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”.
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.
Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 7, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and line 2 reciting a combination in that the first and second flanges are positively recited as being (“welded” to a door), thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as combination claims. If applicant amends the claims to be directed to the subcombination, any indication of allowable subject matter will have to be reevaluated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 359 (CN 220220359).
For claim 1, CN 359 discloses a door hinge reinforcement comprising:
a plate (1) having a first hinge receiving seat (4a) and a second hinge receiving seat (4b) spaced axial from the first receiving seat along the plate;
a window (not numbered but best seen in FIG. 4 at the middle convex part 13 and seen as the empty space below the first (upper) hinge receiving seat) in the plate, the window positioned between the first and second receiving seats;
a first flange extending along a 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 extending along the 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
PNG
media_image1.png
694
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a reinforcing floor (near generally 12 of FIGS.3-4) 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, CN 359 discloses a vehicle door (FIGS.1-2, described as the “back door”) comprising: a door body and the hinge reinforcement of claim 1.
For claim 2, the first flange includes a plurality of fingers (not numbered, best seen at the right hand side in FIG.3) between the first and second receiving seats.
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.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 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.
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.
Claims 7-8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 359.
CN 359 discloses the first and second flanges are attached to a door or door body.
CN 359 fails to disclose the components welded 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 CN 359 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 filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 112 rejections, all but the rejection to claim 7 are obviated by the amendment.
With regard to the 102 and 103 prior art rejections, applicant argues CN '359 does not anticipate the claim (as amended) because the second flange (at 1 in FIG. 3) is terminated in a central portion of the reinforcing plate 1 that is delineated by an upper extension part 11 and a lower extension part 12 (See FIGS. 3-4). Initially, examiner disagrees and asserts that what is shown is not a termination of the flange but a narrowing thereof. Additionally, the examiner notes that the language of the claim states that the flange need only extend along “a length” not the entirety of the plate. By reciting only “a length” and not, for example, the entire length, the claim is broad enough to still be satisfied by the CN ‘359 reference which has flanges extending along “a length” of the plate.
Applicant further argues CN '359 fails to disclose a plate including a reinforcing floor at a terminal end of the plate that is positioned between and connects the first flange and the second flange, as claimed. Examiner disagrees and notes that the plate of CN ‘359 includes a reinforcing floor (not numbered) as seen in FIGS. 1-4 at the lowermost part (see 12) of plate (1) that spans between the first and second flanges. The rejection(s) set forth above are maintained.
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 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