence of claim 7, namely from claim 4, has been adopted for treatment of the claim based upon prior art.
Claims 8-11 are also indefinite because they ultimately depend from claim 7.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraus US 7,390,043.
Regarding claim 1, Kraus discloses:
A closing plug (1; Fig. 1) for closing through-openings in components of a vehicle (see col. 1, lines 16-18), the closing plug comprising:
a base body (10; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “covering element” in col. 2, line 27) made from a hard component (col. 2, line 28) with a closing wall (40; Fig.1) for covering a through-opening (see col. 1, lines 16-18); and
a sealing/fastening device (15; Fig. 1) made from a soft component (an elastic plastic material (col. 2, line 29), where elastic materials are deformable or “soft”), which is configured to be sealed (element 15 is identified in col. 2, line 29 as a “sealing element”) and connected to a wall of a carrier component that bounds a through-opening (see col. 2, lines 15-18), wherein the closing plug (1; Fig. 1) can be inserted into a through-opening (3; Fig. 1; of support plate 2; Fig. 1) in an assembly direction that extends orthogonally to a wall (support plate 2; Fig. 1) of a carrier component that bounds a through-opening (3; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kraus discloses:
The closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein the closing wall (2; Fig.1 ) is planar (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eckstein US 9,592,857.
Regarding claim 1, Eckstein discloses:
A closing plug (Fig. 1) for closing through-openings in components of a vehicle (see the abstract, lines 1-2), the closing plug comprising: a base body (10; Fig. 7) made from a hard component (see col. 2, lines 35-36) with a closing wall (12; Fig. 7; disclosed as a “curved head section” in col. 6, lines 5-6) for covering a through-opening (see the abstract, lines 1-2); and a sealing/fastening device (26; Fig. 7) made from a soft component (see col. 2, lines 36-37), which is configured to be sealed (element 26 is identified in col. 6, line 28 as a “sealing body”) and connected to a wall of a carrier component, i.e., automobile body structure (see the abstract, lines 1-2), that bounds a through-opening (the abstract, lines 1-2), wherein the closing plug (Fig. 1) can be inserted into a through-opening (the abstract, lines 1-2), in an assembly direction that extends orthogonally to a wall of a carrier component i.e., an automobile body structure (see the abstract, lines 1-2), that bounds a through-opening (the abstract, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Eckstein discloses:
The closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein the closing wall (12; Fig. 7) is domed, in that the closing wall (12; Fig. 7) is disclosed as a “curved head section” in col. 6, lines 5-6.
Regarding claim 14, Eckstein discloses:
The closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein the closing wall (12; Fig. 7) comprises stiffening elements (24; Fig. 7; disclosed as “elevations” in col. 6, line 23).
Regarding claim 16, Eckstein discloses:
A method for manufacturing a closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein the closing plug is manufactured by means of a 2-part injection molding process as disclosed in col. 6, lines 31-33.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus US 7,390,043 in view of Frank et al. US 10,179,612.
Regarding claim 14, Kraus discloses:
The closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, except wherein planar the closing wall (40; Fig.1) comprises stiffening elements.
Regarding claim 15, Kraus discloses:
The closing plug according to claim 1, as explained above, except wherein planar the closing wall (40; Fig.1) comprises stiffening elements on a closing side facing in the assembly direction.
However, Frank et al. disclose a closing plug (17’; Fig. 7) with a planar closing wall (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 7 below) which comprises stiffening elements (30’; Fig. 7) on a closing side of the plug facing the assembly direction (as can be seen by way of the embodiment of Fig. 7 being analogous to the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, where the plug 17 of Fig. 4 includes a stiffening element 30 of Fig. 4 which faces the assembly direction towards the vehicle).
PNG
media_image1.png
932
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Frank et al. reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Frank et al. reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to vehicle opening plug constructions, as the Krauss reference.
Therefore, regarding claim 14, it 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 to provide the closing wall of Krauss with stiffening elements as taught by Frank et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to reinforce the closing wall. Motivation provided by Frank et al. in col. 2, line 58.
Also, regarding claim 15, it 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 to provide the closing wall of Krauss with stiffening elements on a closing side facing in the assembly direction as taught by Frank et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to reinforce the closing wall. Motivation provided by Frank et al. in col. 2, line 58.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckstein US 9,592,857 in view of Welter US 5,556,155.
Regarding claim 17, Eckstein discloses:
The method according to claim 16, as explained above, except wherein the method is carried out without pusher devices.
Nonetheless, Welter discloses an injection molded (col. 2, lines 51-53) vehicle element which may be constructed so that no pusher devices are required (col. 3, line 5).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Welter reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Welter reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to injection molded articles useable in a vehicle environment, as the Eckstein reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the closing plug of Eckstein so that no pusher devices are used during manufacturing thereof as taught by Welter with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of pusher devices makes for a complicated manufacturing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are allowable over the prior art of record, where the minor objection set forth in paragraph 6 above requires correction.
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, as well as the minor objection set forth in paragraph 6 above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 2 of first form-fit recesses, which are arranged in a radially circumferential manner and extend radially inward are formed in the first connecting wall for connecting to correspondingly configured first form-fit elements of the sealing/fastening device, where the first connecting wall is part of the base body and is arranged approximately perpendicular to the closing wall thereof, is not shown nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, CN 206938651 discloses a closing wall on body element 100 (Fig. 2; “hard base body”), but with only a series of projections 110 (Fig. 2) extending therefrom. Body element 100 (Fig. 2) lacks a radially circumferential first connecting wall and form-fit recesses extending radially inward of such first connecting wall as recited in claim 2.
Claims 3-11, where claim 7 is being treated as being dependent upon claim 4, are also allowable by virtue of ultimately depending on claim 2,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benda et al. US 5,353,472 disclose a two part plug 30 having a soft member 46 and a rigid member 48. See Fig. 1.
DE 10333578 discloses a two part plug with a soft part 11 and a hard part 12. See Fig. 4.
DE 102015102169 discloses a multipart plug with interlocking circumferential grooves. See Figs. 1 and 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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 Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612