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
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manz et al. 10,463,114.
In Re Claim 1, Manz et al. teach an apparatus for producing an interior component from a carrier element and a top layer, comprising: a handling device; (Robot Arm, Column 15, Lines 43-58) a component support (220) for receiving the carrier element (210) and the top layer (280), wherein the component support has a fixing means for temporarily fixing (Column 19, Lines 19-28), Glued, Column 15, Lines 43-58) the carrier element and the top layer on the component support; a welding head; (Column 19, Line 45-54) a sewing head; (Column 19, Line 45-54) and a control unit (Column 9, Lines 7-11) for controlling the handling device, wherein a data set (Column 7, 51-64) for controlling at least the handling device in a manner dependent on a material of the top layer is stored in the control unit and wherein the handling device is controllable depending on the material of the top layer by the control unit such that, to connect the top layer to the carrier element, the top layer and the carrier element are welded by the welding head or sewn by the sewing head. (Column 9, Lines 12-29)
In Re Claim 11, Manz et al. teach an interior component of a motor vehicle produced by a method comprising the steps of: arranging a carrier element (210) on a component support (220) and subsequently arranging a top layer (280) on the carrier element or arranging the carrier element together with the top layer already arranged on the carrier element on the component support; (Fig. 2) fixing the carrier clement and the top layer on the component support by a fixing means; (Column 19, Lines 19-28), Glued, Column 15, Lines 43-58) and controlling a handling device (Robot Arm, Column 15, Lines 43-58) in a manner dependent on a material of the top layer by a control unit (Column 9, Lines 7-11) such that, to connect the top layer to the carrier element, the top layer and the carrier element are welded by a welding head (Column 19, Line 45-54) or sewn by a sewing head (Column 19, Line 45-54). (Column 7, 51-64) (Column 7, 51-64)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manz et al. and in view of Fleming 3,294,615.
In Re Claim 2, Manz et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Manz et al. do not teach wherein the component support has a receptacle for an auxiliary component for connecting the top layer to the carrier element.
However, Fleming teaches wherein the component support (47) has a receptacle (recesses in 46, Fig. 5) for an auxiliary component (45) for connecting the top layer (10 top layer) to the carrier element (10 bottom layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a receptacle to the apparatus of Manz et al. as taught by Fleming with a reasonable expectation for success in order to accurate positioning of welds and parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 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. Henderson et al., Savoy et al. and Faitel teach a welding process comprising a handling device, component support and controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights