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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed June 29, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on March 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 3, 2026.
Additionally, newly presented claims 28-35 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the elected invention of Group III because claims 28-35 are drawn to a carrier having at least one insert fixed to the carrier body via a layer of sealant material. Claims 28-35 do not include the features of a textile layer and a polymeric material bonded to the textile material as set forth in the elected invention.
Accordingly, claims 28-35 are also withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed June 29, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(d) because the applicant has failed to explain, in detail, all changes to the drawings in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper. Accordingly, the drawing correction filed June 29, 2026 has not been considered and the previous drawing objections have been repeated below.
The drawings are objected to because lead line for reference character “36” in figure 2 fails to accurately indicate the seal bead.
Figure 3 is objected to because one of the reference characters “74” at the bottom left hand corner of the carrier 21 does not have an attendant lead line.
Figure 4 is objected to because the lead line for reference character 97 fails to accurately indicate the first annular seal.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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: “89” on line 7 of paragraph 78 and “90” on line 8 of paragraph 78. 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
Claim 20 is objected to because possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 3 should be avoided since it is not always clear what element of the invention the pronoun is referring to. Thus, it is suggested the applicant replace possessive pronouns such as “its” on line 3 of claim 20 with the name of the element to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Recitations such as “one side of said wet side and said dry side of the carrier body” on line 2 of claim 22 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis. Note that the applicant has defined the wet side and the dry side with respect to the textile layer rather than the carrier body in claim 16. Also, it is unclear how the wet side and the dry side can have one side. Is the applicant attempting to refer to one of the wet and dry sides rather than one side of the wet and dry sides? Also see lines 3-4 of claim 22.
Recitations such as “one of the side of said wet side and said dry side” on lines 3-4 of claim 23 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the one of the side of said wet side and said dry side set forth above or is attempting to set forth another one of the side of said wet side and said dry side in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “the one of the side of said wet side and said dry side” on lines 4-5 of claim 23 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of the one of the side of said wet side and said dry side set forth above the applicant is referring.
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 16-21, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fortin (US 2021/0300161). Fortin discloses a carrier 20 (fig. 9) for a carrier module of a motor vehicle door assembly 10 having door panel structure including an inner panel 18 and an outer panel 16, the inner panel 18 having an opening (not numbered, but comprising the opening occupied by the carrier 20) to an internal door cavity 24 between the inner panel 18 and the outer panel 16, said carrier 20 comprising:
a carrier body (labeled below) including a textile layer 80 (fig. 11) having a wet side 60 (fig. 5) and an opposite dry side 62 (see lines 1-2 of paragraph 91), the carrier bounded by an outer periphery 48 (fig. 2), the outer periphery 48 of the carrier body configured for attachment to the inner panel 18 to at least partially close off the opening, said carrier body having at least one insert 76, 78 (see figures 6 and 9) fixed thereto, said carrier body including:
a polymeric material (see lines 8-11 of paragraph 95 which set forth that the textile layer 80 is sandwiched between two layers L and then over molded with a binder material B and lines 58-59 of paragraph 95 which set forth that the binder material can be polyurethane which is a polymeric material) bonded to and cured on at least one of said wet side 60 and said dry side 62 of said textile layer 80, said at least one insert 76, 78 being fixed to said carrier body via a locking engagement of said cured polymeric material with said insert since the layers L are over molded with polyurethane and the insert 76, 78 is fixed to the layers L (claim 16);
wherein said textile layer 80 is a natural fibrous (see lines 18-20 of paragraph 95 which set forth the use of natural fibers for the layer 80) non-woven layer as shown in figure 12B (claim 17);
wherein said natural fibrous non-woven layer is hemp as set forth on line 18 of paragraph 87 (claim 18);
wherein said polymeric material is polyurethane as set forth on lines 58-59 of paragraph 95 (claim 19);
wherein the carrier 20, when viewed in cross section, includes said insert 76, 78 positioned in its entirety over a continuous portion of the natural fibrous non-woven layer, as illustrated in annotated figure 6 below (claim 20);
wherein the at least one insert 76, 78 is plastic as set forth on line 3 of paragraph 94 (claim 21);
wherein the at least one insert 76, 78 is configured for mounting door hardware components thereto, via the fastener 78 (claim 25);
wherein the at least one insert 76, 78 is removable from the carrier body since at least the fastener 78 is removable from the carrier body (claim 27).
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortin (US 2021/0300161) as applied to claims 16-21, 25 and 27 above, and further in view of Perez et al. (US 10029625).
Perez et al. discloses the use of the combination of a wiring harness clip 200 (fig. 2) and a fastener 201 for attaching the wiring harness clip 200 to a vehicle body component. The wiring harness clip receives a wiring harness 250 (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the fasteners 78 of Fortin with wiring harness clips and provide Fortin with an attendant wiring harness, as taught by Perez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means for providing power to components attached to the carrier module and a means for attaching the wiring harness to the carrier module.
PNG
media_image1.png
1652
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24, as best understood by the examiner, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach the at least one insert positioned entirely on one side of the wet side and the dry side of the carrier body with the one or more openings receiving the polymeric material therein. See claim 22, lines 1-3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Fortin fails to disclose that the at least one insert is fixed to the carrier body via a locking engagement of the cured polymeric material with the insert. This is not found to be persuasive because the applicant is attaching too much to the term “locking engagement”. What comprises a locking engagement? Is a one element attached to another element with bolt torqued down to a specified torque a locking engagement? Is one element attached to another element with a bolt torqued down to a specified torque and secured with safety wire a locking engagement? Is one element secured to another element with an adhesive a locking engagement? Does a locking differential on a vehicle include a locking engagement? Since the applicant has failed to provide a definition of the term “locking engagement”, the examiner has interpreted the term to mean an engagement that cannot be easily undone. Accordingly, there is a locking engagement between the grommet 76 and the cured polymeric material since the grommet 78 is fixed in a through opening and to the polymeric material. See lines 3-4 of paragraph 94. It is suggested the applicant further amend the claims to recite the structure that provides the locking engagement to better define the invention and to possibly define the invention over the prior art.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights