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 CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/730,568 filed on 7/19/24. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/19/24, 5/29/25 & 1/8/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference characters. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1
Line 6: “at least one bead among a bead”
It is unclear if there is one bead or one of multiple beads.
Line 10: “a plurality of the beads”
It is unclear if there is a plurality of beads or multiple single beads. Since it is unclear if the beads are referring to those mentioned on line 6.
Claim 4
Line 2: “a plurality of the units”
It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the plurality of units mentioned in claim 1 or that additional plurality of units are being claimed.
Claim 5
Lines 2 & 3: “a plurality of beads”
It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the plurality of beads mentioned in claim 1 or that additional plurality of beads are being claimed.
Claims 2, 3 & 6-8 are also rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 207045464 to Chen et al. (applicant cited reference).
Claim 1
Chen discloses in Figs 1-7,
An inner panel of an automobile hood (see inner panel in Fig 1), comprising: a pedestal (see areas surrounding 21-24, Fig 3) that is arranged on an inner side of the inner panel relative to an outer circumferential portion (e.g. formed by 6, 7 & 8) of the inner panel, a plurality of units (e.g. 21-24) that each include an inclined wall rising from the pedestal, and a flange (Figs 1-6, flanges formed between the units 21-24) that is continuous with an upper end of the inclined wall, and at least one bead among a bead (e.g. 111-114) that connects together outer end portions of the inner panel in a direction perpendicular to a sheet thickness direction of the inner panel, and a bead that connects an outer circumferential portion of the pedestal and the outer end portion (see paragraphs 50-54, see Fig 1), wherein: a plurality of the beads are provided, and are arranged on a rear side (e.g. 7) of the inner panel in a vehicle length direction of a vehicle in which the automobile hood is installed (Fig 1, 111-114).
Claim 3
The inner panel of an automobile hood according to claim 1, wherein: the flange of each of the units is a polygonal shape (best seen in Figs 1 & 3) or a circular shape as viewed in the sheet thickness direction of the inner panel.
Claim 4
The inner panel of an automobile hood according to claim 3, wherein: a plurality of the units are disposed in a close-packed arrangement (Fig. 3, units are arranged next to each other).
Claim 5
The inner panel of an automobile hood according to claim 1, wherein: when the automobile hood is installed in the vehicle, a plurality of the beads (e.g. 102 & 11) are arranged so that a suspension tower of the vehicle is arranged between a plurality the beads as viewed in the sheet thickness direction of the inner panel (a suspension tower can be placed between 102 & 111 in the area of 4).
Claim 7
An automobile hood, comprising: the inner panel according to claim 1, and an outer panel that is arranged on an upper side of the inner panel and is joined to the flange (Fig. 4, the hood and the outer panel).
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.
Claims 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 207045464 to Chen et al. (applicant cited reference).
Claim 2
Chen discloses an inner panel of automobile hood with a pedestal, plurality of units, and a plurality of beads arranged on the rear side of the inner panel. Chen however does not explicitly disclose that each of the beads has a height of 10 mm to 40 mm and a width of 10 mm to 40 mm. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to make the height and width of the beads to be within 10mm to 40mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6
Chen doesn’t no explicitly disclose that the inner panel is composed of steel with a sheet thickness of 0.3mm to 0.6mm. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to make the sheet thickness to be within 0.33 mm to 0.6 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights