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 § 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 24-25 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 “tensioned sheet-like covering” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tensioned sheet-like covering” 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. The scope of such a term is unascertainable as to what is being claimed. Claim 25 is dependent on claim 24 and thus inherits the rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. (US Patent Application 2011/0101731 A1), henceforth Legler, in view of Fujimoto (US Patent 7988222 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Legler discloses
A motor vehicle body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]),
Comprising at least one covering (outer skin 22, Fig. 5; Paragraph [0028]) of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (Paragraph [0028]),
Forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (Paragraph [0024]),
Wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support (28, Fig. 5; Paragraph [0025], Paragraph [0028]) is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (Paragraph [0027]),
Legler does not disclose,
wherein at least part of the at least one covering includes openings whose diameter is between 1 and 50 millimeters.
Fujimoto teaches a similar body panel with fine holes (Col. 9, Ln. 42-46) in the outer layers of the
panel, where the size of the holes is within the provided range between 1 and 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle body panel, such as that disclosed by Legler, to have small holes in the panel within the provided range, as taught by Fujimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to improve sound absorption (Fujimoto; Col. 9, Ln. 34-39).
Regarding claim 2, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
The at least one covering is at least partially openwork selected from any one of: a perforated covering and a mesh covering (Fujimoto; Col. 12, Ln. 1-21 where a perforated sheet is used for the panel).
Regarding claim 3, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
The at least one covering is configured to elastically deform in tension in an extension plane of the covering of between 1 % and 50% (Legler; Paragraph [0028]).
Legler discloses an unsaturated polyester layer (Paragraph [0028]), but does not directly disclose the elastic deformation in tension in an extension plane of the covering of between 1% and 50%. However, the instant application discloses that polyester is an acceptable plastic material for the covering. Since the applicant suggests that polyester is an acceptable material, it would follow that polyester inherently has the claimed elastic deformation (US application 18535449, Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
The covering is made based on at least one plastic material selected from polypropylene, polyamide, polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, and elastane (Legler; Paragraph [0028]).
Legler discloses an outer skin made with polyester (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
The support comprises a fastening part (Legler; inserts 52, Fig. 5; Paragraph [0034]), wherein the part is adapted to fasten the body panel to a structure of a motor vehicle (Legler; Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
Comprising multiple supports on which at least one covering is attached (Legler; Paragraphs [0025] and [0034]).
Legler discloses a main support layer and a fastening component, which comprises multiple supports attached to at least one covering (Paragraphs [0025] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses
A method for manufacturing a motor vehicle body panel (Paragraph [0027]), comprising:
making at least one support, wherein the at least one support is made of a plastic material (Legler; Paragraph [0025]);
making at least one covering (Legler; Paragraph [0028]); and
attaching the at least one covering to the support (Legler; Paragraph [0028]),
wherein the motor vehicle body panel comprises: the at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (Legler; Paragraph [0028]),
forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (Legler; Paragraph [0024]),
wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (Legler; Paragraphs [0027] and [0028]),
wherein at least part of the at least one covering includes openings whose diameter is between 1 and 50 millimeters (Fujimoto; Col. 9, Ln. 42-46).
Given that Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses the claimed product (claimed in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a process with the above recited steps would have to be used to produce the body panel, and if these steps were not followed or not practiced in the making of the claimed product, the resulting claimed product would not result.
Regarding claim 19, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
Thickness of the at least one covering is between 0.3 and 0.7 millimeters (Legler; Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
The at least one covering is adapted to elastically deform between 3% and 10% in tension in an extension plane of the covering (Legler; Paragraph [0028]).
Legler discloses an unsaturated polyester layer (Paragraph [0028]), but does not directly disclose the elastic deformation in tension in an extension plane of the covering of between 3% and 10%. However, the instant application discloses that polyester is an acceptable plastic material for the covering. Since the applicant suggests that polyester is an acceptable material, it would follow that polyester inherently has the claimed elastic deformation (US application 18535449, Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 23, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim, and further discloses
the at least one covering is at least partially perforated (Fujimoto; Col. 9, Ln. 42-46).
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-18, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose, (UK Patent Application 1501251.1), in view of “Screening, Stainless Steel Wire Mesh and Nylon, Polyester and Polypropylene Fiber Mesh” (from https://www.tedpella.com/grids_html/44814.aspx), henceforth “Screening”).
Regarding claim 1, Rose discloses
A motor vehicle body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11),
Comprising at least one covering (16, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 20) of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-14),
Forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21),
Wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21) is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-25),
wherein at least part of the at least one covering (16, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 20) includes openings (Pg. 8, Ln. 31) whose diameter is between 1 and 50 millimeters (not taught).
Rose does not disclose at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter, however Rose teaches that the elastic mesh covering should be thin (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-14). “Screening” teaches that a woven mesh cloth can be manufactured to be within this thickness range, as can be seen in the provided “Screening” Figure below (1 inch = 25.4 mm, thus for example 0.0085 inch would be 0.2159 mm, which is in the provided range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacture a similar cover with the given dimensions for thickness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to allow for precise manufacturing with different materials (“Screening” Figure provided below).
Rose discloses openings in the cover, but not with diameter between 1 and 50 millimeters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the perforations in the cover to be within the provided range of diameters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to optimize air flow and provide air cooling through the cover (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 31-33).
PNG
media_image1.png
983
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
727
887
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“Screening” Figure
Regarding claim 5, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
At least part of the covering comprises at least one decorative design (Rose; Pg. 10, Ln. 27-31).
The cover taught in Rose is decoratively made to be transparent to highlight the design.
Regarding claim 6, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The at least one decorative design is formed by a material forming the covering when the covering is made of any one of: a woven plastic, a woven natural fiber, and a knitted natural fiber (Rose; Pg. 9, Ln. 9-13; Pg. 10, Ln. 27-31).
Regarding claim 8, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The covering is rigidly attached to the support by any one of: welding, gluing, riveting, and overmolding the covering on the support (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 9, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The covering is removably attached to the support by clamping of the covering by the support (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 13, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The covering is stretched over the support (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 14, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The support comprises at least one support bar for the covering (Rose; bridge members, 26a, 26b, 26c, Fig. 4; Pg. 10, Ln. 28-34; Pg. 11, Ln. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
At least one support bar extends over an external face of the covering (Rose; Pg. 11, Ln. 8-10).
Regarding claim 16, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The at least one support bar locally deforms the covering (Rose; Pg. 11, Ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses
A method for manufacturing a motor vehicle body panel (Rose; 10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11), comprising:
making at least one support (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23),
wherein the at least one support is made of a plastic material (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23);
making at least one covering (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21); and
attaching the at least one covering to the support (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21),
wherein the motor vehicle body panel (Rose; 10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) comprises:
the at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (not explicitly taught),
forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21),
wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-25),
wherein at least part of the at least one covering (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21) includes openings (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 31) whose diameter is between 1 and 50 millimeters (not taught explicitly).
Rose does not disclose at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter, however Rose teaches that the elastic mesh covering should be thin (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-14). “Screening” teaches that a woven mesh cloth can be manufactured to be within this thickness range, as can be seen in the provided “Screening” Figure below (1 inch = 25.4 mm, thus for example 0.0085 inch would be 0.2159 mm, which is in the provided range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacture a similar cover with the given dimensions for thickness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to allow for precise manufacturing with different materials (“Screening” Figure provided below).
Rose discloses openings in the cover, but not with diameter between 1 and 50 millimeters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the perforations in the cover to be within the provided range of diameters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to optimize air flow and provide air cooling through the cover (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 31-33).
Given that Rose, in view of “Screening”, discloses the claimed product (claimed in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a process with the above recited steps would have to be used to produce the body panel, and if these steps were not followed or not practiced in the making of the claimed product, the resulting claimed product would not result.
Regarding claim 18, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
Making multiple plastic supports (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23); fixing the at least one covering on the supports (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21) and folding the body panel over itself (Rose; Fig. 3; Pg. 9, Ln. 15-18).
Given that Rose, in view of “Screening”, discloses the claimed product (claimed in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a process with the above recited steps would have to be used to produce the body panel, and if these steps were not followed or not practiced in the making of the claimed product, the resulting claimed product would not result.
Regarding claim 20, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The at least one covering is an openwork covering (Pg. 8, Ln. 31 perforated covering) selected from any one of: a perforated plastic covering, a woven plastic covering, a woven natural fiber covering, and a knitted natural fiber covering (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 31; Pg. 2, Ln. 19-20 where the cover can be made of plastic).
Regarding claim 24, Rose discloses
A motor vehicle body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11),
Comprising at least one covering (16, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 20) of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (not explicitly taught),
Forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21),
Wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21) is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 19-25),
wherein the at least one covering (16, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 20) is a tensioned sheet-like covering (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21 where 16 is stretched taut).
Rose does not disclose at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter, however Rose teaches that the elastic mesh covering should be thin (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-14). “Screening” teaches that a woven mesh cloth can be manufactured to be within this thickness range, as can be seen in the provided “Screening” Figure below (1 inch = 25.4 mm, thus for example 0.0085 inch would be 0.2159 mm, which is in the provided range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacture a similar cover with the given dimensions for thickness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to allow for precise manufacturing with different materials (“Screening” Figure provided below).
Regarding claim 25, Rose, as modified by “Screening”, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
The at least one covering (Rose; 16, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 20) is selected from any one of: a solid plastic film, a perforated covering and a mesh covering (Rose; Pg. 8, Ln. 31 cover perforated with holes).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. (US Patent Application 12994613) in view of Fujimoto (US Patent 7988222 B2), further in view of Durham et al. (WO 2020/142765 A1), henceforth Durham.
Regarding claim 12, Legler, as modified by Fujimoto, discloses all the limitations as applied above for claim 1, except for
The support is made based on at least one plastic material selected from polypropylene, polyamide, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, polybutylene terephthalate, or based on a composite material.
Legler discloses plastic foam supports, but does not teach a specific plastic material (Paragraph [0025], Ln. 1-6).
Durham discloses a vehicle roof body panel with supports made from a variety of materials which include polypropylene, polyamide, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, among many other possible materials (Paragraph [0036], Ln. 6-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a vehicle body panel, such as that disclosed by Legler, to have the plastic supports made out of at least one of the specified materials from the claimed invention, as taught in Durham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made such modifications in order to reduce weight for better fuel efficiency (Durham; Paragraph [0004]).
Claims 1, 5, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Chrome Round Hole Mesh Front hood bumper grill grille guard ABS compatible with 07-13 GMC Sierra 1500 / Denali / 09-13 hybrid : Automotive" (from Amazon listing included in references), henceforth "Chrome Round Hole Mesh".
Regarding claim 1, “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” discloses
A motor vehicle body panel (Bumper grille in provided figure below), comprising at least one covering (Chrome round hole mesh covering in provided figure below) of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (not taught),
forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel (as seen in provided figure below),
wherein the at least one covering being attached to at least one plastic support (Plastic support in provided figure below) is adapted to form at least part of a frame of the body panel (as seen in provided figure below),
wherein at least part of the at least one covering includes openings whose diameter is between 1 and 50 millimeters (not taught).
“Chrome Round Hole Mesh” does not disclose the thickness of the covering between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the disclosed chrome round hole mesh covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Doing so would allow for the use of less material, making it more lightweight, while still creating a strong enough structure. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to make it lightweight.
“Chrome Round Hole Mesh” does not disclose the size of the openings is between 1 millimeters and 50 millimeters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the disclosed chrome round hole mesh covering with holes of that size range for optimal air flow through the covering, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modifications in order to make it aerodynamic.
Regarding claim 5, “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” further discloses the limitations of the body panel (Bumper grille in the provided figure below) as applied above, wherein
At least part of the covering comprises at least one decorative design (Emblem base).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
982
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” discloses all the limitations as applied above in claim 1 including openings in the covering.
“Chrome Round Hole Mesh” does not disclose the size of the openings is between 10 millimeters and 40 millimeters. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the disclosed chrome round hole mesh covering with holes of that size range for optimal air flow through the covering, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Legler reference is not relevant to the application as it has a different technical objective and that the structure of Legler does not form a main body of the panel itself, but rather just a layer of the panel. Applicant uses Paragraph [0008] of the specification of the instant application to support this assertion. The examiner agrees that the cover of Legler does not constitute forming the main body by itself, however the examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection does not stand. The claim language does specifically recite that only the cover forms the main body of the panel, but rather only recites “forming a main body of the motor vehicle body panel”. Such a limitation does not preclude a “layer” forming part of the main body of the panel.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Paragraph [0008] of the specification of the instant application, where it states "without covering the surface of another element of the body panel") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The full language from Paragraph [0008] of specification of the instant application should be added to the claim to make this distinction.
Further regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that "Screening" is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the combination of "Screening" is to introduce the thickness of the cover to the structure of Rose, it is not about the intended use of either. "Screening" teaches that a mesh cloth can be manufactured of this thickness range, and Rose teaches a fabric perforated cover, and thus the structure necessary to make this combination is present in both references. Additionally, a motivation statement has been added, as it was pointed out by the applicant that one was missing.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Further regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” reference is not the same as the body panel presented in the instant application. The applicant further argues that the reference does not meet all the limitations. The examiner agrees that the vehicle grille presented from “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” is not a typical “body panel”, but since the same structure is present, as shown in the rejection, the examiner asserts that all the limitations are met, and that it is relevant since the structure is the same. The claim language needs to be amended further to demonstrate more distinctness from the prior art. Additionally, a motivation statement has been added, as it was pointed out by the applicant that one was missing.
In response to applicant's argument that Fujimoto does not teach the same limitations as Legler, regarding claim 4, , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The provided structure from Legler does not inhibit combining the hole diameter taught by Fujimoto. Additionally, a motivation statement has been added, as it was pointed out by the applicant that one was missing. The examiner also points out that the wrong combination of references was noted after this argument. It is stated that “Fujimoto” is modifying “Chrome Round Hole Mesh”, but instead of “Chrome Round Hole Mesh” it should be Legler.
Regarding claim 12, since the Legler reference rejections still stand, the rejection of claim 12 with the combination of Durham also remain. Applicant did not directly address this combination because it was argued that the Legler reference was not relevant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon teach similar vehicle body panels.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights