CTNF 18/564,789 CTNF 88150 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant elected Group 1 claims 11 – 19. Claim 20 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026. The restriction is made FINAL. 12-57 AIA Prior art of Record The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows; U.S. 5,273,606 Greve et al. (‘Greve hereafter), Filed 12/16/1991 U.S. 2011/0126475 Fukushima et al. (‘Fukushima hereafter), App 12/924340 Filed 09/24/2010 U.S. 2010/0119935 Kim et al. (‘Kim hereafter), App 12/310861 Filed 09/08/2007 U.S. 4,269,012 Mattingly et al. (‘Mattingly hereafter), Filed 02/01/1979 The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above. Claim status: Claims 11 - 20 are currently being examined. Claims 20 has been withdrawn. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 1 – 10 have been canceled. No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 11 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2011/0126475 Fukushima et al. (‘Fukushima hereafter) . Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations including: A connecting arrangement for connecting a first component to a second component for a vehicle (‘Fukushima, Para 0001, “The present invention relates to a lower seal that is mounted at the lower end of the side door of a vehicle, and that seals a between body gap when the door is closed.” Fig 7 (below) shows the connecting arrangement of a first component to a second component, “for a vehicle” is an intended use limitation, see below) , comprising: a peripheral region (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) of the first component (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) that is disposed in a folded pocket of the second component (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) that is delimited by a crimped flange of the second component (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) , wherein the crimped flange is crimped around the peripheral region such that the first component is connected to the second component (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) ; wherein the first component has an outflow opening which adjoins the crimped flange and wherein a liquid is dischargeable via the outflow opening from an interspace delimited by the first component (4) and the second component (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below), #12 (drainage hole)) ; wherein the outflow opening is closed by a sealing compound which covers a first subregion (TB1) of the crimped flange and a second subregion (TB2) (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below), #11 (paint sealer) seals the opening in regions TB1 and TB2) , which adjoins the first subregion (TB1) of the crimped flange and is disposed next to the outflow opening (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) , of the first component, and thus, seals off the crimped flange with respect to the second subregion (TB2) (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below)) . 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. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963). Regarding Claim[s] 12, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the outflow opening is elongate (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below) shows #12 is on a radius, the hole through the sheet on a radius will shorten the opening distance of the hole on the side that is on a radius) . Regarding Claim[s] 13, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the outflow opening has a direction of longitudinal extent which extends obliquely or parallel to a direction of longitudinal extent of the crimped flange (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below) the shortened side of #12 on the radius, extends parallel to the longitudinal direction of the crimped flange). Regarding Claim[s] 14 & 15, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the outflow opening is a region of material cut out of the first component, and the outflow opening is a shaped cut in the first component. (‘Fukushima, Fig 7 (below) shows #12 is cut out of first component) . Regarding Claim[s] 16, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations including: wherein the sealing compound is a plastic (‘Fukushima, Fig 7, #11 (paint sealer) is a plastic) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0126475 Fukushima et al. (‘Fukushima hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 4,269,012 Mattingly et al. (‘Mattingly hereafter) . Regarding Claim[s] 17, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: wherein the plastic is polyvinyl chloride. However, ‘Mattingly teaches: Col. 3, ln 47 – 60, “The first flange 19 of the panel 3 has an integral downwardly opening channel section 23 extending longitudinally along its upper margin on the outside thereof. This channel section has sealing means 25 therein, more particularly a strip of flexible resilient sealing material such as polyvinyl chloride or neoprene or caulking sealant extending longitudinally in the channel section. The second flange 21 has an integral sealing lip section 27 extending longitudinally along its upper margin on the inside thereof adapted to fit in the channel section 23 of the adjacent panel on the supporting means 5, the lip section being sealingly engageable with the sealing means 25 in the latter channel section to form a sealed standing seam.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Fukushima with a polyvinyl chloride plastic as taught by ‘Mattingly in order to provide a sealing material (‘Mattingly, Col. 3, ln 47 – 60) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0126475 Fukushima et al. (‘Fukushima hereafter), and further in view of [Wingdings font/0xE0] U.S. 2010/0119935 Kim et al. (‘Kim hereafter) . Regarding Claim[s] 18, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: distance between a free end of the crimped flange and the outflow opening is at most three millimeters. However, ‘Kim teaches: Para 0036, “The inward extending length of the bent front end of the crimping region may be appropriately decided in consideration of the mechanical strength of the container and the elastic force and durability of the gasket. In a preferred embodiment, the bent front end of the crimping region extends, by 2 to 3 mm, from the side of the crimping region.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Fukushima with a crimped flange at most 3 mm as taught by ‘Kim, 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0126475 Fukushima et al. (‘Fukushima hereafter), and further in view of U.S. 5,273,606 Greve et al. (‘Greve hereafter) . Regarding Claim[s] 19, ‘Fukushima discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: first component and/or the second component is a metal material. However, ‘Greve teaches: Col. 1, ln 17 – 21, “The inner and outer panels may be constructed of such materials as steel or plastic. Methods for securing these steel or plastic panels together often used in industry today utilize several liquid adhesive bonding techniques.” Col. 3, ln 14 – 19, “The outer panel edge portions 18 are folded over so as to form a hem flange as indicated by reference numeral 26 in FIG. 2, and also so that the adhesive injection holes align with the adhesive injection notches 16 to create an inlet passageway through which a liquid adhesive material can be injected. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Fukushima with a metal material as taught by ‘Greve in order to make a hem joint between the first and second components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date 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. [AltContent: textbox (TB2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (TB1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Crimped Flange Second Component)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peripheral Region)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Component #3 (Door Panel))][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First component)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 505 607 media_image1.png Greyscale U.S. 2011/0126475 Figure 7a Conclusion Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET. 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 06/01/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 2 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 3 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 4 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 5 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 6 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 7 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 8 Art Unit: 3799 Application/Control Number: 18/564,789 Page 9 Art Unit: 3799
Prosecution Insights