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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 7714595 to Fujiwara (hereinafter Fujiwara) in view of US patent 7270863 to Harima (hereinafter Harima).
Regarding claim 1, the closure panel assembly is shown in Fujiwara in figures 1-4C with
an anti-pinch sensor (41) attached to a predetermined outer peripheral area of a panel (5), the anti-pinch sensor (41) including an anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62);
an outwardly extending flange portion (75a) on the panel (5);
an anti-pinch sensor mount (63) of the anti-pinch sensor (41) including a U-shaped member (member 63 forms the mount) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the U-shaped member is form fitting for securement of the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the mount (63) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer as taught in column 7 lines 19-21) which allows the mount (63) to hold onto the flange (75a); and
the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62) attached to the mount (63) for sensing an interference in opening or closing of the panel (5) and reversing the opening or closing of the panel (intended use of sensor).
However, Fujiwara does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with assembly (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic materials with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Fujiwara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making vehicle closures as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 2, the U-shaped member forming mount (63) fits onto and thereby secured to the flange (75a) without adhesives (no adhesives shown or disclosed) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 3, the panel (5) includes and outer show surface panel (74) and an inner panel (71) and the inner panel (71) include the flange (75a) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 4, the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62) and the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) are integral (extrusion is product by process limitation, structure of Fujiwara capable of being made by claimed process) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 5, the bulb portion (62) is of a durometer which allows the bulb portion (62) to compress with respect to an object interfering with opening or closing of the panel (5) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara does not show the flange (75a) integral with the inner panel (71) and the inner panel (71) and flange (75a) do not appear to be made of materials capable of being integrally molded (shown as metal). A molded inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with closure panel (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made by molding (further taught in column 3 lines 3-10) with protruding members (2R) integral with and extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel when provided to Fujiwara). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara, having the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with the molded inner panel of Harima because molded inner panels provided the known benefit of reliable mass productivity and good outer appearance as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 and column 2 lines 61-67.
Regarding claim 11, the panel (5) is a slidable side door in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 12, the anti-pinch sensor (41) can be applied to a decklid (further taught in column 15 lines 9-11) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 1, the closure panel assembly is shown in Fujiwara in the embodiment of figure 10 (with generic details from figures 4A-C) with
an anti-pinch sensor (41) attached to the predetermined outer peripheral area of a panel (113), the anti-pinch sensor (41) including a bulb portion (62),
an outwardly extending flange portion (75a) provided on the panel (113);
an anti-pinch sensor mount (63) of the anti-pinch sensor (41) including a U-shaped member (member 63 forms the mount) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the U-shaped member is form fitting for securement of the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the mount (63) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer as taught in column 7 lines 19-21) which allows the mount (63) to hold onto the flange (75a); and
the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62) attached to the mount (63) for sensing an interference in opening or closing of the panel (113) and reversing the opening or closing of the panel (intended use of sensor).
However, Fujiwara does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with assembly (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic materials with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Fujiwara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making liftgates as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 8, the panel (113) is a liftgate in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 13, the closure panel assembly is shown in Fujiwara in figures 1-4C with
a closure (5) including an outer show surface panel (74) and an inner panel (71), wherein the inner panel (71) includes at least one outwardly extending peripheral flange portion (75a);
an anti-pinch sensor (41) including an anti-pinch sensor mount (63) including a U-shaped member (member 63 forms the mount) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the U-shaped member is form fitting for securement of the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the mount (63) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer as taught in column 7 lines 19-21) which allows the mount (63) to hold onto the flange (75a); and
the anti-pinch sensor (410) including an anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62) attached to the mount (63) for sensing an interference in opening or closing of the closure (5) and reversing the opening or closing of the closure (intended use of sensor).
However, Fujiwara does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with assembly (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic materials with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Fujiwara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making vehicle closures as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Regarding claim 14, the U-shaped member forming mount (63) fits onto and thereby secured to the flange (75a) without adhesives (no adhesives shown or disclosed) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 15, the anti-pinch sensor bulb portion (62) and the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) are integral (extrusion is product by process limitation, structure of Fujiwara capable of being made by claimed process) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 16, the bulb portion (62) is of a durometer which allows the bulb portion (62) to compress with respect to an object interfering with opening or closing of the panel (5) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 17, the flange (75a) is provided at pre-selected areas with the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) in Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 18, Fujiwara does not show the flange (75a) integral with the inner panel (71) and the inner panel (71) and flange (75a) do not appear to be made of materials capable of being integrally molded (shown as metal). A molded inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with closure panel (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made by molding (further taught in column 3 lines 3-10) with protruding members (2R) integral with and extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel when provided to Fujiwara). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara, having the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with the molded inner panel of Harima because molded inner panels provided the known benefit of reliable mass productivity and good outer appearance as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 and column 2 lines 61-67.
Regarding claim 19, Fujiwara teaches the anti-pinch sensor (41) is provided on at least a portion of the periphery of the panel (113, periphery taught in column 14 lines 66-67), however, Fujiwara is silent as to whether the sensor extends over the entire periphery. The extension along the entire periphery would be a design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure assembly of Fujiwara, having the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with an anti-pinch sensor over the entire periphery because pivoting liftgates as in the embodiment of figure 10 in Fujiwara include potential pinch points along all four edges forming the periphery and as such safety is increased by providing a sensor on all four edges.
Regarding claim 20, the body closure is shown in Fujiwara in figures 1-4C with
at least one panel (5); at least one anti-pinch sensor (41) attached to at least one predetermined outer peripheral area of said at least one panel (5);
at least one outwardly extending flange portion (75a) provided on said at least one panel (5);
an anti-pinch sensor (41) including an anti-pinch sensor mount (63) including a U-shaped member (member 63 forms the mount) which is adapted to fit over and secure to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the U-shaped member is form fitting for securement of the anti-pinch sensor mount (63) to the outwardly extending flange portion (75a), wherein the mount (63) is of a durometer (made of material that can have a durometer as taught in column 7 lines 19-21) which allows the mount (63) to hold onto the flange (75a); and
wherein at least one sensing portion (sensor inside bulb portion 62) the anti-pinch sensor (410) attached to the mount (63) for sensing an interference in opening or closing of the panel (5) and reversing the opening or closing of the panel (intended use of sensor).
However, Fujiwara does not teach the flange being filled thermoplastic.
A thermoplastic inner panel is shown in Harima in figures 1 and 2 with assembly (1) having inner panel (2A) that is made of filled thermoplastic (filled thermoplastic being a thermoplastic materials with filler such as fibers, materials for inner panel taught in column 14 line 28-cloumn 15 line 6) with protruding members (2R) extending from the inner panel (protruding members show flange could be made integrally with panel and thus of the same material when provided to Fujiwara).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima because filled thermoplastics provided a known durable material good for making vehicle closures as taught in Harima in column 1 lines 27-38 (see also 2144.04 known material selected for its suitability for its intended use obvious).
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara and Harima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub 2005/0064135 to Perrin (hereinafter Perrin).
Regarding claim 6, the mount (63) of Fujiwara does not have any additional securing means. Additional securing means are shown in Perrin in the embodiment of figures 6-8 (with generic features from figures 1-3) with U-shaped mount (5) secure to flange (2) with adhesive (19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara, having the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with the additional adhesive of Perrin because the use of an additional securing means can help further secure the sensor to the panel and prevent unwanted removal.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Fujiwara teaches the sensor can be used in a slidable side door (5), a liftgate (113), a sunroof (column 15 lines 1-3), and a decklid (column 15 lines 9-11) but is silent as to a hood or frunk/compartment. Use of a member with a U-shaped mount on a hood or compartment is shown in Perrin in figures 6-8 where U-shaped mount (5) attaches to a flange (2) around an opening for a hood or compartment (further taught in paragraphs [0001] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closure panel assembly of Fujiwara, having the filled thermoplastic material of Harima, with the hood and compartment use of Perrin because Fujiwara contemplates use of the anti-pinch sensor on a variety of closure panels already, both hoods and compartments/frunks were known closure panel types as taught in Perrin, and both hoods and compartments have potential for pinching making the use of the anti-pinch sensor of Fujiwara on a hood or compartment a desirable feature for increasing safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the claim objections, examiner notes that the previous list of issues has been resolved.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 112(a) rejections, examiner notes that the argument for support is persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 103 rejections of Fujiwara in view of Ishihara, examiner notes that applicant’s first argument is that Fujiwara does not teach the mount form fit to the flange. Examiner maintains the mount in Fujiwara is form fit to the flange, using the common understanding of form fit “conforming to the outline of a body”, because the mount conforms to the outline of the flange in that the mount is shaped to receive the flange, fits snuggly along the flange (i.e. contacts the flange over the majority of the cross-section in figure 4A), and is shaped to fit to the length of the flange (i.e. has the same configuration up and down as the flange). Form fitting does not require no gaps and applicant never defined form fitting as disclosure doesn’t use the phrase “form fit” or “form fitting” at all. The phrase “form following” was added in response to the non-final of 8/14/2024 and was given a 112(b) rejection in which examiner noted it was unclear what was meant by following as the term was not used in the disclosure but that the disclosure did say the mount fit on the flange so suggested “form fitting”.
Applicant’s second argument appears to be two-fold: first that metal and composite liftgates are completely different art and second that Harima is silent as to the sensor. Examiner maintains that separating the art specifically as the metal tailgate art and the thermoplastic tailgate art is overly narrow, the pertinent art is the vehicle door art. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider both Fujiwara and Harima to be in the same art (vehicle doors) and as such examiner maintains that the combination of Fujiwara and Harima is reasonable and would be obvious as detailed above (providing the known benefits set forth in Harima to the vehicle door with sensor of Fujiwara). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e. Harima is silent as to a sensor), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 103 rejections of claims 7 and 18, examiner notes applicant’s only argument is directed to the Harima reference not teaching a filled thermoplastic outer peripheral flange as in claims 1 and 13. Examiner maintains that the outer peripheral flange is shown in Fujiwara, a filled thermoplastic material for a liftgate is taught in Harima, and it would be obvious to provide the liftgate with flange of Fujiwara with the filled thermoplastic material of Harima for the reasons detailed above. As such, examiner maintains claims 1 and 13 are read over.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619