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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6-17-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 8-9 were amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: in both claims, “ punching, with a punch having a circumferential cutting edge, at least aperture in the plastic component that is placed on the die and defining a punched aperture,” should be “ punching, with a punch having a circumferential cutting edge, at least an aperture in the plastic component that is placed on the die and defining a punched aperture, Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “painting the plastic component,” of Claim 6, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 is 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 re Claim 2, “wherein the at least one of the two surfaces having the adhesive tape or the adhesive film faces the die,” is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim requires two surfaces. Or if the claim requires a single surface that can have either an adhesive tap or an adhesive film. The Claim was interpreted as a single surface with either adhesive tape or adhesive film. The claims were examined a best understood. 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 1-2, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,599,253 to Bree in view of US 5,549,940 to Noone.
In re Claim 1, Bree teaches a method for producing a flat plastic component for a (see Fig. 4a/b and Col. 1, ll. 7-16, teaching a plastic workpieces) the method comprising:
placing a plastic component on a die (see Fig. 4a/b, workpiece #25/26 placed on a die #90 with a punch #102), wherein the plastic component has a surface having an adhesive layer (see Col. 3, ll. 4-39, and Figs. 1 and 4a/b – in Fig. 1, #12 is an adhesive layer and #13 is the top or graphic surface – in Fig. 4a/b, #25 is the graphic face), wherein the adhesive layer is an adhesive tape or an adhesive films applied thereto (see Fig. 1, #12 in view of Fig. 4a/b), wherein the surface having the adhesive layer faces the die (see Fig. 4a/b, showing surface #26 of the workpiece facing die #94),
wherein the die includes a circumferential cutting edge configured to define an edge of each desired aperture (see Fig. 4a/b, #100),
placing a hold down component above the plastic component (see Figs. 4a, #104), wherein the plastic component is disposed between an upper surface of the die and the hold down component (see Fig. 4a, #104/90), wherein the hold down component is placed against a top surface of the plastic component (see Fig. 4b, #104, contacting a top surface of the workpiece #25/26), wherein the surface having the adhesive layer is a bottom surface and is disposed against the die (see Fig. 1 in view of Figs. 4a/b, surface #26 in Figs. 4a/b, is opposite of the of the graphic surface #25/13), and the hold down component is placed on the top surface of the plastic component (see Fig. 4b, showing #104 on the top surface of the workpiece), which is an opposite surface of the plastic component relative to the surface having the adhesive layer, the upper surface having no adhesive layer (see Fig. 1, in view of Figs. 4a/b as well as see Col. 3, ll. 4-39);
punching (see Figs. 4a/b), with a punch having a circumferential cutting edge (see Fig. 2, showing the design shape and Figs. 4a/b, #102), at least aperture in the plastic component that is placed on the die and defining a punched aperture, wherein the punched aperture extends through an entire height of the plastic component and of the adhesive tape or adhesive film (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, which states “ the platform 94 is depressed below the upper edge of the knife 100 and the substrate 26 is urged against the knife 100 whereupon a decorative shape 126 is cut from the substrate 26 and forced into the female die cavity 92. As the press closes, the stripper plate 104 engages the portions of the substrate 26 surrounding the shape 126 to prevent those portions from angling around the knife edge 100 and to assist in obtaining a sharply cut vertical edge.”),
wherein the punching includes pressing the plastic component against the die (see Figs. 4a/b, #90), in a direction from the top surface of the plastic component that is facing away from the die, by the punch (see Figs. 4a/b, #102) moving in a downward direction, in order to punch out the at least one aperture (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, and the quotation cited above),
wherein the cutting edge of the punch and the cutting edge of the die correspond in position and shape to one another (see Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 4a/b);
wherein the punching includes holding the die and the hold down component in place stationary, while the punch moves in the punching direction relative to the stationary die and hold down component in order to punch out the at least one aperture (see Figs. 4a/b showing that the hold down components #104 and the die #102 are move independently and that hold down component is stationary as the punch moves through the workpiece).
Bree is silent as to whether the workpiece is an automotive component.
However, Noone teaches that it is known to provide an automobile component that is a flat plastic component for a motor vehicle, at least one of two surfaces of the plastic component having an adhesive tape or an adhesive film applied thereto (see Noone Figs. 1 and 2, #10, which in Fig. 2 has apertures for the door handles; see also abstract and Col. 2, ll. 47-64 teaching “standard plastic sheet material with permanent adhesive backings for application to non-ferrous body panels; see also abstract).
In the same field of invention, automotive parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the punch of Bree to make the emblems of Noone to attach to a car. Doing so is applying a known structure to a known product to achieve the result of producing a product that can be used to decorate a car.
In re Claim 2, Bree teaches a method for producing a flat plastic component (see Figs.1-2 and Figs. 4a/b), the method comprising:
placing a plastic component on a die(see Fig. 4a/b, workpiece #25/26 placed on a die #90 with a punch #102), wherein the plastic component has a surface having an adhesive layer (see Col. 3, ll. 4-39, and Figs. 1 and 4a/b – in Fig. 1, #12 is an adhesive layer and #13 is the top or graphic surface – in Fig. 4a/b, #25 is the graphic face), wherein the adhesive layer is an adhesive tape or an adhesive film, applied thereto (see Fig. 1 #12 and Col. 3, ll. 4-39), wherein the at least one of the two surfaces having the adhesive tape or the adhesive film faces the die(see Fig. 4a/b, showing surface #26 of the workpiece facing die #94),
wherein the die includes a circumferential cutting edge configured to define an edge of each desired aperture (see Fig. 4a/b, #100),
placing a hold down component above the plastic component (see Figs. 4a, #104), wherein the plastic component is disposed between an upper surface of the die and the hold down component (see Fig. 4a, #104/90), wherein the hold down component is placed against a top surface of the plastic component (see Fig. 4b, #104, contacting a top surface of the workpiece #25/26), wherein the surface having the adhesive layer is disposed against the die(see Fig. 1 in view of Figs. 4a/b, surface #26 in Figs. 4a/b, is opposite of the of the graphic surface #25/13), and the hold down component is placed on an opposite surface of the plastic component having no adhesive layer(see Fig. 4b, showing #104 on the top surface of the workpiece);
punching (see Figs. 4a/b), with a punch having a circumferential cutting edge (see Fig. 2, showing the design shape and Figs. 4a/b, #102), at least aperture in the plastic component that is placed on the die and defining a punched aperture, wherein the punched aperture extends through an entire height of the plastic component and of the adhesive tape or adhesive film (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, which states “ the platform 94 is depressed below the upper edge of the knife 100 and the substrate 26 is urged against the knife 100 whereupon a decorative shape 126 is cut from the substrate 26 and forced into the female die cavity 92. As the press closes, the stripper plate 104 engages the portions of the substrate 26 surrounding the shape 126 to prevent those portions from angling around the knife edge 100 and to assist in obtaining a sharply cut vertical edge.”),
wherein the punching includes pressing the plastic component against the die (see Figs. 4a/b, #90), from the surface facing away from the die by the punch, in order to punch out the at least one aperture (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, and the quotation cited above),
wherein the cutting edge of the punch and the cutting edge of the die correspond in position and shape to one another (see Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 4a/b);
wherein the cutting edge of the die defines a die tip defined by a radially inward edge of a circumferential sloped surface (see Fig. 4a/b, #100), wherein the sloped surface of the die extends radially inwardly and upwardly toward the die tip and an opening, for receiving the punch, enclosed by the die tip, and/or wherein the cutting edge of the punch defines a punch tip defined at a radially outward edge of a circumferential sloped surface (see Figs. 4a/b #100 in view of Applicant’s Figs. 1-2), wherein the sloped surface of the punch extends radially outward and downwardly toward the punch tip (see Figs. 4a/b, #100 in view of Applicant’s Figs. 1-2);
wherein the cutting edge of the die is disposed radially outward from the cutting edge of the punch (see Fig. 4b, #100 is outwardly of #102), wherein the cutting edge of the punch is received radially within the cutting edge of the die (see Fig. 4b).
Bree is silent as to whether the workpiece is an automotive component.
However, Noone teaches that it is known to provide an automobile component that is a flat plastic component for a motor vehicle, at least one of two surfaces of the plastic component having an adhesive tape or an adhesive film applied thereto (see Noone Figs. 1 and 2, #10, which in Fig. 2 has apertures for the door handles; see also abstract and Col. 2, ll. 47-64 teaching “standard plastic sheet material with permanent adhesive backings for application to non-ferrous body panels; see also abstract).
In the same field of invention, automotive parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the punch of Bree to make the emblems of Noone to attach to a car. Doing so is applying a known structure to a known product to achieve the result of producing a product that can be used to decorate a car.
In re Claim 4, modified Bree, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the cutting edge of the die is disposed radially outwardly relative to the cutting edge of the punch (Bree, Fig. 4a/b, #100 is outside of #102).
In re Claim 5, modified Bree, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a height of the cutting edge of the die measured relative to an upper surface on which the plastic component is placed is equal or larger than a height of the adhesive tape layer (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, which states “ the platform 94 is depressed below the upper edge of the knife 100 and the substrate 26 is urged against the knife 100 whereupon a decorative shape 126 is cut from the substrate 26 and forced into the female die cavity 92. As the press closes, the stripper plate 104 engages the portions of the substrate 26 surrounding the shape 126 to prevent those portions from angling around the knife edge 100 and to assist in obtaining a sharply cut vertical edge.” The cutting-edge cuts through the workpiece and is therefore necessarily longer or has a larger dimension than the adhesive tape layer of the workpiece).
In re Claim 8, modified Bree, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the height of the die is higher than the height of the adhesive layer (see Col. 7, ll. 3-52, which states “ the platform 94 is depressed below the upper edge of the knife 100 and the substrate 26 is urged against the knife 100 whereupon a decorative shape 126 is cut from the substrate 26 and forced into the female die cavity 92. As the press closes, the stripper plate 104 engages the portions of the substrate 26 surrounding the shape 126 to prevent those portions from angling around the knife edge 100 and to assist in obtaining a sharply cut vertical edge.” The cutting-edge cuts through the workpiece and is therefore necessarily longer or has a larger dimension than the adhesive tape layer of the workpiece).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,599,253 to Bree in view of US 5,549,940 to Noone, and further in view of JP 2007100029 A.
In re Claim 3, modified Bree, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein the circumferential sloped surface of cutting edge of the die has an angle of 30 to 60 degrees from the die tip.
However, JP 2007100029 A teach that it is known in the art of cutting adhesive structures to provide a blade edge having a range of 20 degrees to 60 degrees (see JP 2007100029A teaches a “cutting blade 54 has an angle θ of 20 ° to 60 °”).
In the same field of invention, cutting blades for adhesive structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the blade edge at an angle between 20 degrees and 60 degrees. Doing is combining prior art element according to known methods to yield the predictable results of cutting the workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 11, modified Bree, in re Claim 3, teaches wherein the circumferential sloped surface of the cutting edge of the die has an angle of 45 degrees (see JP 2007100029A teaches a “cutting blade 54 has an angle θ of 20 ° to 60 °”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,599,253 to Bree in view of US 5,549,940 to Noone, and further in view of US 2006/0175855 to Yamamoto.
In re Claim 6, it is unclear if modified Bree, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the method includes painting the plastic component before the punching of the at least one aperture.
However, Yamamoto teaches that it is known in the art of adhering structure to cars to paint the structures (see Yamamoto, Para 0004-0007). It would have been obvious to color the structures of modified Noone in any known manner, including painting a professional football team colors on the structure to be attached to the car, as taught by Yamamoto. Doing so is the use of a known technique (painting) to archive the results of providing the correct color that the user desires (see MPEP 2143, I, C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,599,253 to Bree in view of US 5,549,940 to Noone, and US 2006/0175855 to Yamamoto, and further in view of DE 20006585 U1.
In re Claim 7, modified Bree, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the painting of the plastic component is performed before applying the adhesive layer to the plastic component.
However, DE 20006585 U1 teaches that it is known in the art of automotive trim pieces it is known to place adhesive on a painted part (see DE 20006585 U1, which states: As Figure 3 shows, the protective strip 2 is connected to a carrier material 3, here consisting of a transparent adhesive film, which in turn adheres to the paint layer.).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to paint the plastic part before adding the adhesive to the part. Doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, I, A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,599,253 to Bree in view of US 5,549,940 to Noone, and further in view of US 5,136,907 to Bakermans.
In re Claim 10, modified Bree, in re Claim 4, does not teach wherein there is a radial distance of about 0.05 mm to 1 mm between the cutting edge of the die and the cutting edge of the punch.
However, Bakermans teaches that the punch clearance is 8 percent of the stock thickness (see Bakermans, Col 7, ll. 9-26 teaching punch clearance of 8 percent of the stock thickness). In other words, the punch clearance is a result effective variable. gap between the die and the punch is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide a radial distance of about 0.05mm to 1 mm between the cutting edge of the die and the cutting edge of the punch, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art adjusts the punch clearance based on the thickness of the workpiece. For example, a 10 mm workpiece would have a punch clearance of 0.8mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
In re Claim 9, none of the cited prior art teaches “wherein the height of the cutting edge is 105 percent to 150 percent of the height of the adhesive layer.” There was no reason to modify the height of the blade to the height of the adhesive layer uncovered that art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that CN 107443482A, JP 59023746A and Noone, does not teach the hold down component independently movable relative to the punch. US 4,599,253 to Bree teaches that it is known in the art of punching to independently move the hold down component relative to the punch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
