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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typos/missing words and/or punctuation.
In Paragraph [0045] of the specification, where it states “the additional absorbing layer being connected being connected molded front storage compartment for example being laminated or glued”, the language should be fixed to be clear as to what is intended to be said.
In Paragraph [0056] of the specification, where it states “the partition plate may be made of know constructions”, it should say “the partition plate may be made of known constructions”.
In Paragraph [0057] of the specification, where it states “Preferable the insert”, it should say “Preferably the insert”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 9-10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper word formatting.
For claims 9 and 12, on Ln. 2 of each of the claims, where the limitations state that there are “stiffening corrugations and or ribs”, it should be formatted as “stiffening corrugations and/or ribs”.
For claim 10, on Ln. 2, where the limitation states “and or at least one absorbing layer”, it should be formatted as “and/or at least one absorbing layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: typo.
For claim 11, in Ln. 3 of the claim, the limitation states “a flocked later”, which should say “a flocked layer”.
For claim 19, in Ln. 1 of the claim, the limitation states “a storage compartment for an electric vehicle for storage luggage”, where it is believed it is meant to say “a storage compartment for an electric vehicle for luggage storage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the storage compartment able to carry up to 80kg of load”, but there is no support for how the invention is able to support that amount of weight. Paragraph [0007] of the specification discloses that a typical front storage compartment may need to carry this load, but it is not described how the invention’s new design achieves this.
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 17 recites the limitation "wherein the at least one porous layer does not substantially deform such that the at least one porous fibrous layer substantially maintains its shape when loaded with luggage or goods" in Ln. 9-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The rest of the claim references the “at least one porous fibrous layer”, but in the beginning of this limitation it is stated as the “at least one porous layer”. It is unclear if this is a separate layer or the same layer.
Claim 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “supported around an upper rim of the storage compartment the electric vehicle’s main structural beams” is indefinite and the scope of what the phrase is claiming cannot be determined.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US Patent 9527450 B1), henceforth Bellis, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application 20070117489 A1), henceforth Yamamoto.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Bellis
Regarding claim 1, Bellis discloses the main structure of
a molded front storage compartment (integrated vehicle end structure 300, Fig. 3) for a vehicle (Col. 3, Ln. 55-63), comprising:
a structural layer shaped as a three-dimensional storage cavity for holding luggage or goods (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 above),
But Bellis does not disclose the specifics of the material.
Yamamoto discloses the specifics of the material that can be used for a vehicle molded article (Abstract), wherein it is
characterized in that the structural layer comprises at least one porous fibrous layer (layer C in Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0002] and [0003]);
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (layer C, Fig. 1) consists essentially of thermoplastic core-sheath bicomponent endless filaments (Paragraph [0051]),
wherein the core consists of a first polymer and the sheath consists of a second polymer (Paragraphs [0047] and [0051];
and wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (layer C, Fig. 1) substantially maintains its shape when loaded with luggage or goods (molded vehicle article; Paragraphs [0037] and [0043], Abstract).
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 vehicle end structure taught by Bellis to have been made out of the nonwoven fabric core-sheath material with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to make the vehicle end structure with an easily shaped/molded material (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) has a flexural modulus of between 70 and 1300 MPa measured according to ISO 178 (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0047]).
From Yamamoto, the flexural modulus range for an elastomer, which refers to a polymer being in the given range of 5000 kg/cm^2 or less (conversion to MPa is approximately 490 MPa). This meets the range for the core material.
For the sheath material, Yamamoto does not disclose the range of flexural modulus values.
However, it is an inherent material property of the chosen material for the sheath to be within this range, which Yamamoto teaches can be a polybutylene terephthalate copolymer (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first polymer is polyester (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the second polymer is a copolymer of polyester, a copolymer of polybutylene terephthalate (coPBT), or polypropylene (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the amount of the second polymer, in weight percentage of the at least one porous fibrous layer is between 10 and 50% (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a decorative layer comprised of a carpet, a nonwoven layer, a textile knit layer, a rubber layer, or a flocked later situated on an inside surface of the storage compartment (Yamamoto; the yarn-dyed polyester staple nonwoven fabric of top layer A, Fig. 1),
the decorative layer being supported by the at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto above in claim 1, discloses
a storage compartment (Bellis; integrated vehicle end structure 300, Fig. 3) for an electric vehicle for storage luggage supported around an upper rim (rim as shown in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above) of the storage compartment the electric vehicle's main structural beams (structural beams as labeled in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above; though as noted above, the scope of this limitation is not clear and cannot be determined),
wherein the storage compartment (Bellis; integrated vehicle end structure 300, Fig. 3) consists of a structural layer shaped as a three-dimensional storage cavity for holding luggage or goods (Bellis; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 above),
wherein the structural layer comprises at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; Layer C, Fig. 1) consisting essentially of thermoplastic core-sheath bicomponent endless filaments (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0051]).
But does not disclose
the storage compartment able to carry up to 80kg of load.
As noted above, there is not written description support for this limitation. However, since the integrated vehicle end structure of Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, is made of essentially the same kind of material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have been able to structure the design such that it could support such a load of 80kg.
Regarding claim 20, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses
wherein at least one support (Bellis; frame rail 700, Fig. 7) is provided under the storage compartment (Bellis; Col. 5, Ln. 36-43; as can be seen in Fig. 7).
Claims 6, 8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US Patent 9527450 B1), henceforth Bellis, and Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application 20070117489 A1), henceforth Yamamoto, further in view of Hunger et al. (DE Patent Application 102004022464 A1), henceforth Hunger.
Regarding claim 6, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer has an area weight between 500 and 2500 g/m2.
Hunger discloses a self-supporting fibrous material for a vehicle interior, wherein
the area weight is up to 2000 g/m^2 (Abstract).
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 porous fibr with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to make the structure self-supporting and stable (.
Regarding claim 8, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Hunger, discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein the storage compartment (Bellis; integrated vehicle end structure 300, Fig. 3) includes a rim that covers an area up to a complete area covered by the vehicle's front hood (as labeled in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above),
wherein the rim extends about an outer edge of the at least one porous fibrous layer and is configured for mounting the at least one porous fibrous layer onto corresponding structural beams (structural beams as labeled in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above) associated with the vehicle's body with the storage compartment suspended (Bellis; Col. 3, Ln. 8-12, 55-63; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above; would be self-supporting on the rim as modified from Hunger),
the rim comprising a porous textile material made of the same material as the at least one porous fibrous layer, the rim covering (Bellis; same material if single component, Col. 3, Ln. 51-63).
Regarding claim 17, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Hunger, discloses
a molded front storage compartment (Bellis; integrated vehicle end structure 300, Fig. 3) positioned in a front portion of a vehicle (Bellis; Col. 3, Ln. 55-63), comprising:
a structural layer comprised of at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) shaped as a three- dimensional storage cavity bounded on an upper edge by a peripheral rim (cavity and rim as shown in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above) configured to interconnect only to structural beams (structural beams as labeled in annotated Fig. 3 from Bellis above) of the vehicle (Bellis; Col. 3, Ln. 8-12, 55-63, as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 above);
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) consists essentially of thermoplastic core- sheath bicomponent endless filaments (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0051]),
wherein the core consists of a first polymer and the sheath consists of a second polymer (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0047] and [0051]);
wherein the at least one porous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) does not substantially deform such that the at least one porous fibrous layer substantially maintains its shape when loaded with luggage or goods (Yamamoto; molded vehicle article; Paragraphs [0037] and [0043], Abstract);
and wherein the structural layer is self-supported (Hunger; Abstract, Paragraph [0009] of Machine Translation provided).
Regarding claim 18, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Hunger, discloses all the limitations of claim 17 and further discloses
wherein the rim comprises a porous textile material made of the same material as the at least one porous fibrous layer (Bellis; same material if single component, Col. 3, Ln. 51-63).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US Patent 9527450 B1), henceforth Bellis, and Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application 20070117489 A1), henceforth Yamamoto, further in view of Jeunesse et al. (US Patent 9950679 B2), henceforth Jeunesse.
Regarding claim 7, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer has an air flow resistance between 100 to 8000 Ns/m3 measured according to current ISO 9053, using the direct airflow method, method A.
Jeunesse discloses a vehicle part composed of fibrous layers, wherein the
air flow resistance between 100 to 8000 Ns/m3 measured according to current ISO 9053, using the direct airflow method, method A (Col. 7, Ln. 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the porous fibrous layer of Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, to have the given air flow resistance, as taught by Jeunesse, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to improve the sound absorption properties (Jeunesse; Col. 7, Ln. 38-40).
Claims 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US Patent 9527450 B1), henceforth Bellis, and Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application 20070117489 A1), henceforth Yamamoto, further in view of Pilpel et al. (US Patent Application 20140127451 A1), henceforth Pilpel.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer comprises stiffening corrugations and or ribs.
Pilpel discloses a composite fiber thermoplastic matrix for use in certain vehicle applications, which teaches a corrugated panel embodiment (Paragraph [0112]).
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 porous fibrous layer of Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, to have been made with corrugations as taught by Pilpel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to allow for slowed flow rate of air across the material (Pilpel; Paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 10, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Pilpel, discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
further comprising a scrim, film, or foil, being perforated or not perforated and or at least one absorbing layer situated on an outer surface of the molded front storage compartment (Pilpel; scrim from Paragraph [0118]),
the scrim, film, or foil being supported by the at least one porous fibrous layer (Pilpel; scrim bonded to other layers, Paragraph [0122]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellis et al. (US Patent 9527450 B1), henceforth Bellis, and Yamamoto et al. (US Patent Application 20070117489 A1), henceforth Yamamoto, further in view of Delmas (US Patent Application 20120164367 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not disclose
wherein the structural layer further comprises a polyester foam layer associated with the at least one porous layer.
Yamamoto teaches an intermediate layer with polyurethane foam as part of the sandwiched material (Paragraph [0002]).
Delmas discloses sandwich construction using a polyester core (PET, from Paragraph [0024]).
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 structural layer of Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto, by substituting polyester as part of the foam layer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to make the structural layer strong and lightweight (Delmas; Paragraph [0002].
Regarding claim 14, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Delmas as above in claim 13, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) comprises a first porous fibrous layer and a second porous fibrous layer with the polyester foam layer therebetween (Delmas; Paragraph [0001], [0002], and [0024], Abstract).
With the combination of the sandwich constructions from Yamamoto and Delmas, there is teaching for two porous fibrous layers (Delmas; skins, Paragraph [0001]) and a polyester foam layer in between (as applied above in claim 13 from Yamamoto and Delmas).
Regarding claim 15, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Delmas, discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein the at least one porous fibrous layer (Yamamoto; layer C, Fig. 1) is made of a web of random laid melt spun polyester bicomponent endless filaments, wherein the filaments are cross-lapped and needled to form a nonwoven mat (Delmas; Paragraph [0025] and [0027], Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Bellis, as modified by Yamamoto and further modified by Delmas, discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses
wherein the polyester is polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) or polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (Yamamoto; Paragraph [0047]).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be
used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within
the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to
examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159.
See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory
double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be
accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the
NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For
a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37
CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be
filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely
online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,458,901 in view of Yamamoto et al, U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0117489. US '901 claims a molded front storage
compartment for a vehicle comprising a structural layer wherein the structural layer is shaped
as a three-dimensional storage cavity for holding luggage or goods, wherein the structural layer
comprises at least one porous fibrous layer, wherein the structural layer is self-supported,
capable of being maintained only by a rim of the storage compartment. US '901 differs from
the claimed invention because it claims that that the porous layer comprises staple fibers and a
binder, while the instant claims are drawn to a porous layer formed from endless bicomponent
filaments.
However, Yamamoto et al teaches a moldable nonwoven fabric for use in forming molded articles from vehicles. Yamamoto teaches that both endless bicomponent filaments, (spunbonded filaments), as well as bonded staple fibers can be used to form the nonwoven. See paragraphs 0046-0048, 0051, as well as paragraphs 0050-0054. The staple fibers can be bicomponent fibers and the sheath corresponds to the claimed binder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used staple bicomponent fibers instead of endless, (spunbond), bicomponent fibers to form the molded front storage compartment of US '901, in view of the teaching of Yamamoto, that both types of fibers were suitable for use. Particularly pointing out that even though the chain of dependency for the instant claim 16 is not the same as the chain of dependency of claim 16 in the abandoned parent application, the claim limitation in the instant claim 16 is still an obvious variation that would still be taught by Yamamoto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not relied upon teach similar porous fibrous thermoplastic materials as to what is taught in the instant invention, although not specifically for vehicular applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights