CTNF 18/921,575 CTNF 89205 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguzhan et al. (WO2014189477) in view of Koo et al. (KR20240005504) and Minoda et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0083575) . Claim 5: Oguzhan discloses a processing method of a trunk lid hinge arm (1 – page 4, lines 17-18), the method comprising: preparing aluminum extruded material (page 4, lines 21-22). Oguzhan alludes to providing the shape to the hinge arm following extrusion (page 4, lines 28-30), but is silent to the exact method and thus does not disclose inserting a processing apparatus as claimed into an internal space of the extruded material; rotating the extruded material; and extracting the processing apparatus. However, Koo et al. teaches that trunk lid hinge arms are made by a process involving inserting a processing apparatus (mandrel including core 10 and body 20) into an internal space of the material (tube 50); rotating (bending) the material to form a bending part of the trunk lid hinge arm while the processing apparatus is inserted in the internal space (Figs. 4a-4b; paragraphs 2, 31-37); and extracting the processing apparatus (implied, as the mandrel would not form part of the final product) wherein the processing apparatus comprises: a mandrel body (20) extending in a longitudinal direction of the trunk lid (the body extends in a direction and would be capable of extending in a longitudinal direction of the trunk lid), and configured to be insertable into an internal space of [the] extruded material (as cited above); and a mandrel core (10) fastened to a front end of the mandrel body; wherein the mandrel core comprises: a molded surface (e.g. 15 or 16) corresponding to a front surface of the mandrel core; a side surface (sides as shown in Fig. 1) extending in a longitudinal direction of the mandrel core; and an edge surface between the molded surface and the side surface (evident in the figures); wherein a radius of curvature of the molded surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the edge surface (paragraphs 21-22, where the radius of the surfaces 15 and 16 appear to be larger than that of the edges). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method of Koo et al. in producing the trunk lid hinge arm of Oguzhan since it is configured to completely support the internal space of an asymmetrical pipe so that the bent portion or adjacent portion can be bent in a gentle curve without deformation (paragraph 1). Oguzhan and Koo are silent regarding the bending part of the trunk lid hinge arm having grains with an average size of 80 μm to 100 μm. However, Minoda et al. teaches that in bending an aluminum alloy material, the average crystal grain size is most preferably 100 μm or less to avoid orange peel (paragraph 26). It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled grain size as taught by Minoda et al. since one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected to avoid orange peel by doing so. To the extent that the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05. Claim 10: Referring to Oguzhan, the aluminum extruded material comprises an Al-Mg-Si alloy (page 3, lines 1-3). Claim 11: While Oguzhan discloses an Al-Mg-Si alloy as cited above, Oguzhan and Koo do not disclose or teach the specific alloy claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed alloy since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (e.g. known alloys such as A6063 or A6N01) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 67, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the use of the specific alloy . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguzhan and Koo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freiberg et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0371071) . Oguzhan and Koo teach a method substantially as claimed except for after extracting the processing apparatus, heat treating the aluminum extruded material. However, Freiberg et al. teaches heat treating an aluminum tube following a bending process (e.g. paragraphs 53-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heat treated the extruded material to provide recovery of work hardening during bending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments essentially rely on the amendments to overcome the prior art of record, but the amendments have been addressed in the new grounds of rejection above. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM. 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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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. /Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/921,575 Page 2 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/921,575 Page 3 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/921,575 Page 4 Art Unit: 3726 Application/Control Number: 18/921,575 Page 5 Art Unit: 3726
Prosecution Insights