DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (KR 19980042560 U) in view of Kojou (CN 102862610 A).
Regarding claim 1, Im discloses a vehicle hood assembly (Im, Fig. 1), comprising: a hood outer (Im, abstract and Fig. 1, outer side of top side of hood or hood outer can be the outer frame); a hood inner (Im, abstract and Fig. 1-2, underside of hood 1 which includes 2, or hood inner can be inner frame 4) having a domed region (Im, 1 in Fig. 1-2, having curvature making it a domed region) and a waterfall region (Im, 2 in Fig. 1).
Im fails to disclose a latch reinforcement that is secured to the waterfall region.
Kojou teaches a latch reinforcement (Kojou, 57 in Fig. 4 and 10, reinforces latch parts 56 and 27) that is secured to the waterfall region (Kojou, Fig. 2 and 4, secured to a downwardly extending waterfall region).
Kojou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood and grille assembly as Im.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im to incorporate the teachings of Kojou with a reasonable expectation of success and have a latch reinforcement. Doing so ensures the hood is properly secured to the vehicle when the vehicle is moving.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein the hood outer and the hood inner are constituents of a hood assembly that is configured to pivot together relative to a vehicle frame back-and-forth between a closed position and an open position (Im, first paragraph on page 2 of machine translation, hood is hinged and can close/open the engine room).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 2, wherein the waterfall region cascades downward from the domed region when the hood assembly is in the closed position (Kojou, Fig. 4 shows the closed position where the waterfall region cascades downward).
Kojou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood and grille assembly as Im.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im to incorporate the teachings of Kojou with a reasonable expectation of success and have a latch reinforcement. Doing so allows the grille to function properly by letting air travelling through, and provides sufficient space underneath the hood for other vehicle parts or for storage.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 2, wherein the hood assembly lacks a palm dimpler disposed between the domed region and the waterfall region (Im, Fig. 1-2, no palm dimpler or brackets are between the two regions).
Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “palm dimpler” is interpreted as a bracket-like structure (as described in paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s Specification) or equivalent that inhibits dimpling on the hood when a user presses the hood by their palm to close the hood.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein the latch reinforcement is a constituent element of a hood latch assembly (Kojou, Fig. 4 and 10, the latch reinforcement helps in latching the hood).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein the latch reinforcement is a striker reinforcement (Kojou, Fig. 4 and 10, reinforces striker 56).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein the domed region transitions directly into the waterfall region (Im, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein an area between the domed region and the waterfall region is unchanneled (Im, Fig. 1-2, no channels between the two regions).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 15 when used in normal and usual operation. Im discloses providing a waterfall region (Im, 2 in Fig. 1) of a hood inner (Im, abstract and Fig. 1-2, underside of hood 1 which includes 2, or hood inner can be inner frame 4) extending directly from a domed region (Im, 1 in Fig. 1-2, having curvature making it a domed region) of the hood inner.
Im fails to disclose latch supporting; securing a latch reinforcement of a latch assembly to the waterfall region.
Kojou teaches latch supporting (Kojou, Fig. 4, supporting latch assembly 56 and 27); securing a latch reinforcement of a latch assembly to the waterfall region (Kojou, latch reinforcement 57 in Fig. 4 and 10; Fig. 2 and 4, secured to a downwardly extending waterfall region).
Kojou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood and grille assembly as Im.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im to incorporate the teachings of Kojou with a reasonable expectation of success and have a latch reinforcement. Doing so ensures the hood is properly secured to the vehicle when the vehicle is moving.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising providing the waterfall region without a channel between the waterfall region and the domed region (Im, Fig. 1-2, no channels between the two regions).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising securing the hood inner to a hood outer without including a palm dimpler between the hood inner and the hood outer (Im, Fig. 1-2, no palm dimpler or brackets are between the two parts).
Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “palm dimpler” is interpreted as a bracket-like structure (as described in paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s Specification) or equivalent that inhibits dimpling on the hood when a user presses the hood by their palm to close the hood.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the waterfall region cascades downward to a position between a driver side headlight assembly and a passenger side headlight assembly when in a closed position (Kojou, Fig. 1, between two headlights 21).
Kojou is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood and grille assembly as Im.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im to incorporate the teachings of Kojou with a reasonable expectation of success and have headlights such that the waterfall region is between the two headlights. Doing so provides headlights which will enhance safety during vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, wherein the hood outer supports a grille (Im, 3 in Fig. 1) of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 9, wherein the striker reinforcement and the waterfall region face forwardly relative to a vehicle (Im, abstract, hood is located at the vehicle front; and Kojou, Fig. 1 and 4 show both the reinforcement bracket 57 and the waterfall region face front).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the latch reinforcement is a striker reinforcement (Kojou, Fig. 4 and 10, reinforces striker 56).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising securing the hood inner to a hood outer (Im, abstract and Fig. 2, inner frame and outer frame extends to form the grille support bracket 2 which the grille 3 is fixed to) that supports a grille (Im, 3 in Fig. 1, supported on the outer side) of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Im in view of Kojou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wisneski et al. (US 10480239 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 2, but fails to teach the hood assembly encloses a frunk of an electrified vehicle when in the closed position.
Wisneski teaches the hood assembly encloses a frunk (Wisneski, 24 in Fig. 1) of an electrified vehicle (Wisneski, Col. 2 line 13) when in the closed position.
Wisneski is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood and grille assembly as Im in view of Kojou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im in view of Kojou to incorporate the teachings of Wisneski with a reasonable expectation of success and make the vehicle an electric vehicle with a frunk or use the hood assembly on an electric vehicle with a frunk. Doing so provides additional storage and saves on fuel cost; or provides the improved assembly workability to the electric vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Im in view of Kojou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20140062142 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach a plurality of apertures.
Ikeda teaches a plurality of apertures (Ikeda, 66-67 in Fig. 7).
Ikeda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood as Im in view of Kojou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im in view of Kojou to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda with a reasonable expectation of success and have an inner with apertures. Doing so saves weight on the vehicle hood which reduces material expenditure and saves fuel energy.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach the domed region is adhesively secured to the hood outer at a position aft the waterfall region.
Ikeda teaches the domed region is adhesively secured to the hood outer at a position (Ikeda, paragraph 33, hood inner and hood outer are joined by adhesive) aft the waterfall region (after combination, domed region is aft the waterfall region in Im, and Ikeda teaches the adhesive used at 40A of the domed region in paragraph 33 and Fig. 6).
Ikeda is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood as Im in view of Kojou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im in view of Kojou to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda with a reasonable expectation of success and have outer and inner frames of Im joined by adhesives. Doing so provides additional structural integrity, and allows weight saving structure on the hood inner while still have a fully covered outer surface.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Im in view of Kojou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seksaria et al. (US 20100140979 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Im in view of Kojou teaches the vehicle hood assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach a passenger side hinge reinforcement and a driver side hinge reinforcement disposed on opposing sides of the domed region.
Seksaria teaches a passenger side hinge reinforcement and a driver side hinge reinforcement (Seksaria, 70 in Fig. 1B, one on each lateral side) disposed on opposing sides of the domed region (after combination).
Seksaria is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle hood as Im in view of Kojou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly as taught by Im in view of Kojou to incorporate the teachings of Seksaria with a reasonable expectation of success and have hinge reinforcements. Doing so provides further support and increased structural integrity for the hood assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the second paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant argues that Ikeda’s apertures are not in any domed region as required by claim 11 and the claimed relationship of claim 14 is supplied by Ikeda only through hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 7 of Ikeda shows the hood has an upwardly protruding domed region where the central part of the hood is above the peripheral parts. The fact that there is a wave-shape does not prevent the hood from having a domed region. Regarding claim 14, Im (KR 19980042560 U) already discloses a hood inner (inner frame in abstract of Im and Fig. 2) secured to the hood outer at a location aft the waterfall region (Fig. 2). It is therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive taught by Ikeda without any hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle hoods with waterfall regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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 at (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 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights