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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Winborn et al.(hereinafter Winborn, US Publication Number 20060265961).
Regarding claim 1, Winborn discloses a door module plate for a vehicle (Figures 1 and 7a element 1 and Figures 2 and 7b), the door module plate comprising: a plate body provided to correspond to a door of a vehicle (Figure 2 element 2); a mount portion provided at an edge portion of the plate body and configured to be fastened to a fastening member (Figure 2 element 4); an edge groove provided at the edge portion of the plate body (Figures 2, 7a and 7b element 3); and a reinforcement rib integrally protruding from an internal surface of the edge groove (Figure 7b element 24).
Regarding claim 2, see figure 7b element 24.
Regarding claim 3, see figure 7b element 24.
Regarding claim 6, see figure 2 elements 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 13, see figure 2.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5. 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winborn.
Regarding claim 4, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the height to depth ratio as claimed.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the reinforcement rib and edge groove of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate.
Regarding claim 5, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the range of the depth of the edge groove as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the depth of the edge groove 2mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate.
Regarding claim 7, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the height to depth ratio and height to length proportionality as claimed.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the reinforcement rib and edge groove and the height of the reinforcement rib and the mount spacing of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate.
Regarding claim 8, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the range of the depth and width of the edge groove as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the depth of the edge groove 2mm or less and the width 6mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate.
Regarding claim 9, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the range of the height of the reinforcement rib as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the height of the reinforcement rib .5mm to 1.5mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate.
Regarding claim 10, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but is silent as to the range of the spacing distance of the mount portions as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the spacing distance of the mount portions 100mm to 250mm , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of ensuring mechanical stability of the door module plate when fastened.
Regarding claim 12, see figure 2.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winborn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gomez Camara et al. (hereinafter Gomez Camara, US Publication Number 20050235574).
Regarding claim 16, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but fails to teach of the plate body including recycled plastic.
However, Gomez Camara discloses a similar structure made of plastic (Figure 3 element 2, Paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door module plate of Winborn to include the recycled plastic of Gomez Camara for the predictable result of producing the structure at a very low cost (Gomez Camara, Paragraph 43).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winborn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayenburg et al. (hereinafter Mayenburg, US Publication Number 20060086049).
Regarding claim 17, Winborn discloses the above door module plate, but fails to teach of the plate body including up to 35% fiberglass.
However, Mayenburg discloses a similar structure made of up to 35% fiberglass (Figure 4 element 40, Paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door module plate of Winborn to include the fiberglass of Mayenburg for the predictable result of producing a tough and durable structure (Mayenburg, Paragraph 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14 and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 6305129, 20090282744, 20060049639 disclose door panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644