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 .
Claims 1-4, 8-9, and 18-20 have been examined.
Claims 5-7 and 10-17 remain withdrawn from examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, and 18-20 have been considered but are unpersuasive. The arguments are based upon the references including the Chen reference and the use of the production part that is placed into the mold. Here, the rejection below addresses the features, particularly in regards to the EGERER reference that teaches of placement of a part into a mold with sandwiching and further injection. The argued composite laminate is noted and it is noted that the EGERER reference teaches of such a feature, particularly in elements 11A, see [0071-0073]. After review of the claimed invention and arguments, the claims remain rejected as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0292851 A1 (EGERER) in view of US5774966 (YATES).
Re: claim 1, EGERER teaches a method for applying an injection molded part to a previously finished production part (see [0074-0078]) comprising:
placing the previously finished production part (11a) in a mold having a top and bottom mold (see Fig. 4a, see 2 and 3);
sandwiching the previously finished production part between the bottom mold and the top mold, the top and bottom mold defining a cavity within a footprint of the previously finished production part (see Fig. 4a, 4b); and
injecting plastic into the cavity to locally apply the injection molded part around a top and a bottom of the previously finished production part (see Fig. 4c);
Regarding the production part being made of composite laminates, in the teaching of EGERER it is taught of the decorative layer 11 being of materials, see 11a being of different materials, see Figures 2a, 2b, see [0071-0073]. The material 11a is of three layers with a decorative ply 18 that includes a wood veneer, and/or a fabric, followed by adhesive layer 19, and protective layer 20.
EGERER does not teach of “wherein the injection molded part is an identification portion”.
In YATES, there is a teaching of injection molding of an identification portion upon a layer (Col. 2 lines 62-67, Col. 3 lines 44- 48 teach a logo disposed on the fabric).
Wherein, Yates teaches a method for applying an injection molded part to a previously finished production part (Col. 1 lines 46-50, Col. 3 lines 29-38, Col. 3 lines 59-67, and Figs. 2-4 teach injection molding onto a fabric. Fabric, by definition, is previously produced in another manufacturing process prior to its placement between the molds of Yates) comprising:
placing the previously finished production part in a mold having a top and bottom mold (Col. 1 lines 46- 50, Col. 3 lines 59- 67, and Figs. 2- 4 teach a fabric being disposed on a bed defined by two molds which corresponds to the concept of placement of a production part into the mold);
sandwiching the previously finished production part between the bottom mold and the top mold, the top and bottom mold defining a cavity within a footprint of the previously finished
production part (Col. 1 lines 46- 50, Col. 3 lines 59-67, and Figs. 2- 4 teach a fabric being disposed on a bed defined by two molds; Fig. 4 displays the top and bottom molds defining a cavity); and
injecting plastic into the cavity to locally apply the injection molded part around a top and a bottom of the previously finished production part (Col. 3 lines 59- 67 and Claim 1 teach forcing plastic around the top and bottom of the fabric);
wherein the injection molded part is an identification portion (Col. 2 lines 62-67, Col. 3 lines 44- 48 teach a logo disposed on the fabric).
Furthermore, the EGERER reference also teaching of injection of a resin into the cavity and thereby would be also relevant to the YATES reference. Particularly since EGERER teaches of different parts ranging from wood veneer to fabrics which are relevant to the YATES reference.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molding process of EGERER with the formed injection molded part that includes an identification portion as taught by YATES with the substitution from fabric part with the layers taught by EGERER.
Re: claim 2, EGERER teaches of resins, see [0014, 0016], and YATES teaches cooling the plastic (Claim 7); and removing the previously finished production part with the injection molded part (Abstract teaches separating the molds; Fig. 1 displays the overmolded product outside of the molds. Thus, the overmolded product had to be removed from the mold).
Re: claim 3, Yates teaches removing the previously finished production part with the injection molded part comprises: urging the top mold away from the finished product with the injection molded part; and retrieving the finished product part with the injection molded part from the bottom part (Claim 1 and Abstract teach separating the pressure plate/top mold from the fabric, leaving the hardened plastic embedded in the fabric; Fig. 1 displays the overmolded product outside of the molds. Thus, the overmolded product had to be removed from the mold).
Re: claim 4, Yates teaches placing the previously finished production part atop the bottom mold comprises aligning the previously finished production part with the bottom mold (Col. 3 lines 59- 63 and Claim 3), and EGERER teaches of the production part placed within the molds, see Figures 4a-4c.
Re: claim 19, EGERER teaches of forming a molded part for a decorative part/trim part for a passenger compartment of a vehicle, see [0003].
Claim(s) 8-9, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EGERER in view of YATES as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2003-285355 A (YUZUHARA).
Re: claims 8, 9, and 18, see teaching of EGERER in view of YATES. The claims further teach regarding the footprint which the EGERER and YATES do not specifically teach.
YUZUHARA teaches a footprint of the top mold is smaller than the footprint of the previously finished production part (Figs. 2, 5); a footprint of the bottom mold is smaller than the footprint of the previously finished production part (Figs. 2, 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the footprint of the production part of EGERER in view of Yates with those of Yuzuhara because this is a substitution of the equivalent elements yielding predictable results. The references all teaching of forming a decoration over a panel of material (YATES – Col. 3, lines 43-47 and Figs. 2-4, compared to YUZUHARA [0001]).
Re: claim 20, EGERER teaches of forming a molded part for a decorative part/trim part for a passenger compartment of a vehicle, see [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
US 2663910 A (DANIELSON) – multipart plastic structure, see Figures.
US 5599608 A (YAMAMOTO) – method of insert molding plastic parts, see Figs. 5 and 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744