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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “of liftgate the inner panel” in line 7 of claim 1 should be “of the liftgate inner panel”; and period is missing in claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving portion in claims 1 and 15.
Page 7 lines 13-15 of Applicant’s Specification described the structure of receiving portion as ““a bridge in the liftgate inner panel 14 formed between two surfaces, a flange or undercut formed on the surface of the liftgate inner panel 14 or an aperture formed in the liftgate inner panel 14.” Claim 6 also described the structure of receiving portion as “a key post with a round head and stem.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 23 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one connection member" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the engagement end" and “the neck” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is apparently intended to be dependent from claim 22. For examination purposes, claim 23 would be interpreted as depending from claim 22.
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 1-5, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestet et al. (US 20120306231 A1) in view of Ni (CN 106218370 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ginestet discloses a reinforcement (Ginestet, 18 in Fig. 2) attachment arrangement (Ginestet, paragraph 23 and 47 described reinforcement attachment solutions) for a thermoplastic (Ginestet, paragraph 5) liftgate (Ginestet, Fig. 1-2, hinge attachment 30 is on the upper portion therefore making it a liftgate) comprising: a liftgate inner panel (Ginestet, 42 in Fig. 3) having an outer surface area (Ginestet, opposite side of Fig. 3, partially shown in Fig. 4) with a plurality of reinforcement areas (Ginestet, Fig. 4-9, areas in connection with reinforcement 18) each having at least one receiving portion (Ginestet, paragraph 23 and 47, snap-riveting, screwing, or clipping, which meets the limitation as interpreted under 112(Ginestet, f)) on the outer surface area (Ginestet, Fig. 4 and since the reinforcement is attached on the outer side of the inner panel, the receiving portion would be on the outer surface area) of the liftgate inner panel; a reinforcement (Ginestet, 18 in Fig. 2) connected to each respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas (Ginestet, Fig. 4) of liftgate the inner panel, wherein each reinforcement includes at least one engagement tab (Ginestet, Fig. 5-9, reinforcement 18 has tabs/flanges that engages with inner panel 42).
Ginestet fails to disclose at least one engagement tab for engaging the at least one receiving portion of a respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas to hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel when the at least one engagement tab is positioned in engagement with the at least one receiving portion.
Ni teaches at least one engagement tab (Ni, Fig. 11, engagement tab of reinforcement 4 where attachment means 9 is located) for engaging the at least one receiving portion (Ni, Fig. 11, engages an aperture receiving portion) of a respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas to hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel when the at least one engagement tab is positioned in engagement with the at least one receiving portion (after combination, Ginestet already teaches using screws in paragraph 23, therefore the screws can be used at the tabs as taught by Ni such that the tabs engage with the receiving portion locations).
Ni is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door reinforcement attachment arrangement as Ginestet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet to incorporate the teachings of Ni with a reasonable expectation of success and have the engagement tab engage the receiving portions. Doing so provides strengthened connection between the reinforcement and the inner panel without the need to make additional contact interface structures since existing tabs can be utilized. Also allows the use of screw/bolt which is commonly available when other securing solutions are not available.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1 further comprising: at least one fastener boss (Ni, see annotated Fig. 11, fastener boss around fastener 9) extending from the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel, wherein the at least one connection member (Ni, see annotated Fig. 11, sleeve member around fastener 9, also shown in Fig. 13) is formed on the outer surface; a fastener (Ni, 9 in Fig. 11) extending through at least one aperture formed through the reinforcement and connecting to the at least one fastener boss.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 11 from Ni
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one hinge reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, 30 is the hinge area).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one ball stud reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, area 38 can be ball stud reinforcement area).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one latch reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, 32 is the latch area).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1 further comprising a liftgate exterior panel (Ginestet, 6 in Fig. 1) connected to the liftgate inner panel (Ginestet, Fig. 5-9, at least through the reinforcement 18) and covering the reinforcement (Ginestet, Fig. 1 and 5-9).
Regarding claim 15, Ginestet discloses a reinforcement (Ginestet, 18 in Fig. 2) attachment arrangement (Ginestet, paragraph 23 and 47 described reinforcement attachment solutions) for a thermoplastic (Ginestet, paragraph 5) liftgate (Ginestet, Fig. 1-2, hinge attachment 30 is on the upper portion therefore making it a liftgate) comprising: a liftgate inner panel (Ginestet, 42 in Fig. 3) having an outer surface area (Ginestet, opposite side of Fig. 3, partially shown in Fig. 4) with a plurality of reinforcement areas (Ginestet, Fig. 4-9, areas in connection with reinforcement 18) each having at least one receiving portion (Ginestet, paragraph 23 and 47, snap-riveting, screwing, or clipping, which meets the limitation as interpreted under 112(Ginestet, f)); a reinforcement (Ginestet, 18 in Fig. 2) connected to each respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas (Ginestet, Fig. 4) of the liftgate inner panel, wherein each reinforcement includes at least one engagement tab (Ginestet, Fig. 5-9, reinforcement 18 has tabs/flanges that engages with inner panel 42) and each reinforcement further includes at least one aperture (Ginestet, paragraph 23 and 47, apertures for screw/riveting; also Fig. 4 shows triangular apertures form by 24 and 20), and a liftgate exterior panel (Ginestet, 6 in Fig. 1) connected to the liftgate inner panel (Ginestet, Fig. 5-9, at least through the reinforcement 18) and covering the reinforcement areas and each reinforcement (Ginestet, Fig. 1 and 5-9).
Ginestet fails to disclose at least one connection member extending from the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel; at least one engagement tab for engaging the at least one receiving portion of a respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas; and at least one aperture that aligns with at least one connection member formed on an outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel to hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel when the at least one engagement tab is positioned in engagement with the at least one receiving portion.
Ni teaches at least one connection member (Ni, Fig. 11, sleeve member around fastener 9, also shown in Fig. 13) extending from the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel; at least one engagement tab (Ni, Fig. 11, engagement tab of reinforcement 4 where attachment means 9 is located) for engaging the at least one receiving portion (Ni, Fig. 11, engages an aperture receiving portion) of a respective one of the plurality of reinforcement areas; and at least one aperture (Ni, Fig. 11, aperture to hold the fastener 9) that aligns with at least one connection member formed on an outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel to hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel when the at least one engagement tab is positioned in engagement with the at least one receiving portion (after combination, Ginestet already teaches using screws in paragraph 23, therefore the screws can be used at the tabs as taught by Ni such that the tabs engage with the receiving portion locations).
Ni is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door reinforcement attachment arrangement as Ginestet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet to incorporate the teachings of Ni with a reasonable expectation of success and use the attachment arrangement of Ni such that there is a connection member and the engagement tab engages with the receiving portions. Doing so provides strengthened connection between the reinforcement and the inner panel without the need to make additional contact interface structures since existing tabs can be utilized. Also allows the use of screw/bolt which is commonly available when other securing solutions are not available.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15 further comprising: wherein the at least one connection member is at least one fastener boss (Ni, see annotated Fig. 11, connection member can also be the fastener boss) formed on the outer surface area; a fastener (Ni, 9 in Fig. 11) extending through the at least one aperture of the reinforcement and connecting to the at least one fastener boss.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one hinge reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, 30 is the hinge area).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one ball stud reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, area 38 can be ball stud reinforcement area).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, wherein the plurality of reinforcement areas include at least one latch reinforcement area (Ginestet, Fig. 2, 32 is the latch area).
Claims 6, 11, 20-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ohba et al. (US 20130001982 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1, but fails to teach the at least one receiving portion has a key post with a round head and stem, the at least one engagement tab has a key hole wherein the round head and stem align with and slide into the key hole to connect the reinforcement to the liftgate inner panel.
Ohba teaches a key post (Ohba, 5 in Fig. 3) with a round head (Ohba, paragraph 36, circular head 5a) and stem (Ohba, Fig. 3, narrower body of 5), the at least one engagement tab has a key hole (Ohba, 11b in Fig. 4) wherein the round head and stem align with and slide into (Ohba, paragraph 36, insert/slide from the side opening) the key hole to connect the reinforcement to the liftgate inner panel.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1 further comprising: wherein the at least one receiving portion includes an aperture (Ginestet, paragraph 23 teaches screw/riveting, which would have apertures; Ni also teaches an aperture in Fig. 11) formed in the liftgate inner panel.
The combination of Ginestet in view of Ni fails to teach a tab that frictionally slides into the aperture.
Ohba teaches a tab (Ohba, 5b in Fig. 3 of a clipping device, Ginestet in paragraph 23 also teaches one can use clipping) that frictionally slides (Ohba, paragraph 36, 5b is resilient therefore would frictionally slides into the aperture and secure there) into the aperture.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, but fails to teach a snap tab configured to slide through the at least one aperture of the reinforcement and hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel.
Ohba teaches a snap tab (Ohba, 5b in Fig. 3) configured to slide through the at least one aperture of the reinforcement (Ohba, Fig. 3) and hold the reinforcement onto the outer surface area of the liftgate inner panel (Ohba, Fig. 3).
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, but fails to teach the at least one receiving portion has a key post with a round head and stem, the at least one engagement tab has a key hole wherein the round head and stem align with and slide into the key hole to connect the reinforcement to the liftgate inner panel.
Ohba teaches a key post (Ohba, 5 in Fig. 3) with a round head (Ohba, paragraph 36, circular head 5a) and stem (Ohba, Fig. 3, narrower body of 5), the at least one engagement tab has a key hole (Ohba, 11b in Fig. 4) wherein the round head and stem align with and slide into (Ohba, paragraph 36, insert/slide from the side opening) the key hole to connect the reinforcement to the liftgate inner panel.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15 further comprising: wherein the at least one receiving portion includes an aperture (Ginestet, paragraph 23 teaches screw/riveting, which would have apertures; Ni also teaches an aperture in Fig. 11) formed in the liftgate inner panel.
The combination of Ginestet in view of Ni fails to teach a tab that frictionally slides into the aperture.
Ohba teaches a tab (Ohba, 5b in Fig. 3 of a clipping device, Ginestet in paragraph 23 also teaches one can use clipping) that frictionally slides (Ohba, paragraph 36, 5b is resilient therefore would frictionally slides into the aperture and secure there) into the aperture.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba as applied to claims 11 and 26 above, and further in view of Gold (US 4811519 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 11, wherein the tab has slanted edges (Ohba, Fig. 3, 5b has slanted edges).
The combination of Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba fails to teach the aperture has slanted edges, where the slanted edges of the aperture and the slanted edges of the tab facilitate the alignment of the tab into the aperture.
Gold teaches the aperture has slanted edges (Gold, Fig. 5, aperture at 58/56 has slanted edges), where the slanted edges of the aperture and the slanted edges of the tab facilitate the alignment (Gold, Fig. 5, slanted edges match to align the tabs into the aperture) of the tab into the aperture.
Gold is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba to incorporate the teachings of Gold with a reasonable expectation of success and have slanted edges. Doing so provides a greater tolerance when securing the clip so that it is easier to assemble; also provides greater resistance against unintentional separation.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 26, wherein the tab has slanted edges (Ohba, Fig. 3, 5b has slanted edges).
The combination of Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba fails to teach the aperture has slanted edges, where the slanted edges of the aperture and the slanted edges of the tab facilitate the alignment of the tab into the aperture.
Gold teaches the aperture has slanted edges (Gold, Fig. 5, aperture at 58/56 has slanted edges), where the slanted edges of the aperture and the slanted edges of the tab facilitate the alignment (Gold, Fig. 5, slanted edges match to align the tabs into the aperture) of the tab into the aperture.
Gold is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba to incorporate the teachings of Gold with a reasonable expectation of success and have slanted edges. Doing so provides a greater tolerance when securing the clip so that it is easier to assemble; also provides greater resistance against unintentional separation.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ohba et al. (US 20130001982 A1) and Gold (US 4811519 A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 1, but fails to teach a pair of opposing tabs and the at least one receiving portion includes a flange formed on the liftgate inner panel, wherein the opposing tabs lock the reinforcement in place against the liftgate inner panel by positioning each of the pair of opposing tabs between the flange, which prevents the reinforcement from sliding past the flange.
Ohba teaches a tab (Ohba, 5b in Fig. 3) and the at least one receiving portion includes a flange (Ohba, flange of 6 in Fig. 3) formed on the liftgate inner panel (after combination), wherein the tab lock the reinforcement in place against the liftgate inner panel by positioning the tab between the flange (Ohba, Fig. 3), which prevents the reinforcement from sliding past the flange.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Gold teaches a pair of opposing tabs (Gold, Fig. 5, opposing tabs 70 and 72).
Gold is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba to incorporate the teachings of Gold with a reasonable expectation of success and a pair of opposing tabs. Doing so allows change in the shape of the clip to make it longer in order to provide additional securing strength.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Ginestet in view of Ni teaches the reinforcement attachment arrangement of claim 15, but fails to teach a pair of opposing tabs and the at least one receiving portion includes a flange formed on the liftgate inner panel, wherein the opposing tabs lock the reinforcement in place against the liftgate inner panel by positioning each of the pair of opposing tabs between the flange, which prevents the reinforcement from sliding past the flange.
Ohba teaches a tab (Ohba, 5b in Fig. 3) and the at least one receiving portion includes a flange (Ohba, flange of 6 in Fig. 3) formed on the liftgate inner panel (after combination), wherein the tab lock the reinforcement in place against the liftgate inner panel by positioning the tab between the flange (Ohba, Fig. 3), which prevents the reinforcement from sliding past the flange.
Ohba is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with bracket/plate member clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni to incorporate the teachings of Ohba with a reasonable expectation of success and use the clip attachment of Ohba. Doing so allows attachment without using tools and therefore provides more convenience in assembly; also provides easy positioning means for adding additional securing means (screw, rivet, adhesives, etc.) after fastening the parts with the clips.
Gold teaches a pair of opposing tabs (Gold, Fig. 5, opposing tabs 70 and 72).
Gold is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle door with clipping attachments as Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught by Ginestet in view of Ni and Ohba to incorporate the teachings of Gold with a reasonable expectation of success and a pair of opposing tabs. Doing so allows change in the shape of the clip to make it longer in order to provide additional securing strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 22, and 24-25 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.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a neck that terminates at an engagement end and the at least one receiving portion is an aperture formed in the liftgate inner panel, wherein the engagement end slides into the aperture to connect the reinforcement to the liftgate inner panel as claimed in claims 7 and 22; and the at least one receiving portion has an aperture with a flexible tab, and wherein the at least one engagement tab has a neck that forms a bend in the reinforcement that bends away from a main surface of the reinforcement, the neck terminates at an engagement end, wherein the neck and the engagement end slide through the aperture and frictionally engage the flexible tab to hold the reinforcement onto the liftgate inner panel as claimed in claims 9 and 24. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle tailgate reinforcement attachment arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612