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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 12-22-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-6 were amended. New Claims 7-11 were presented. Claims 1-11 are pending and examined in this action.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 9, “wherein the height of the die is 105 percent to 150 percent of the height of the adhesive layer,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s Para. 0016 states: Preferably the height of the cutting edges of the die corresponds at least to the height of the adhesive tape or adhesive film, preferably the height of the cutting edges of the die is somewhat higher than the height of the adhesive tape or adhesive film, particularly preferably about 105 percent to 150 percent of the height of the adhesive tape or adhesive film. While Applicant’s disclosure has support for the height of the die (which was interpreted as the overall height of the die) is larger than the adhesive layer in view of Applicant’s Fig. 1, there is no support for claim 9. This is because Applicants text states that it is the height of the cutting edge that is 105 percent to 150 percent of the height of the adhesive tape or film, and not the overall height of the die. As such, “wherein the height of the die is 105 percent to 150 percent of the height of the adhesive layer,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 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 re Claim 1, “wherein the at least one of the two surfaces having the adhesive tape or the adhesive film faces the die” is indefinite. Applicant has introduced a plastic component with “a surface.” The claim now appears to require two surfaces. Are these two surface separate from the previously introduced “a surface,” for a total of three surfaces? Or is the previously introduced “a surface” part of the two surfaces? This is unclear. Additionally, if two surfaces or even three surfaces are being claimed it is unclear which of the surfaces of the plastic component are being claimed. The claims were examined as 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 CN 107443482 A in view of JP 59023746 A and US 5,549,940 to Noone.
In re Claim 1, CN 107443482A teaches a method for producing a flat plastic component for a motor vehicle (see Fig. 1, #3 which is a PP material, PVC material, PET material or PE material with an adhesive – see translation, Pg. 1, bottom 7 lines) the method comprising:
placing a plastic component on a die (see Fig. 1, #3), wherein the plastic component has a surface having an adhesive layer (see translation, Pg. 1, bottom 7 lines teaching self-adhesive film), wherein the adhesive layer is an adhesive tape or an adhesive films applied thereto,
wherein the die includes a circumferential cutting edge configured to define an edge of each desired aperture,
placing a hold down component above the plastic component (see Fig. 1, #12 which is above #3), wherein the plastic component is disposed between an upper surface of the die and the hold down component (see Fig. 1, showing #3 between #2 and 312), wherein the hold down component is placed against a top surface of the plastic component (see the punch / upper die #1 moves “downward” #12 contacts he top surface of #3),
punching, with a punch (see Fig. 1) having a circumferential cutting edge, at least aperture in the plastic component that is placed on the die and defining a punched aperture (see Fig. 1, L1 defines the aperture), wherein the punched aperture extends through an entire height of the plastic component and of the adhesive tape of adhesive film (see Fig. 1, the punch punches through the entire workpiece),
wherein the punching includes pressing the plastic component against the die, from the surface facing away from the die by the punch, in order to punch out the at least one aperture (see Fig. 1 the punch #1 presses #3 against #2),
wherein the cutting edge of the punch and the cutting edge of the die correspond in position and shape to one another (#11 and #21 correspond in position and shape to one another in Fig. 1).
CN 107443482A is silent as to the position of the adhesive. As such, CN 107443482A does not teach wherein the at least one of the two surfaces having the adhesive tape or the adhesive film faces the die, wherein the surface having the adhesive laver is disposed against the die, and the hold down component is placed on an opposite surface of the plastic component having no adhesive laver.
However, JP 59023746 A teaches a punching device wherein “the adhesive layer 4 of the material 5 faces downward,” (see JP 59023746 A, Figs. 6-7 and translation). 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 orient the adhesive facing the “bottom” or away from the punch, as taught by JP 59023746 A. Doing so is the substation of one known workpiece orientation for another known workpiece orientation to achieve the result of punching out a workpiece with adhesive.
Additionally, 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 modified CN 107443482A 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, modified CN 107443482A, in re Claim 1, teaches:
wherein the cutting edge of the die defines a die tip (see CN 107443482A, Fig. 1, #21) defined by a radially inward edge of a circumferential sloped surface, wherein the sloped surface of the die extends radially inwardly and upwardly toward the die tip (see CN 107443482A, #21, which has an sloped inward edge) and an opening, for receiving the punch, enclosed by the die tip (see CN 107443482A, Fig. 1, opening between #21/21), 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 CN 107443482A, Fig. 1, tip of #11), wherein the sloped surface of the punch extends radially outward and downwardly toward the punch tip (see CN 107443482A, Fig. 1, tip of #11, has an outwardly sloped surface).
In re Claim 4, modified CN 107443482 A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the cutting edge of the die is disposed radially outwardly relative to the cutting edge of the punch (see CN 107443482 A, Fig. 1, when #11 is moved toward #22, the outer diameter of #22 is radially outwardly relative to #22).
In re Claim 5, modified CN 107443482 A, 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 annotated Fig. 1, below showing the cutting height of the punch is larger than the height of the workpiece, which includes the adhesive tape layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 8, modified CN 107443482 A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the height of the die is higher than the height of the adhesive layer (see annotated Fig. 1, under Claim 5, showing the height of #2 is larger than the “height” or thickness of the workpiece, which includes the adhesive layer.)
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107443482 A in view of JP 59023746 A and US 5,549,940 to Noone and further in view of JP 2007100029 A.
In re Claim 3, modified CN 107443482 A, 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.
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 CN 107443482 A, 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 CN 107443482 A in view of JP 59023746 A and 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 CN 107443482, 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 CN 107443482 A in view of JP 59023746 A, 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 CN 107443482, 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 an 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 CN 107443482 A in view of JP 59023746 A and US 5,549,940 to Noone, and further in view of US 5,136,907 to Bakermans.
In re Claim 10, modified CN 107443482 A, 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 of a 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.
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.
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 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