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 4, 20, and 22 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 subject matter in claims 4 and 22 are considered indefinite because of unclear terminology as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is not clear if the “size of the openings” is referring to the diameter or the openings or not. For the purposes of examination, the claimed size range will be interpreted as the range of diameters of the openings.
The subject matter in claim 20 is considered indefinite because of inconsistent terminology as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed perforated plastic covering does not match with the common interpretation of the chosen woven plastic covering. A woven plastic covering would not fall under a perforated plastic covering, as perforation holes are different from the gaps in a woven article. For the purposes of examination, any covering taught and/or suggested in the prior art that is either a perforated plastic covering or a woven plastic covering will be interpreted to read on claim 20.
The subject matter in claim 20 is further considered indefinite because of indefinitely claimed material. Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 2 and claim 2 uses Markush style language. Any types of the coverings can be part of the invention, all of the listed items are not required to be present . Claim 20 expands on the perforated plastic covering. The problem is if the invention includes only one of the other coverings then going into the details on what a perforated plastic covering comprises is moot. Therefore, claim 20 is indefinite for this reason. If the covering is not a perforated plastic covering then it is indefinite as to how the limitation of claim 20 is relevant to the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7, 10-11, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Legler et al. (US Patent Application 2011/0101731 A1), henceforth Legler.
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 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.
Regarding claim 2, Legler discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
The at least one covering is selected from any one of: a solid plastic film, a perforated plastic covering, a woven natural fiber covering, and a knitted natural fiber covering (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Legler discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
The at least one covering is configured to elastically deform in tension in an extension plane of the covering of between 1 % and 50% (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 discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
The covering is made based on at least one plastic material selected from polypropylene, polyamide, polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, and elastane (Paragraph [0028]).
Legler discloses an outer skin made with polyester (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Legler discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
The support comprises a fastening part (inserts 52, Fig. 5; Paragraph [0034]), wherein the part is adapted to fasten the body panel to a structure of a motor vehicle (Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Legler discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
Comprising multiple supports on which at least one covering is attached (Paragraph [0025], Paragraph [0034]).
Legler discloses a main support layer and a fastening component, which comprises multiple supports attached to at least one covering (Paragraph [0025], Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Legler 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 (Paragraph [0025]); - making at least one covering (Paragraph [0028]); and - attaching the at least one covering to the support (Paragraph [0028]), wherein the motor vehicle body panel comprises: the at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (Paragraph [0028]), forming a main body of the body panel (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 (Paragraph [0028]).
Given that Legler 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 discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
Thickness of the at least one covering is between 0.3 and 0.7 millimeters (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 21, Legler discloses the body panel (12, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]) wherein,
The at least one covering is adapted to elastically deform between 3% and 10% in tension in an extension plane of the covering (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]).
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, 5-6, 8-9, 13-18, 20 is/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 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 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.
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).
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 further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
At least part of the covering comprises at least one decorative design (Pg. 10, Ln. 27-31).
The cover taught in Rose is decoratively made to be transparent to highlight the design.
Regarding claim 6, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
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 (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-13; Pg. 10, Ln. 27-31).
Regarding claim 8, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The covering is rigidly attached to the support by any one of: welding, gluing, riveting, and overmolding the covering on the support (Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 9, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The covering is removably attached to the support by clamping of the covering by the support (Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 13, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The covering is stretched over the support (Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21).
Regarding claim 14, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The support comprises at least one support bar for the covering (bridge members, 26a, 26b, 26c, Fig. 4; Pg. 10, Ln. 28-34; Pg. 11, Ln. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
At least one support bar extends over an external face of the covering (Pg. 11, Ln. 8-10).
Regarding claim 16, Rose further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The at least one support bar locally deforms the covering (Pg. 11, Ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Rose further discloses
A method for manufacturing a motor vehicle body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11), comprising:- making at least one support (Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23), wherein the at least one support is made of a plastic material (Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23); - making at least one covering (Pg. 8, Ln. 20-21); and - attaching the at least one covering to the support (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21), wherein the motor vehicle body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) comprises: the at least one covering of a thickness between 0.1 and 1.5 millimeter (Pg. 9, Ln. 9-14), forming a main body of the body panel (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 (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-25).
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 above.
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 further discloses the manufacturing method further comprises:
Making multiple plastic supports (Pg. 8, Ln. 22-23); fixing the at least one covering on the supports (Pg. 8, Ln. 19-21) and folding the body panel over itself (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 further discloses the limitations of the body panel (10, Fig. 1; Pg. 8, Ln. 10-11) as applied above, wherein
The perforated plastic covering is a woven plastic covering (Pg. 8, Ln. 31).
Rose discloses a perforated plastic covering, which as stated above, is consistent with how the claim language is being interpreted.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. (US Patent Application 12994613), henceforth Legler, in view of Fujimoto (US Patent 7988222 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Legler discloses all the limitations of the body panel (12, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0021], Ln. 2-6), as applied above for claim 1, except for
At least part of the covering comprises openings, wherein a size of the openings is between 1 millimeter 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 outer layer or cover, as taught by Fujimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, for multiple uses, such as improved sound absorption (see Fujimoto Col. 9, Ln. 34-39) or improved air flow (as taught in instant application in Paragraph 32).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legler et al. (US Patent Application 12994613) in view of Durham et al. (WO 2020/142765 A1), henceforth Durham.
Regarding claim 12, Legler discloses all the limitations of the body panel (12, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0021], Ln. 2-6), 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 similar 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 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, forming a main body of the 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).
“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).
Regarding claim 4, “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 1 millimeter 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).
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).
Conclusion
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
March 17, 2026