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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed September 30, 2025.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed September 30, 2025 has been approved.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the applicant has improperly used different language to refer to the same element of the invention. For example, the applicant has referred to element 20 as a “raised area surface” on line 6 of the September 30, 2025 amendment to the specification and improperly referred to element 20 as a wall on line 9 of the September 30, 2025 amendment to the specification. It appears that a fourth wall which is not numbered defines the raised area surface and it appears that it is this wall the applicant is referring to on line 9 of September 30, 2025 amendment to the specification rather than the raised area surface.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because “said flat face” on line 6 of claim 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because “the vehicle body” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has not clearly set forth that the applicant is claiming the vehicle body above. Although the applicant recites “a vehicle body mounted shuffle bumper” on line 2 of claim 8, the vehicle body is not clearly set forth as an element of the invention since “a vehicle body” on line 2 of claim 8 is referring to the type of shuffle bumper instead of setting forth a vehicle body.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the vehicle body” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has not clearly set forth that the applicant is claiming the vehicle body above. Although the applicant recites “a vehicle body mounted shuffle bumper” on line 2 of claim 8, the vehicle body is not clearly set forth as an element of the invention since “a vehicle body” on line 2 of claim 8 is referring to the type of shuffle bumper instead of setting forth a vehicle body.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejc et al. (US 2016/0176271) in view of Eynon (US 2021/0129404). Rejc et al. discloses a vehicle closure panel 18 for a vehicle body 14, the vehicle closure panel 18 having an inner panel 110 (fig. 6) for resting on the vehicle body 14 mounted shuffle bumper 370 comprising;
said inner panel including an integrally formed in shuffle bumper interface portion (labeled below) having a singular central flattened interface surface (labeled below) for providing a solid interference stop with the vehicle mounted shuffle bumper 370 attached to the vehicle body 14 when the vehicle closure panel 18 is in a closed position
(claim 1);
wherein said shuffle bumper interface portion is a raised area (labeled below) facing inward toward the vehicle body 14 for interference fit with the vehicle body mounted shuffle bumper 370 of the vehicle body 14 (claims 2 and 9);
wherein the singular central flattened interface surface (labeled below) is attached to the inner panel 110 by at least one structural wall member (labeled below) (claims 3 and 10);
wherein there are at least two walls (labeled below) which extend to support the central flattened interface surface (claims 4 and 11);
wherein the vehicle closure panel 18 is a liftgate, side door, frunk, hood, fuel door, or a deck lid (claims 5 and 12);
wherein the vehicle closure panel 18 is an inside panel 110 of a liftgate 18 (claims 6 and 13).
Rejc et al. is silent concerning the inner panel being molded from a thermoset structural plastic or a reinforced thermoplastic.
However, Eynon discloses manufacturing panels of lift gate by molding the panels from a thermoset structural plastic or a reinforced thermoplastic as set forth on lines 1-6 of paragraph 17 and line 6 of paragraph 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture at least the inner panel of the vehicle closure panel of Rejc et al. from a molded reinforced thermoplastic, as taught by Eynon, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the weight of the vehicle closure panel while maintaining the requisite strength of the inner panel.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the vehicle closure panel of Rejc et al., as modified above, is injection molded since at least the inner panel 110 is injection molded. See line 6 of paragraph 17 of Eynon.
With respect to claim 8, the shuffle bumper interface portion of the vehicle closure panel of Rejc et al., as modified above, comprises a one-piece molding with the inner panel. See line 6 of paragraph 17 of Eynon which discloses the injection molding step while Rejc et al. discloses that the shuffle bumper interface portion is one piece with the inner panel 110.
PNG
media_image1.png
1638
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Rejc et al. fails to teach an inner panel having a shuffle bumper interface portion including a singular central flattened interface surface. This is not found to be persuasive because Rejc et al. discloses a central flattened interface surface labeled below. The interface surface is clearly flattened as shown in figure 6 and is central since it is positioned between the two portions of the inner panel labeled below. Rejc et al. further discloses that the central flattened surface is a singular interface surface since it is the only surface that is central, flattened and engages the interference stop. Thus, Rejc et al. discloses the applicant’s claimed singular central flattened interface surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
1632
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634