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
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama, U.S. Patent 8,407,857.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama teaches:
A stop (10) comprising a base (26) with a connector (22) for mounting the stop on the hood or tailgate of the vehicle, a gasket (see below) to ensure the seal against the hood or tailgate of the vehicle and a stopper (20) for engaging the bodywork of the vehicle in order to dampen a closing force of the hood or tailgate, the base being made of a first material and the stopper and gasket both being made of a second material overmolded onto the first material, the base having one or more holes (34) through which the second material connects the stopper and the gasket (see Col 2, Lns 52-67 and Col 3, Ln 59 – Col 4, Ln 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for mounting the …of the vehicle“, “to ensure the…of the vehicle” and “for engaging the…hood or tailgate”, and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 2, Sugiyama teaches:
The base comprises a central core (see above) and a sleeve (see above) enveloping the central core (see above), a portion of the second material being held between the sleeve and the central core (see above).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugiyama teaches:
The central core is connected to the sleeve by an annular wall (28, Figs. 1, 3) through which the hole or holes (32) extend.
Regarding Claim 4, Sugiyama teaches:
The connector (22) is at a first end of the stop (Fig. 3), the stopper (20) is at a second end of the stop (Fig. 3) and the gasket (see drawing selection above) is located between the annular wall and the connector (see drawing selection above, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiyama teaches:
A space between the gasket and the connector so that a panel of the hood or of the tailgate can be held between the connector and the gasket (see Fig. 2, element 36).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugiyama teaches:
One or more ridges (see drawing selection above) between the central core and the sleeve that are embedded in the second material to keep the stopper from rotating relative to the base (see drawing selection above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “to keep the…to the base“, and a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 7, Sugiyama teaches:
The ridge or ridges protrude radially from the central core towards the sleeve (see drawing selection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugiyama teaches:
A portion of the second material extends along the outside of the sleeve (see drawing selection above, see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugiyama teaches:
The base (26) comprises a cage (see below) that is embedded in the second material to reinforce the connection between the base and the stopper.
PNG
media_image2.png
357
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Sugiyama teaches:
The cage comprises a support end (30) against which the stopper (20) is compressed when in use, the support end being connected to the rest of the base by a plurality of legs (28) embedded in the second material.
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that elements 28 of Sugiyama are also interpreted to teach the “annular wall” of Claim 3, however, Claim 12 does not depend from Claim 3 and therefore the prior art can be relied upon to anticipate both dependent claims.
Regarding Claim 13, Sugiyama teaches:
Wherein the support end (30) comprises a substantially flat disc (see shape of element 30 apparent in Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugiyama teaches:
The gasket (see below) comprises a tapered skirt (see below) that opens out towards the connector (22).
PNG
media_image3.png
255
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimaya ‘857 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ukai, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0167590.
Regarding Claim 9¸ Sugimaya does not teach:
The sleeve comprises a channel along its outer surface and the second material extends into the channel to connect the stopper and the gasket.
Ukai does teach:
A sleeve (Fig. 5, element 32) comprising a channel (33) along its outer surface and a second material extends into the channel to connect a stopper (28) to a gasket (see 22, see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sugimaya with a channel (or channels) as taught by Ukai because the channels (33) would increase the bonding force at the joint between the first material and the second material (see paragraph [0044] of Ukai) and this would reduce the likelihood of bonding failure between the first and second materials.
PNG
media_image4.png
319
514
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Sugiyama teaches ridges (see Fig 1, elements 28) on opposite sides of the sleeve (see below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the channels of Ukai inside the ridges of Sugiyama because the ridges have sufficient material to accommodate the channels without compromising the structural integrity of the sleeve.
PNG
media_image5.png
465
537
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama ‘857 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duprez, U.S. Patent 9,580,951.
Regarding Claim 14, Sugiyama does not teach:
A bayonet connector designed to fit into a hole in a panel of the hood or tailgate.
Duprez teaches a stop similar to Sugiyama which comprises:
A bayonet connector (9) designed to fit into a hole in a panel of the hood or tailgate (see Fig. 7, see element 2, see Col 4, Lns 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sugiyama with a bayonet connector as taught by Duprez because that would permit easy replacement of the stop in case of damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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 J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights