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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “carrier 30”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 12, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the bottom surface” should read -- the bottom carrier surface --for consistency. This also applies to claims 3 and 15.
In claim 3, “a shear vector” should read -- the shear vector -- since “a shear vector” was previously recited in claim 1.
In claim 12, “the two vertical side walls” should read -- the two protrusion vertical side walls -- for consistency with claim 1.
In claim 12, “continuous vertical reinforcement structure” should read – continuous vertical reinforcement structures --.
In claim 15, “the roof crush event” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 20, b), “so that it can activated and bonded…” should reach -- so that it can be activated and bonded --.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. 2019/0168808A1) alone.
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. disclose a structural reinforcement (10, figs. 1-2) for a vehicle cavity (refer to para 0056: “installed into a cavity, such as a cavity of a vehicle”) comprising:
a carrier (11) including:
a base wall (22, figs. 1-3) and a plurality of continuous vertical reinforcement structures (40, 42, 46; fig. 3) that span from a bottom carrier surface (as shown in fig. 3) to a top carrier surface (as shown in fig. 3) and a plurality of horizon reinforcement structures (50, fig. 3);
a protrusion structure (12, figs. 1 and 15) projecting from the base wall including a vertical protrusion outer wall (side vertical outer wall of 12, see figs. 1-2 and 15), and two protrusion vertical side walls (any two sidewalls of 12 shown in fig. 15 extending from base wall 22. At least 4 side walls are shown), wherein the protrusion outer wall protrudes through an opening (82) in a wall (70, 84) of the vehicle cavity (as shown in fig. 15);
a second adhesive (16) disposed on peripheral portions of the carrier (11) including a portion of the bottom surface of the carrier (see figs. 1-3).
However, Li et al. does not explicitly teach the adhesive 16 disposed on the vertical protrusion outer wall of the protrusion structure 12, wherein the first adhesive is in shear and the second adhesive that is disposed on the portion of the bottom surface is in compression when a force is applied in a shear vector.
Li et al. further teach in paragraph 0048 that the activatable material “may be located anywhere on the carrier” and may function to adhere the structural reinforcement to a surface, such as a wall of a cavity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to located the adhesive material (16) on the vertical outer wall of the protrusion structure (12), as well as on the bottom surface of the carrier, because Li et al. expressly teach that the activatable material may be positioned anywhere on the carrier for adhering the structural reinforcement to a surface of the vehicle cavity (para 0048).
Furthermore, as shown in figs. 10-13, Li et al. disclose a force (100) applied to a shear vector. With the adhesive disposed on the vertical outer wall of the protrusion structure, the resulting force loading of the adhesive at that vertical location would be in shear. Conversely, with the adhesive disposed on the bottom surface of the carrier, the applied loading would result in compression at that bottom adhesive location. Therefore, when a force is applied in a shear vector, the first adhesive disposed on the vertical outer wall would be in shear and the second adhesive disposed on the bottom surface of the carrier would be in compression, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. disclose wherein the continuous vertical reinforcement structures include ribs that are about 1.5 mm to 4 mm in average thickness along their length (refer to para 0036).
However, Li et al. is silent to a thickness of 3 to 5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to have the continuous vertical reinforcement structures include ribs with thickness of 3 to 5 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 range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. disclose wherein the reinforcement is configured to provide improved resistance to shear (as compared with a vehicle that omits such reinforcement) in response to roof crush load (100, figs. 10-13 and refer to para 0067), and preferably a force applied in a shear vector subjects the carrier to loads nearly parallel to the vertical reinforcement structures and the first adhesive and nearly perpendicular to the second adhesive at the bottom surface of the carrier (see figs. 1-16 and refer to abstract, para 0005, 0044, 0046, 0061, 0063-0064, and 0067).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. disclose wherein the first adhesive and second adhesive are the same composition, preferably an expandable structural adhesive (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the first and second adhesive is 16).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. disclose wherein a third adhesive is disposed about the carrier around a carrier top portion (see figs. 1-3; also refer to para 0048: activatable material “may be located anywhere on the carrier”) and comprises an expandable sealant (refer to para 0049-0050 and 0059).
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. disclose wherein the plurality of horizon reinforcement structures are ribs (see figs. 1-3, refer to para 0005 and 0040).
However, Li et al. is silent to an average thickness that is at least 30 percent thinner than the ribs of the vertical reinforcement structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to have an average thickness that is at least 30 percent thinner than the ribs of the vertical reinforcement structures since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. disclose wherein the protrusion structure includes a plurality of snap fastening features (72, see figs. 14-15) that secure the carrier to the opening in the wall of the vehicle cavity and maintain a set distance of the first adhesive to a vehicle reinforcement panel (refer to para 0068-0069).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. disclose wherein the second adhesive (16) is located onto a surrounding portion of the carrier that substantially surrounds the protrusion structure (see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. disclose wherein one or more of the first, second and/or third adhesive materials is applied to the carrier prior to and/or after insertion of the structure into the vehicle cavity (the adhesive 16 can only be applied either prior to or acter insertion into the cavity of the vehicle; refer to para 0052).
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. disclose wherein the first adhesive material, the second adhesive, or both expands upon exposure to a stimulus, preferably heat (refer to abstract, para 0005, and 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. disclose wherein the expandable sealant expands upon exposure to a stimulus, preferably heat (refer to abstract, para 0005, and 0051-0052).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McConnell (U.S. 2014/0091584A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights