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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriyama (2017/0240031).
For claim 1, Moriyama discloses a door hinge reinforcement comprising:
a plate (11) having a first hinge receiving seat (at 17) and a second hinge receiving seat (18) spaced axial from the first receiving seat along the plate;
a window (not numbered, FIG.6C) in the plate, the window positioned between the first and second receiving seats;
PNG
media_image1.png
350
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
287
169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first flange (11a or 11b) extending along an entire length of the plate at a position located outboard from the first and second hinge receiving seats, and the first flange extending outward from a side of the plate in a first direction;
a second flange (11a or 11b) extending along the entire length of the plate on an opposite side of the plate, and the second flange extending outward from the opposite side of the plate in a second and opposite direction; and
a reinforcing floor (not numbered, FIG.2) at a terminal end (lowermost end) of the plate adjacent the second receiving seat, the floor being positioned between and connecting the first and second flanges, extending transverse to the length of the plate.
For claim 9, Moriyama discloses a vehicle door comprising: a door body and the hinge reinforcement of claim 1.
For claims 3 and 11, the first and second receiving seats are axially aligned.
For claims 4 and 12, the window is in the plate spaced laterally from the first and second receiving seats (between the seats as seen in FIG.6C).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama as applied to claim 1 above and in view of CN 359.
For claim 2, Moriyama lacks the first flange including a plurality of fingers between the first and second receiving seats, a feature taught by CN 359 as seen at the right hand side in FIG.3.
PNG
media_image3.png
535
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the flanges of Moriyama with fingers or corrugations as taught by CN 359 in order to reinforce the same.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama.
Moriyama discloses the first and second flanges are attached to a door or door body (13).
Moriyama fails to disclose the components weldable together (claims 7 and 15) and therefore devoid of glue (claims 8 and 16). However, examiner takes official notice that welding is well known in the prior art for attaching vehicle body components to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to attach the flanges of the reinforcement of Moriyama to the door or door body by welding because doing so impart added strength to the components and allow for ease in manufacturing where in comparison to other forming methods, such as gluing, the same finished product would have required additional time (drying time) and diminished bond strength.
Further, regarding the welding limitation, the applicant should be aware of MPEP 2113, which provides that the method of forming or producing a product in an apparatus claim is not germane to the issue of its patentability.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and not dependent upon the method of production. See MPEP 2113. The product in a product-by-process claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. No distinctive structural characteristics is recited in the claim and provided to the final product of the present invention than is disclosed in the combination of the prior art references as set forth above.
Because applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights