Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/553,423

Hole Closure Element for a Body Component, and Body Component Equipped Therewith

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
ELOSHWAY, NIKI MARINA
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
1002 granted / 1576 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
1652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1576 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholl (U.S. 3,025,854). Scholl teaches a hole closure element (elements 1-7; figure 2) for closing an opening located in a car body component of a motor vehicle during a production process of the motor vehicle (capable of closing an opening in a car body component), comprising a carrier element 1 made of a film material (“thermoplastic film”), and an adhesive at 5 located on one side of the carrier element 1, wherein the adhesive at 5 does not require thermal activation (pressure sensitive adhesive; col. 3 lines 11-26) and covers a first surface region of the carrier element (figure 3), wherein the adhesive does not cover a second surface region at 2 of the carrier element (col. 3 lines 1-2), and wherein the second surface region at 2 not covered by the adhesive protrudes from a virtual plane (figure 2) formed by the carrier element and is configured to guide the hole closure element into the opening via the second surface region projecting into the opening (protruding portion at 2 capable of guiding the hole closure element into the opening via the tapered shape of the second surface region), and a protective layer 6, 7, wherein the protective layer is removably disposed on the carrier element 1 such that the protective layer covers the first surface region covered by the adhesive 5 and the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive that protrudes from the virtual plane when the hole closure element is not disposed in the opening located in the body component (figure 2) and such that the protective layer is removed to expose the first surface region covered by the adhesive and the second surface region not covered by the adhesive that protrudes from the virtual plane when the hole closure element is to be disposed in the opening located in the body component (col. 3 lines 11-26) for closing the opening. Regarding claim 12, the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive is formed by a thickening of the film material (thickening formed by heat sealing of element 2 to element 1). Regarding claim 13, the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive is formed by a protrusion of the film material (figure 2). Regarding claim 14, the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive 5 has a peripheral taper at an end that is most distant from the adhesive (see lead line 4 in figure 2). Regarding claim 15, the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive 5 is located in a center of the hole closure element (figure 2) and wherein the first surface region covered by the adhesive is located outside of the center of the hole closure element (figures 2 and 3). Regarding claim 17, the adhesive is a pressure-sensitive adhesive (col. 3 lines 11-26). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholl (U.S. 3,025,854). Regarding claim 16, Scholl discloses the claimed invention except for A1 being between ¼ and 1/3 the size of A2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Scholl with A1 being between ¼ and 1/3 the size of A2, in order to cover an appropriately sized wound, and since 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). Additionally, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholl (U.S. 3,025,854) in view of Kolmorgen (DE102004018047A1). Regarding claim 18, Scholl discloses the claimed invention except for the body component being a car body. Kolmorgen teaches that it is known to provide a hole sealing apparatus on a car body (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hole sealing apparatus of Scholl being used on a car body, as taught by Kolmorgen, in order to seal holes in a car body. Regarding claim 19, the second surface region 2 not covered by the adhesive is at a distance from an edge of the opening when the hole closure element is disposed in the opening (depending on size of wound). Regarding claim 20, Scholl discloses the claimed invention except for A3 being between ¼ and 1/3 the size of A2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Scholl with A3 being between ¼ and 1/3 the size of A2, in order to cover an appropriately sized wound, and since 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). Additionally, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Scholl does not teach that the apparatus is applied to a car body. Regarding claims 11-17, these claims are drawn to the subcombination of the apparatus and not the combination of the car body and apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the apparatus of Scholl may be applied to any opening including an opening in a car body. The claims do not include any structural limitations drawn to the apparatus which distinguishes the present apparatus from the apparatus of Scholl. Regarding claims 18-20 which are drawn to the combination of the car body and apparatus, the secondary reference of Kolmorgen has been added to the rejection for the teaching of applying an adhesive apparatus to seal an opening in a car body. The teaching is used to modify the apparatus of Scholl. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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. /NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jun 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600560
HEATING UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589917
CLOSURES WITH TAMPER EVIDENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564280
WIRELESS DRINK CONTAINER FOR MONITORING HYDRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12553661
TRIM BREAKER WITH LIGHT-DIFFUSING OPTICAL FIBER FOR VACUUM INSULATED STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546319
Can, And A Method For Producing Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+24.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1576 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month