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 .
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 5-6 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.
In claims 5 and 6, line 2, “each button member” lacks clear antecedent basis. Perhaps claims 5 and 6 should be amended to depend from claim 4.
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.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. US 7,537,253 in view of Mallicote US 11,628,787.
Regarding claim 1, Rosen et al. disclose in the background:
A grille surround (col. 1, line 46) for a vehicle, comprising:
a body (flat sheet of metal; col. 1, lines 55-56);
a plurality of mounting brackets (col. 1, line 56) connected to the body by welding (col. 1, lines 55-56), where the brackets would also be made from metal to permit welding to the steel body.
Rosen et al. also envisions that such a connected grille surround and bracket assembly is suitable for chrome plating. See col. 1, lines 58-60.
However, the background of Rosen et al. do not disclose that the brackets are connected to the body via adhesive or a plurality of conductive members configured to electrically couple the plurality of mounting brackets to the body, each conductive member extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket and establishing an electrical connection therebetween.
Notwithstanding, Mallicote discloses a grille surround (104; Fig. 5) comprising a body as well as a mounting bracket (112; Fig. 5) which is connected to the body via adhesive (col. 4, lines 5-7) as well as a plurality of mechanical connecting members (“projections” 120; Fig. 5; col. 3, lines 63-66; one on “each end of the U-shaped bracket 112”) extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket. The grille surround body of Mallicote also includes a front face, a rear face and the bracket is connected to the rear face and extends rearwardly therefrom.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it 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 to utilize the teachings of Mallicote in the construction of the grill surround of Rosen et al. including connecting the brackets of Rosen et al. to the grille surround body via an adhesive and providing the connection with connecting members (projections) extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket as taught by Mallicote because the use of adhesive is a notoriously well-known alternative to welding and provision connecting members in the form of projections form a mechanical connection between the bracket and the grill surround body. Motivation provided by Mallicote from the last two lines of col. 3 to thru the first two lines of col. 4. Furthermore, the provision of connecting members between the metal brackets and metal grille surround of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, results in the plurality of connecting members being a plurality of conductive members configured to electrically couple the plurality of mounting brackets to the body, each conductive member extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket and establishing an electrical connection therebetween, due to the contact between the metal brackets (through the connecting members or “conductive members”) and the metal grill surround body, where metals are known to conduct electricity.
Regarding claim 2, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: the plurality of conductive members is configured to evenly distribute electricity throughout the body and the plurality of mounting brackets (by way of contact between the brackets (through the mechanical connecting members or “conductive members”) and the metal grill surround body. Regarding the product by process limitation of “through a chrome plating process such that the chrome plating is evenly distributed on the body and the plurality of mounting brackets, eliminating corrosion and failure of the grille surround”, the claimed grille surround product is obvious with respect to the prior art of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, as explained above and:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777.
Regarding claim 3, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: the body has a front face and a rear face (see annotated Fig. 5 above of Mallicote); and each mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets is connected to the rear face of the body and extends rearwardly therefrom (see annotated Fig. 5 above of Mallicote).
Regarding claim 4, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: each conductive member of the plurality of conductive members is a button member (in that the projections 120 in annotated Fig. 5 of Mallicote above are considered to be “buttons”, as broadly as recited).
Regarding claim 5, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: each button member is connected to a respective mounting bracket (as indicated in annotated Fig. 5 above of Mallicote) of the plurality of mounting brackets and an end “region” thereof directly contacts the body, specifically, the sides of the end region of the “button members” contact the sides of the aperture in the surround grill body in which the button is received. See annotated Fig. 5 above of Mallicote.
Regarding claim 6, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose that the button members are connected to the bracket rather than the body.
However, it 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 to construct the body of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, to have the button member rather than the bracket with a reasonable expectation of success because it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification of the prior art absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, with each button member being connected to the body an end “region” thereof directly contacts a respective mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets, specifically, the sides of the end region of the “button members” contact the sides of the corresponding aperture in the bracket in which the button is received. That is a reversed construction of the button and aperture in annotated Fig. 5 above of Mallicote.
Regarding claim 7, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose that the conductive member (120; Fig. 5 of Mallicote) can be referred to as a “projection” (col. 3, lines 63-66) or “protrusion”, as broadly as recited, extending forwardly from the bracket.
However, Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, do not disclose that the reversed configuration where each of the plurality of conductive members is a protrusion extending rearwardly from the body.
Notwithstanding, it 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 to construct the body of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote so that each of the plurality of conductive members is a protrusion extending rearwardly from the body with a reasonable expectation of success because it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification of the prior art absent a showing of new or unexpected results. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: each conductive member of the plurality of conductive members is surrounded by the adhesive when the bracket is connected to the body.
Regarding claim 11, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, except wherein: each mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets has associated therewith only one conductive member of the plurality of conductive members for establishing the electrical connection therebetween.
However, it 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 to modify the connection between the body and each bracket of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, to utilize one conductive member or mechanical connecting member instead of two with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification amounts to an obvious design choice of one of general skill in the art in the instance that a connection with a single mechanical connecting member, i.e., conductive member, is of sufficient strength to hold each bracket to the body. The benefit would be a connection which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to install.
Regarding claim 12, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: the adhesive is nonelectrically conductive. See Mallicote (col. 4, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 14, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, disclose:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, wherein: each conductive member of the plurality of conductive members has a width which is smaller than a width of a respective mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets to which it is attached. This difference in width is illustrated in annotated Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
747
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. US 7,537,253 in view of Mallicote US 11,628,787, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of JP-H 01234593 and DE 202005022005.
Regarding claim 13, Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, discloses:
The grille surround of claim 1, as explained above, except for the adhesive having a plurality of conductive particles disposed within.
However, JP-H 01234593 discloses that the use of an electrically conductive adhesive for joining elements to be electroplated, i.e., chrome plated, is beneficial. See page 3 of the provided English language translation, lines 38-40.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The JP-H 01234593 reference is considered to be relevant art in that the JP-H 01234593 reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains connecting structures which are to be to be electroplated, i.e., chrome plated, as the Rosen et al., which envisions that such a connected grille surround and bracket assembly is suitable for chrome plating. See col. 1, lines 58-60.
Therefore, it 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 to modify the adhesive of Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, to be an electrically conductive adhesive as taught by JP-H 01234593 with a reasonable expectation of success because such an adhesive “makes electroplating (chrome plating) easier”. Motivation provided on page 3 of the provided English language translation, lines 38-40 of JP-H 01234593.
In addition, DE 202005022005 discloses that a known type of electrically conductive adhesive is one which contains embedded electrically conductive particles. See lines 3-4 of the second full paragraph on page 31 of provided English language translation of DE 202005022005.
Therefore, it 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 to connect the brackets to the body of the grille surround of Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote and JP-H 01234593, by utilizing an electrically conductive adhesive of the type having a plurality of conductive particles disposed within as taught by DE 202005022005 with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of this type of adhesive helps to minimize the difference in electrochemical potential between metals which can lead to corrosion. Motivation provided by DE 202005022005 on lines 9-10 of the second full paragraph on page 31 of provided English language translation thereof.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. US 7,537,253 in view of Mallicote US 11,628,787 and JP H01234593.
Regarding claim 15, Regarding claim 1, Rosen et al. disclose in the background:
A grille surround (col. 1, line 46) for a vehicle, comprising:
a body (flat sheet of metal; col. 1, lines 55-56); and
a plurality of mounting brackets (col. 1, line 56) connected to the body by welding (col. 1, lines 55-56), where the brackets would also be made from metal to permit welding to the steel body.
Rosen et al. also envisions that such a connected grille surround and bracket assembly is suitable for chrome plating. See col. 1, lines 58-60.
However, Rosen et al. do not disclose that the brackets are connected to the body via adhesive or that the adhesive is an electrically conductive adhesive.
Notwithstanding, Mallicote discloses a grille surround (104; Fig. 5) comprising a body as well as a mounting bracket (112; Fig. 5) which is connected to the body via adhesive (col. 4, lines 5-7).
Therefore, it 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 to utilize the teachings of Mallicote in the construction of the grill surround of Rosen et al. including connecting the brackets of Rosen et al. to the grille surround body via an adhesive because the use of adhesive is a notoriously well-known alternative to welding and suitable for its intended use in this instance.
In addition, JP-H 01234593 discloses that the use of an electrically conductive adhesive for joining elements to be electroplated, i.e., chrome plated, is beneficial. See page 3 of the provided English language translation, lines 38-40.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The JP-H 01234593 reference is considered to be relevant art in that the JP-H 01234593 reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains connecting structures which are to be to be electroplated, i.e., chrome plated, as the Rosen et al., which envisions that such a connected grille surround and bracket assembly is suitable for chrome plating. See col. 1, lines 58-60.
Therefore, it 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 to modify the adhesive of Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, to be an electrically conductive adhesive as taught by JP-H 01234593 with a reasonable expectation of success because such an adhesive “makes electroplating (chrome plating) easier”. Motivation provided on page 3 of the provided English language translation, lines 38-40 of JP-H 01234593. The resultant electrically conductive adhesive of Rosen et al. US 7,537,253, as modified by Mallicote and JP H01234593, provides electrical conductivity between the metal brackets and the metal grille surround where metals are known to conduct electricity so that the electrically conductive adhesive is configured to evenly distribute electricity throughout the body and the plurality of mounting brackets. Regarding the product by process limitation of “during a chrome plating process such that the chrome plating is evenly distributed on the grille surround”, the claimed grille surround product is obvious with respect to the prior art of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote and JP-H 01234593, as explained above and:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. US 7,537,253 in view of Mallicote US 11,628,787.
Regarding claim 16, Rosen et al. disclose:
A method, comprising:
providing a grille surround (col. 1, line 46) for a vehicle including a body (flat sheet of metal; col. 1, lines 55-56), a plurality of mounting brackets connected to the body via (col. 1, line 56) connected to the body by welding (col. 1, lines 55-56), where the brackets would also be made from metal to permit welding to the steel body. Rosen et al. also discloses that such a connected grille surround and bracket assembly is suitable for chrome plating. See col. 1, lines 58-60.
However, Rosen et al. do not disclose that the brackets are connected to the body via adhesive or a plurality of conductive members configured to electrically couple the plurality of mounting brackets to the body, each conductive member extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket and establishing an electrical connection therebetween.
Notwithstanding, Mallicote discloses a grille surround (104; Fig. 5) comprising a body as well as a mounting bracket (112; Fig. 5) which is connected to the body via adhesive (col. 4, lines 5-7) as well as a plurality of mechanical connecting members (“projections” 120; Fig. 5; col. 3, lines 63-66; one on “each end of the U-shaped bracket 112”) extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket. The grille surround body of Mallicote also includes a front face, a rear face and the bracket is connected to the rear face and extends rearwardly therefrom.
Therefore, it 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 to utilize the teachings of Mallicote in the construction of the grill surround of Rosen et al. including connecting the brackets of Rosen et al. to the grille surround body via an adhesive and providing the connection with connecting members (projections) extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket as taught by Mallicote because the use of adhesive is a notoriously well-known alternative to welding and provision connecting members in the form of projections form a mechanical connection between the bracket and the grill surround body. Motivation provided by Mallicote from the last two lines of col. 3 to thru the first two lines of col. 4. Furthermore, the provision of connecting members between the metal brackets and metal grille surround of Rosen et al., as taught by Mallicote, results in the plurality of connecting members being a plurality of conductive members configured to electrically couple the plurality of mounting brackets to the body, each conductive member extending in between the body and a respective mounting bracket and establishing an electrical connection therebetween, due to the contact between the metal brackets (through the connecting members or “conductive members”) and the metal grill surround body, where metals are known to conduct electricity. Through, this electrical connection, the grille surround of Rosen et al., as modified by Mallicote, can then be chrome plated as disclosed by Rosen et al. in col. 1, lines 58-60 so that the chrome plating is evenly distributed on the body and the plurality of mounting brackets due to the conductive members evenly distributing electricity throughout the body and the plurality of mounting brackets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 8 where each conductive member of the plurality of conductive members is a metal rod is not shown nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, the conductive members (120; annotated Fig. 5 above) of Mallicote US 11,628,787 are in the form of projections rather than a metal rod. It would not be obvious to modify Mallicote so replace the projection with a metal rod because the projection is a necessary part of the mechanical connection between the bracket and the body.
The recitation in claim 10 that a thickness of the adhesive between the body and each mounting bracket of the plurality of mounting brackets matches a length of each conductive member of the plurality of conductive members is not shown nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, the bracket (112; Fig. 5) of Mallicote US 11,628,787 is in general abutment with the grille surround body (annotated Fig. 5 above) where the adhesive would be a thin layer as compared to the length of the conductive members (projections 120; annotated Fig. 5 above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mohacsi US 9,707,916 discloses a vehicle grille assembly.
Kim et al. US 11,618,964 discloses a vehicle grille chrome plating method.
Cobble et al. S 7,246,832 disclose a vehicle grille assembly.
Ichioka et al. US 5,941,329 disclose a vehicle grille guard (surround) with a body and brackets (10) attached thereto. See Fig. 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612