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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Note that the priority claim is located at the end of the specification and should be at the beginning.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification includes unconventional section headings and should be amended in compliance with US practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, it may be omitted or the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DOOR INNER PANEL MANUFACTURING METHOD
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 6-7, 9-10 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first gate" in line 3; and “the region” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first gate" in line 3; and “the region” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first gate" in line 3; and “the region” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first gate" in line 3; and “the region” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukai et al. (JP 2009-113548 A, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Mukai discloses a method of manufacturing a door inner panel that is integrally molded from a composite material X containing reinforcing fibers dispersed in an in-plane direction and an injection-molding material Y and extends in a vertical direction (title/abstract, p. 3), the method comprising the following steps (1) to (4):
(1) placing the composite material X on a fixed mold of a mold (FIG. 3, pp. 5+);
(2) lowering a movable mold of the mold to bring the movable mold into contact with the composite material X (FIG. 3-4; pp. 5+);
(3) injecting the injection-molding material Y into the mold (FIG. 5; pp. 5+); and
(4) pressing the composite material X and the injection-molding material Y in the mold to integrally mold the door inner panel (FIG. 5: pp. 3, 5+) .
Regarding claim 2, Mukai discloses the mold has a region where the composite material X is placed at a position corresponding to the side frame, and
has a first gate for injecting the injection-molding material Y into the mold at the region where the composite material X is placed (FIG. 3-6; pp. 5+).
Regarding claim 3, Mukai discloses the composite material X is brought into contact with a cavity wall surface of the mold to form a skin layer having an X portion that is molded from the composite material X (FIG. 3-6; pp. 5+).
Regarding claim 4, Mukai discloses the skin layer having the X portion is formed on a surface of the door inner panel, the surface facing an inside of a vehicle (FIG. 1-2; pp. 3+).
Regarding claim 12, Mukai discloses at least one of the movable mold and the fixed mold has a hole-forming member for forming a hole in the door inner panel,
in a step prior to the step (1), a hole Xa is formed in the composite material X, and
in the step (1), the composite material X is placed on the mold so that the hole Xa corresponds to the hole-forming member (FIG. 3-4; pp. 4+).
Regarding claim 14, Mukai discloses the injection-molding material Y is kneaded before injection, and the injection-molding material Y is filled in a clearance between the movable mold and the fixed mold (pp. 5-6).
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.
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.
Claims 5, 13, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP 2009-113548 A) as applied to claims 1, 3 or 12 above, further in view of Nakashita (JP 2019-010910 A, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 5, Mukai does not appear to expressly disclose forming the outside facing panel.
However, Nakashita discloses a similar method of forming door panels (FIG. 5-6; title/abstract) alternatively forming inner panels and outer panels (pp. 2-3; FIG. 2-4)
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mukai to include the outer panels of Nakashita, because Mukai’s process could also be used, in the alternative, to form outer panels as suggested by Nakashita with expected results.
Regarding claim 13, Nakashita discloses a door panel with the hole Xa is formed at a position corresponding to an upper portion of the side frame of the composite material X and a position corresponding to a lower portion of the side frame (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Nakashita discloses the door inner panel is a back door inner panel (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Nakashita discloses the door inner panel has a lower half portion,
a pair of side frames extending upwardly from an upper left end and an upper right end of the lower half portion, and
a beam portion connecting the upper ends of the pair of side frames, and
a central portion of the beam portion and the lower half portion are formed from an injection-molding material Y (FIG. 2-4).
Claims 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP 2009-113548 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nakajima (US 2016/0361850 A1).
Mukai does not appear to expressly disclose injecting in locations other than the region where the composite material is placed in the mold.
However, Nakajima discloses a similar method of injection insert molding to form door panels (title/abstract) wherein material is injection molded through a gate at a location other than where a composite material base member is placed (FIG. 2-5; ¶¶ 21+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Mukai to include the injection molded brackets of Nakajima in order to form brackets with more complex undercuts.
Additionally, the skilled artisan would recognize that the number of gates corresponding to the claimed first and second gates as well as the amount of material injected in said gates could be modified to obtain the claimed relationship, with expected results based on the design considerations of the panel being formed.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP 2009-113548 A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ishibashi et al. (JP 2012-106490 A, citations based on FIT translation submitted herewith).
Mukai does not appear to expressly disclose the fiber lengths.
However, Ishibashi discloses a similar composite insert injection molding process (FIG. 1-6; title/abstract) wherein the lengths of fibers in the composite preform is 1-50 mm and the length of fibers in the resin is 0.4-3 mm (claims, p. 6).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Mukai to include the fiber lengths of Ishibashi, because such lengths are known in the art and could be used with expected results, such as improved strength and bonding/compatibility.
Claims 17, 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP 2009-113548 A) in view of Nakashita (JP 2019-010910 A) as applied to claims 16 above, further in view of Hamazaki (JP 2014076707 A).
Regarding claims 17 and 20-26, Nakashita discloses a hinge is included in the door panel (p. 2).
Modified Mukai does not appear to expressly disclose the metal fitting or bolt hole associated with the hinge and/or its location within the door panel.
However, Hamazaki discloses a resin back door panel including and number of hinge reinforcements made of metal with associated bolt holes as well as its location with respect to the structural ribs of the door panel (FIG. 3-5; pp. 2, 4-6).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Mukai to include the fastener and bolt holes of Hamazaki, in order to for conventional mounting of the door panel to a vehicle.
Additionally the skilled artisan would recognize that the suggested process could be readily modified to achieve the claimed configurations and dimensional locations of the hole (claim 20-21, 26) or metal fitting (claim 22-23) and the distance of the rib (claim 24) or uneven thickness (claim 25) from the metal fitting
Regarding claim 27, Mukai discloses at least one of the movable mold and the fixed mold has a hole-forming member for forming a hole in the door inner panel,
in a step prior to the step (1), a hole Xa is formed in the composite material X, and
in the step (1), the composite material X is placed on the mold so that the hole Xa corresponds to the hole-forming member (FIG. 3-4; pp. 4+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Packett; Joseph et al.
US 10710286 B2
Fisher, Jr.; Edward McMurray et al.
US 9180631 B2
OKADA HIROYUKI
JP 2002137249 A
YOKOYAMA KEIZO
WO 2023149083 A1
STEINER KARL ING et al.
AT 404690 B
TAKAHASHI AKIHIRO
JP 2016120602 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights