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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 12/15/2023, 4/4/2024, and 1/20/2026 have been considered and are included in the file.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0023], the terms “TPE” and “EPDM” are acronyms. The sentence should include the full name of the terms followed by parenthesis around the acronyms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17, the terms “TPE” and “EPDM” are acronyms. The claim should list the full name of the term followed by parenthesis around the acronyms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 “essentially” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” 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. With respect to a direction, the specification does not specify the degree of a standard to which the relative term would be ascertained. Therefore, the term is unclear as to the boundaries of the claim limitations.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 11-12, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619).
Regarding claim 11, Zimmer et al. discloses an applique arrangement (200) for a vehicle surface, comprising: an applique having a panel portion (220) that extends essentially along a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction, and having a first inner portion (236); a margin seal ((290)/(250)) which extends along an edge of the applique in the second direction (Figs. 4, 8, 9), wherein the panel portion has a panel outer surface for forming a part of the vehicle surface (Figs. 3, 7), wherein the first inner portion (236) extends essentially in parallel to the margin seal and projects from the panel portion essentially in a third direction which is transverse to the first direction and to the second direction (Fig .4), wherein the margin seal has a plurality of holding portions (254) which are aligned along the direction of extension of the margin seal, and which are arranged at a distance from each other (paragraph [0055], (270) divide into individual segments spaced apart), and wherein the first inner portion (236) of the applique has a plurality of receiving portions (232) for receiving respective ones of the holding portions of the margin seal (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11, and discloses wherein the receiving portions (232) are formed as through holes in the first inner portion (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11, and discloses wherein the first inner portion (232) has a radial part (234) that extends from the panel portion in the third direction (Fig. 4), and has an axial part that extends from the radial part (230).
Regarding claim 17, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11, and discloses wherein the margin seal has a body portion from which the holding portions project to one side in the first direction, and wherein the margin seal has a sealing lip portion which projects from the body portion to an opposite side in the first direction (Fig. 8, (290), paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 19, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11, and discloses wherein the applique has a second inner portion (238) which defines a sealing strip receptacle for receiving a sealing strip (Fig. 3, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 20, Zimmer et al. discloses a method of producing an applique arrangement (200), comprising the steps of: providing a margin seal ((290)/(250)) that has a plurality of holding portions (254) which are aligned along the direction of extension of the margin seal, and which are arranged at a distance from each other (paragraph [0055], (270) divide into individual segments spaced apart), and providing an applique having a panel portion (220) and a first inner portion (236), wherein the first inner portion has a plurality of receiving portions (232) for receiving respective ones of the holding portions of the margin seal (Fig. 4) and inserting the holding portions into the receiving portions so as to produce the applique arrangement (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0052] and [0055] insertion into the receiving portions (232)).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of James et al. (US 9114765, cited in IDS dated 4/4/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmer et al. discloses an applique arrangement (200) for a vehicle surface, comprising: an applique having a panel portion (220) that extends essentially along a first direction and a second direction transverse to the first direction, and having a first inner portion (236); and a margin seal ((290)/(250)) which extends along an edge of the applique in the second direction (Figs. 4, 8, 9), wherein the panel portion has a panel outer surface for forming a part of the vehicle surface (Figs. 3, 7), wherein the first inner portion (236) extends essentially in parallel to the margin seal and projects from the panel portion essentially in a third direction which is transverse to the first direction and to the second direction (Fig .4), wherein the margin seal has a plurality of holding portions (254) which are aligned along the direction of extension of the margin seal, and which are arranged at a distance from each other (paragraph [0055], (270) divide into individual segments spaced apart), wherein the first inner portion (236) of the applique has a plurality of receiving portions (232) for receiving respective ones of the holding portions of the margin seal (Fig. 4), wherein the material of the margin seal is TPE or EPDM (paragraph [0061] lists EPDMs as possible material), and wherein the material of the applique is a plastic material (paragraph [0061] lists rigid plastics as a possible material).
Zimmer et al. does not explicitly disclose the material of the applique is a plastic material that is harder than the material of the margin seal.
James et al., like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches a material of the margin seal is EPDM (col. 6, lines 26-35), and wherein the material of the applique is a plastic material that is harder than the material of the margin seal (col. 4, lines 1-13 teach the applique having a (partly) polycarbonate material which is harder than EPDM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. to include the materials as taught by James et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a known material to be used in this type of application, and therefore a known and obvious choice in the art for one of ordinary skill to try as a material to use.
Regarding claim 2, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1, and teaches (references to Zimmer et al.) wherein the receiving portions (232) are formed as through holes in the first inner portion (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1, and teaches (references to Zimmer et al.) wherein the first inner portion (232) has a radial part (234) that extends from the panel portion in the third direction (Fig. 4), and has an axial part that extends from the radial part (230).
Regarding claim 7, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1, and teaches (references to Zimmer et al.) wherein the margin seal has a body portion from which the holding portions project to one side in the first direction, and wherein the margin seal has a sealing lip portion which projects from the body portion to an opposite side in the first direction (Fig. 8, (290), paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1, and teaches (references to Zimmer et al.) wherein the applique has a second inner portion (238) which defines a sealing strip receptacle for receiving a sealing strip (Fig. 3, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 9, and teaches (references to Zimmer et al.) wherein the second inner portion (238) comprises at least one attachment location for attaching the second inner portion to a structure of the vehicle (Fig. 3, paragraph [0053]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of James et al. (US 9114765) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultze et al. (EP 1584517).
Regarding claim 3, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1. However, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the holding portions are integral with a body portion of the margin seal.
Schultze et al., like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches the holding portions (19) are integral with a body portion of the margin seal (17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. to provide the holding portions integral with the body portion of the margin seal as taught by Schultze et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a manufacturing choice. Further, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPT 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of James et al. (US 9114765) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Thiel (WO 2022/073630, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 4. However, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable holding lip which can be compressed between the axial part of the first inner portion and a structure of the vehicle when fitted to the vehicle.
Thiel, like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable holding lip (10a, 10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b) which can be compressed between the axial part of the first inner portion and a structure of the vehicle when fitted to the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. to include the holding lip as taught by Thiel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more securely hold the applique in place when on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 4. However, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable locking lip which locks against the first inner portion when inserted into the respective receiving portion.
Thiel, like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable locking lip (10a, 10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b) which locks against the first inner portion when inserted into the respective receiving portion (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. to include the locking lip as taught by Thiel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more securely hold the applique in place when on the vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of James et al. (US 9114765) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baxter et al. (US 2015/0367716, cited in IDS dated 4/4/2024).
Regarding claim 8, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. teaches the applique arrangement of claim 1. However, Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the applique is coated with a coating.
Baxter et al., like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement and further teaches the applique is coated (paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. as modified by James et al. to include a coating to the applique as taught by Baxter et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce a coefficient of friction of the material in use among other advantages (Baxter et al.: paragraph [0025]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619 in view of Schultze et al. (EP 1584517).
Regarding claim 13, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11. However, Zimmer et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the holding portions are integral with a body portion of the margin seal.
Schultze et al., like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches the holding portions (19) are integral with a body portion of the margin seal (17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. to provide the holding portions integral with the body portion of the margin seal as taught by Schultze et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a manufacturing choice. Further, it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPT 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of Thiel (WO 2022/073630, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 14. However, Zimmer et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable holding lip which can be compressed between the axial part of the first inner portion and a structure of the vehicle when fitted to the vehicle.
Thiel, like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable holding lip (10a, 10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b) which can be compressed between the axial part of the first inner portion and a structure of the vehicle when fitted to the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. to include the holding lip as taught by Thiel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more securely hold the applique in place when on the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 14. However, Zimmer et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable locking lip which locks against the first inner portion when inserted into the respective receiving portion.
Thiel, like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement, and further teaches wherein at least one of the holding portions has an elastically deformable locking lip (10a, 10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b) which locks against the first inner portion when inserted into the respective receiving portion (Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. to include the locking lip as taught by Thiel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more securely hold the applique in place when on the vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (WO 2010/048619) in view of Baxter et al. (US 2015/0367716).
Regarding claim 18, Zimmer et al. discloses the applique arrangement of claim 11. However, Zimmer et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the applique is coated with a coating.
Baxter et al., like Zimmer et al., teaches an applique arrangement and further teaches the applique is coated (paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applique arrangement of Zimmer et al. to include a coating to the applique as taught by Baxter et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce a coefficient of friction of the material in use among other advantages (Baxter et al.: paragraph [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wenner et al. (US 5522191), Scholl (US 2024/0246402), Lorentsson (US 2020/0247220), Krefta et al. (US 2019/0217693), Maliskey et al. (US 2017/0057429), Grudzinski et al. (US 2013/0061526), Heiman et al. (US 2008/0265528), Snider et al. (US 2007/0101668), Luten (US 2006/0107599), Daniel et al. (US 2005/0044798), Knight (US 7934341), Dupuy et al. (US 5317835), Vaughan (US 5702148), Barnett (US 2006/0175762), Zimmer (US 8128143) teach applique arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643