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 .
Priority
This application is a DIV of 16/816,572, filed 03/12/2020, now US 12,203,298 B2.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (i) the abstract recites phrases that can be implied (“This disclosure details”); and (ii) the abstract fails to recite any process steps, where all pending claims are directed to a method of making a two-toned vehicle door handle. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS, at [0001] of the instant specification, should be updated to read - - This is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/816,572, which was filed on March 12, 2020, now US 12,203,298 B2, and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,548,210 B2 (“US 210”) in view of US 2011/0253412 A1 (“US 412”).
Claims 1, 4, 7, 13-14, 16, and 18
US 210 teaches a method for providing a multilayer decorative coating having a metallic appearance one a door handle for an automobile [abstract]. US 210 teaches that door handle main bodies are typically made by injection molding plastics [1:25-30]. Since the body of US 210 does not specify how the door handle is formed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the door handle according to this explicit teaching of US 210; namely, by injection molding.
US 210 further teaches applying a metallic film to a portion [4:55-60] of the molded door handle by, e.g., sputtering, CVD, PVD, etc. [4:25-27]. In such a scenario, a first portion would have a non-metalized appearance and a second portion would have a metalized appearance.
US 210 does not explicitly state that the areas of the door handle to which the metallic film is not applied are masked. US 412 demonstrates that it is known in the PVD art to mask portions of an injection-molded substrate to prevent the deposition of a metallic film thereon [0021, 0023, 0039, 0057]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have accomplished the partly metalized door handle by masking that portion of the injection-molded door handle where metallic coating was not desired.
Here, the unmetallized portions are one “tone” and the metallized portions are a second “tone.”
Claim 6
None of the cited references teach specifically that the mask is a molded plastic mask, a vacuum formed plastic mask, or a die-cut adhesive masking tape. Nevertheless, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that any known masking material suitable for use in a PVD process would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, including those recited in this claim.
Claim 8
US 210 teaches applying a base film before the metallic layer in order to improve smoothness [col. 3, Modified Embodiment].
Claim 9
US 210 teaches applying an outer layer over the metallic layer [4:18-21].
Claim 10
None of the cited references teach specifically that the outer layer is tinted. Nevertheless, it is clear that the coating process for the door handle is, among other things, to provide a decorative appearance to the door handle. Consequently, tinting the outer layer – which US 210 discloses as an acrylic urethane paint – would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the desired finished appearance.
Claims 5 & 14
Neither of these references specifically teach that the door handle has a ditch or that the mask is applied to the ditch.
Nevertheless, these references place no limitation on the molded configuration of the door handle, and it is clear that a door handle having any desired surface features could readily be used. Consequently, a door handle having a ditch would have been as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a door handle without, absent evidence to the contrary.
Moreover, these references place no limitation on how much of the surface is masked off. Ultimately, it appears that this would be merely an aesthetic choice. Consequently, it would have been equally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the mask to the ditch so as not to metallize the ditch as it would be to leave the ditch uncovered, thereby metallizing it.
Claim 15
None of the cited references teach specifically that the mask is a molded plastic mask, a vacuum formed plastic mask, or a die-cut adhesive masking tape. Nevertheless, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that any known masking material suitable for use in a PVD process would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, including those recited in this claim.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,548,210 B2 (“US 210”) in view of US 2011/0253412 A1 (“US 412”), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JP 2002-173545 A (“JP 545”).
Claim 2
The combined teaching of US 210 and US 412 is detailed above, including that the door handle is injection molded.
Neither reference explicitly states that the door handle is formed in an induction heated injection molding process.
JP 545 teaches broadly that exterior components of automobiles, such as door handles, are conventionally formed by, e.g., induction heating injection molding [Background of the Invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of US 210 in view of US 412 so as to use, as the injection molding process for forming the door handle, an induction heated injection molding process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming the door handle arising from the teaching that induction heated injection molding is known in the art as a suitable means for forming a door handle.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,548,210 B2 (“US 210”) in view of US 2011/0253412 A1 (“US 412”) and JP 2002-173545 A (“JP 545”), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of JP H02-158316 A (“JP 316”).
Claim 3
The combined teaching of US 210, US 412, and JP 545 is detailed above, including that the door handle is molded by induction heated injection molding. JP 545 further teaches the presence of an induction heating coil (i.e., “element”) [Background of the Invention].
None of these references explicitly states that the induction heated injection molding process includes a water cooling line.
JP 316 teaches that it is known in the art of induction heated injection molding that cooling water is pumped into the mold from the outside [Conventional Technology of an Invention]. It is further the Primary Examiner’s position that a cooling line is a well-known means of circulating cooling water within the mold to cool the mold down.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the induction heated injection molding process so as to cool the mold using a water line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming a cooled door handle arising from the teaching that water cooling of induction heated injection molding is known and conventional in the art.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,548,210 B2 (“US 210”) in view of US 2011/0253412 A1 (“US 412”), as applied to claims 7 and 16 respectively above, further in view of US 2017/0137928 A1 (“US 928”).
Claims 11 & 17
The combined teaching of US 210 in view of US 412 is detailed in relation to claim 7 above.
While US 210 teaches Cr “may be selected” for metallization [3:6], neither of these references explicitly teach indium as the metallic compound.
US 928 teaches vapor-deposited In as a suitable metallizing material for an injection molded resin door handle having an additional base layer and protective layer [0004-0005, 0015, 0031-0032, 0044-0049]. In has the advantage of not interfering with radio signals from an antenna in the handle [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of US 210 in view of US 412 so as to utilize, as the PVD deposited metal compound, In. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of advantageously using a metal compound that does not interfere with radio signals. See MPEP § 2144(II) (“the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references”).
Claim 12
While US 928 does not specify pure indium, it is silent as to the presence of impurities, salts, or other compounds of In. The Primary Examiner interprets this silence as a fair teaching that the In is pure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
7 August 2026
Prosecution Insights