DETAILED ACTION
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 3-4 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 3 recites “an inner door panel coupled to and spaced apart from the inner door panel”. This recitation is indefinite as it is not understood how the inner door panel is coupled to itself. For the purposes of examination this limitation is interpreted as claiming an inner door panel coupled to the door panel.
Dependent claim 4 does not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 3 and is thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-9, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (US 20240181851) in view of Bruning (US 20070085383).
Regarding claim 1: Hernandez discloses an automotive door 12 (Fig. 1; [0047]). Hernandez discloses a door frame 100 and a door panel 200 coupled to the door frame comprising a reinforcement zone (zone containing reinforcement members 800) (Fig. 3; [0047]). Hernandez discloses a reinforcement member 800 disposed at the reinforcement zone (Fig. 3; [0047], [0050]).
Hernandez does not explicitly disclose that the reinforcement member is composed of solidified glue. Bruning discloses a reinforcement member composed of a solidified glue ([0001]-[0007] – Bruning discloses melted plastic beads to form the reinforcement; as the specification does not describe any particular type of glue and as many glues are composed of plastic, the examiner finds that Bruning discloses the generically claimed and described “glue”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Hernandez so that the reinforcement member is composed of solidified glue as taught by Bruning. As both Hernandez and Bruning are directed to vehicle doors, as the use of reinforcement members in vehicle doors are very well known in the art, and as Bruning explicitly discloses that reinforcement members may be composed of solidified glue, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired reinforcement member material from a finite selection of reinforcement member materials. Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that the reinforcement member is a frequency attenuator (Hernandez – [0063], [0076], [0081]; Bruning – [0010]).
Regarding claim 3: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses an inner door panel 300 coupled to and spaced apart from the door panel to form a cavity therebetween (Hernandez – Figs. 3, 11; [0047]).
Regarding claim 4: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that the reinforcement member is a frequency attenuator attenuating a resonance frequency with the cavity (Hernandez – [0063], [0076], [0081]; Bruning – [0010]).
Regarding claim 5: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that the reinforcement zone comprises a first reinforcement zone and a second reinforcement zone and the reinforcement member comprises a first reinforcement member and a second reinforcement member (Hernandez – [0047] – multiple reinforcement members).
Regarding claim 6: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that the first reinforcement member is a first frequency attenuator and the second reinforcement member is a second frequency attenuator (Hernandez – [0063], [0076], [0081]; Bruning – [0010]).
Regarding claim 7: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses an automotive vehicle (Hernandez – 10) comprising a vehicle body, a first door (Hernandez – 12) comprising the automotive door of claim 1 (Hernandez – Fig. 1; [0047]).
Regarding claim 8: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses a second door (Hernandez – 12) comprising the door of claim 1 (Hernandez – Fig. 1; [0047]).
Regarding claim 9: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses a method comprising determining a reinforcement zone for a door panel (Hernandez – Figs. 1, 3; [0047]). Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses heating glue (see above; Bruning – [0001]-[0007] – Bruning discloses melted plastic beads to form the reinforcement; as the specification does not describe any particular type of glue and as many glues are composed of plastic, the examiner finds that Bruning discloses the generically claimed and described “glue”). Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses applying the glue on an inside of the door panel (Hernandez – Fig. 3; [0047]; Bruning - [0001]-[0007]; Hernandez discloses the reinforcement member and Bruning substitutes the glue for Hernandez’s element 800). Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses cooling the glue in the reinforcement zone to form a reinforcement member of the door panel (Hernandez discloses the reinforcement member and Bruning substitutes the glue for Hernandez’s element 800; as the claim is not specific regarding when/where the cooling and heating is done, the examiner finds that the combination of Hernandez and Bruning disclose the claims as recited).
Regarding claim 12: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that cooling the glue comprises forming a resonance frequency attenuator (Bruning - [0001]-[0007]; as the claim is not specific regarding when/where the cooling is done, the examiner finds that Bruning disclose the claim as recited).
Regarding claim 14: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses that determining the reinforcement zone comprises determining a first reinforcement zone and a second reinforcement zone of the door panel (Hernandez – [0047] – multiple reinforcement members and thus multiple zones).
Regarding claim 15: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, discloses applying glue to the first reinforcement zone and the second reinforcement zone (Hernandez – Fig. 3; [0047]; Bruning - [0001]-[0007]; Hernandez discloses the reinforcement member and Bruning substitutes the glue for Hernandez’s element 800).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (US 20240181851) and Bruning (US 20070085383), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamato et al. (US 20170113633).
Hernandez and Bruning disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, does not explicitly disclose determining a resonance frequency of the door panel. Yamato discloses determining a resonance frequency of the door panel ([0051]-[0052]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Hernandez, as modified by Bruning, to determine a resonance frequency of the door panel as taught by Yamato. As Hernandez, Bruning, and Yamato are directed to vehicle door noise suppression, as the use of vehicle noise suppression is very well known in the art, and as Yamato explicitly discloses determining a resonance frequency of the door panel, it would have been within routine skill to have selected to perform desired noise creation testing on a door panel from a finite selection of door panel noise tests. Such a simple addition/substitution and selection would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11: Hernandez, as modified by Bruning and Yamato, discloses determining the reinforcement zone to reduce the resonance frequency (Hernandez – [0063], [0076], [0081]; Bruning – [0010]; Yamato – [0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Reinforcement members and noise suppression in automobile doors, including the various structures, structural positioning, positioning relationships, and method steps are well known in the arts. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Hernandez et al. (US 20240181851), Bruning (US 20070085383), Yamato et al. (US 20170113633), Kovie et al. (US 20230101929), Kovie et al. (US 20230077789), Iozzo et al. (US 20200384834), Muta et al. (US 20200248488), Hummer et al. (US 10603990), and Hanley et al. (US 20180171087). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, automotive doors, door frames, door panels, reinforcement members within a reinforcement zone created by the door and door panel, using a solidified glue to form the reinforcement member, and heating and cooling the glue to form the reinforcement member. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined operational steps and positional interconnection relationships. Specifically, the art does not disclose some of the specific method steps of creating the reinforcement member when combined with other recited operational steps. It could be argued that as the individual structure is generally known in the art, such could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, steps, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
4/4/2026
Prosecution Insights