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 Objections
Claim 1- objected to because of the following informalities:
Re: claim 1, “form a cavity” should read “forms a cavity” and “wall in a plan view of the opening” should read “wall in a plane view of the opening”.
Re: claim 2, “a plan view of the opening” should read “a plane view of the opening”.
Re: claim 8, “distance between in each case one side” should read “distance between, in each case, one side”.
Re: claim 14, “close in each case one open” should read “close, in each case, one open”.
Re: claim 15, “close in each case one open” should read “close, in each case, one open”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kropfeld (Patent No. 6,896,320) in view of Poch et al. (US 20200172025 A1).
Re: claim 1, Kropfeld teaches a system of a structural element of a motor vehicle, having an insulating element arranged in the structural element, the system (Fig. 1 & 2) comprising: a structural element (100) which, in one portion (Fig. 2), forms a cavity (Annotated Fig. 2 – cavity) having at least two open ends (Annotated Fig. 2 – open ends), wherein a wall (Annotated Fig. 2 – wall) has at least one opening (150) in the portion; an insulating element (110) comprising a carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) and an expandable material (120) arranged on the carrier (See Fig. 2), wherein the carrier comprises a closed surface (140) and at least one side wall (110a) that is fastened to the closed surface (140) via ribs (Annotated Fig. 2 – ribs); wherein the insulating element (110) is arranged in the structural element (100) such that the closed surface (140) of the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) overlaps and covers the opening (150) of the wall (Annotated Fig. 2 – wall) in a plane view of the opening (Col. 2 – lines 57-65), and such that the at least one side wall (110a) is arranged substantially in a plane of a cross section in a region of an open end (Annotated Fig. 2 – open ends) of the cavity (Annotated Fig. 2 – cavity) and thus closes (130) the cross section of the cavity in the region of the open end (Claim 12 – “A reinforced structural body comprising a) a structural body having a cavity b) a bulkhead-containing insert disposed and sealed within the cavity” – See Also Col. 2 – lines 57-60). Kropfeld fails to teach a structural element which comprises at least two joined walls; wherein the expandable material has an expansion rate of at least 800%. Kropfeld is silent on the at least one side wall closes the cross section of the cavity in the region of the open end over at least 50% of the cross section.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the side wall of Kropfeld to close the cross section of the cavity by at least 50% of the cross section since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the side wall of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional size and since the side wall (bulkhead as disclosed) is to be sealed with sealant (130) on the structural frame the device would function appropriately having the claimed cross-sectional size. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
However, Poch teaches a structural element which comprises at least two joined walls (Annotated Fig. 4 – first wall, second wall); wherein the expandable material has an expansion rate of at least 800% (Col. 3 – lines 51-55) [0025].
Kropfeld and Poch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle structural reinforcement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kropfeld’s structural element and expandable polyurethane foam with those of Poch’s two joined walls and expandable material in order to provide the advantage of being able to properly place the insert within the cavity in an exact spot before closing off the structure with the other wall and the increased expansion rate to allow for the space of the insert to be filled completely and provide increased thermal and sound insulating properties.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Kropfeld is silent on in a plane view of the opening, the closed surface covers an area amounting to at least 300% of an area of the opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kropfeld to cover an area amounting to at least 300% of an area of the opening since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed covering of the opening and since the closed section (140) is to close off the opening to prevent being clogged with the expanding foam, the device would function appropriately having the claimed area coverage. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 3, Kropfeld fails to teach wherein the closed surface is arched in the shape of a dome over the opening.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the case of the instant application, the change of shape of the closed surface to a dome shape would have no new or unexpected results to the device as the closed surface has a purpose of sealing off the opening such that the expandable material does not clog the opening.
Re: claim 4, Kropfeld is silent on wherein the at least one side wall closes the cross section of the cavity in the region of the open end over at least 70% of the cross section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the side wall of Kropfeld to close the cross section of the cavity by at least 70% of the cross section since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the side wall of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed cross-sectional size and since the side wall (bulkhead as disclosed) is to be sealed with sealant (130) on the structural frame the device would function appropriately having the claimed cross-sectional size. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 5, Kropfeld teaches wherein the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) has two side walls (110a) which are spaced from one another (See Fig. 2). Kropfeld is silent on the two side walls which are spaced from one another by at least 100 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kropfeld to space the two side walls from each other by at least 100mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since the device is located within the structural frame of a vehicle to provide reinforcement to the device the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 6, Kropfeld teaches wherein the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) has two side walls (110a) which are arranged at an angle with respect to one another (Annotated Fig. 2 – angled). Kropfeld is silent on wherein the two side walls are arranged at an angle of between 30 degrees and 150 degrees with respect to one another.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kropfeld to angle the at least two side walls between 30 degrees and 150 degrees with respect to one another since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the device is located within the structural frame of a vehicle at the T-portion (Seen in Fig. 2) the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 7, Kropfeld teaches wherein the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) has at least two side walls (110a), and wherein the closed surface (140) of the carrier is arranged substantially between the side walls (See Fig. 2).
Re: claim 8, Kropfeld is silent on wherein a distance between, in each case, one side wall and the closed surface is at least 20 mm, such that, as a result of an expansion of the expandable material, a layer of the expanded material with a thickness of at least 20 mm can be formed on the side wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kropfeld to have the distance between one side wall and the closed surface be at least 20mm and the thickness of the expandable material be at least 20mm formed on the side wall since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kropfeld would not operate differently with the claimed distance and thickness and since the device has the closed portion where the opening is to seal off the expandable material from the opening the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance and thickness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 9, Kropfeld fails to teach wherein the expandable material has an expansion rate of at least 2000%.
However, Poch teaches wherein the expandable material has an expansion rate of at least 2000% (Col. 3 – lines 51-55) [0025].
Kropfeld and Poch are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle structural reinforcement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Kropfeld’s expandable polyurethane foam with those of Poch’s expandable material in order to provide the advantage of allowing for the space of the insert to be filled completely and provide increased thermal and sound insulating properties.
Re: claim 10, Kropfeld teaches wherein, in a region of the opening (150), no expandable material is arranged on that side of the closed surface (140) which faces toward the opening (15) (See Fig. 2).
Re: claim 11, Kropfeld teaches wherein more expandable material (120) is arranged on a side of the carrier facing away (Annotated Fig. 2 – away) from the opening (150) than on a side of the carrier facing toward the opening (Annotated Fig. 2 – toward).
Re: claim 12, Kropfeld wherein the expandable material (120) is arranged and dimensioned such that a region between the closed surface (140) and the structural element (100) is completely filled with expanded material after an expansion process (See Fig. 2). Kropfeld fails to teach a first and a second wall.
However, Poch teaches a first and a second wall (Annotated Fig. 4 – first wall, second wall).
Re: claim 13, Kropfeld and Poch fails to teach wherein each side wall is connected to the closed surface by means of two to six ribs.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the case of the instant application, each side wall is connected to the closed section by at least one rib, to duplicate a rib such that each sidewall is connected to the closed surface by at least two ribs would not produce a new or unexpected result as the ribs provide structural rigidity and duplicating this would increase the structural rigidity.
Re: claim 14, Kropfeld teaches wherein the portion of the structural element (100) is of elongate shape and forms a cavity (Annotated Fig. 2 – cavity) having two open ends (Annotated Fig. 2 – open ends), and/or wherein the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 – carrier) has two side walls (110a) that partially close, in each case, one open end of the cavity (See Fig. 2).
Re: claim 15, Kropfeld teaches wherein the portion of the structural element (100) is T-shaped (See Fig. 2) and forms a cavity (Annotated Fig. 2 – cavity) having three open ends (Annotated Fig. 2 – open ends), and/or wherein the carrier (Annotated Fig. 2 - carrier) has three side walls (110a) that partially close, in each case, one open end of the cavity (See Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takabatake (Patent No. 6,247,287) discloses a reinforcement member with insulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights