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 § 102
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, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,942,915 Kondo et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches an integrated molded body (column 1, lines 8-14) comprising:
a laminate 64 including a prepreg layer 66 (column 14, lines 41-44) consisting of a continuous fiber and a resin (column 6, lines 27-29); and
a resin member (68,70 together) integrated with the laminate (column 14, lines 57-61),
wherein in the laminate, one surface (bottom surface) in a thickness-direction is on a design surface side, and a surface opposite (top surface) to the surface on the design surface side is on a non-design surface side (figure 28),
the laminate has a through-hole penetrating in the thickness-direction (figure 28), and
the resin member has a part having an exposed surface from the through-hole of a design surface side outer layer of the laminate, and an overlapping part 68 with the laminate (figure 28), the overlapping part being outside the through-hole (figure 28) and bonded to a non-design surface side outer layer of the laminate (column 14, lines 48-53), and
in a direction along a central axis of the through-hole, a projection of the resin member completely overlaps the though-hole (figure 28).
Regarding claim 3, Kondo teaches that a portion having a minimum thickness Tb of the overlapping part is formed at a position farthest in an in-plane direction from a wall surface of the through-hole of the laminate (figure 28). Please note that a uniform thickness flange has both minimum and maximum thicknesses across the entire flange.
Regarding claim 6, Kondo teaches that the integrated molded body has an unevenness area on a surface of a part including the exposed surface (figure 28 and column 14, lines 53-56, where the product may have flange 68 protruding on both surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Kondo teaches that one frame member 18 is disposed on an outer circumferential part of the laminate and the resin member are integrated (column 12, lines 43-52, where a window frame in the central portion is still an outer circumferential part because all edges are outer parts).
Regarding claim 9, Kondo teaches a notch 76 in a wall surface of the through-hole in the laminate (figure 29, where the notch is filled by 68).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches that the unevenness area is provided with a design different from a surrounding portion (figure 28, where the thickness of 68 provides a different design), and the unevenness area forms a pattern (figure 28, where the shape of 68 is a pattern shape).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo teaches that the unevenness area is capable of forming a logo (figure 28).
Regarding claim 12, Kondo teaches that the integrated molded body is capable of being used as an electronic equipment casing (figure 28).
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 2, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,942,915 Kondo et al.
Regarding claim 2, Kondo teaches the overlapping part (figure 28) but does not explicitly teach the thickness. However, Kondo does teach that the thickness of 66 is 2-10 mm (column 5, lines 1-5), and shows that the thickness of 66 is approximately the same as 68 (figure 28), it would be reasonable to expect the thickness of 68 to also be 2-10 mm. Please note that while the figures may not be to scale, they lend guidance regarding the structure and arrangement of the product envisioned by the inventor.
Furthermore, “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” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed thickness does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 14, Kondo teaches the integrated molded body, but teaches that a ratio Tb/Ta between a maximum thickness Ta (mm) and the minimum thickness Tb (mm) of the overlapping part is 1 (figure 28 showing a uniform thickness).
However, “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” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed thickness ratio does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo teaches the integrated molded body, but teaches that the thickness in the bonding and non-bonding regions is the same (figure 29). Kondo does, however, teach that the laminate may be any desired shape, size or configuration (column 5, lines 48-54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the thickness of the laminate to be thicker in the non-bonded region if such a configuration is desired for the final product.
Furthermore, “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” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed thickness does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Kondo further teaches that the unevenness area has a depth (figure 28, thickness of flange 68), but does not teach the value of the depth. However, Kondo does teach that the thickness of 66 is 2-10 mm (column 5, lines 1-5), and shows that the thickness of 66 is approximately the same as 68 (figure 28), it would be reasonable to expect the thickness of 68 to also be 2-10 mm. Please note that while the figures may not be to scale, they lend guidance regarding the structure and arrangement of the product envisioned by the inventor.
Furthermore, “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” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed thickness does not impart patentability to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ayuzawa have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection over Kondo does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights