DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 01/23/2026, claims 12-22 are pending. Claim 12 is currently amended. Claims 12-22 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
35 USC 103 rejections of claims 12-22 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s amendment and argument. See Response to Argument below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites the limitation “forming a component body…, or providing the component body…”. The Examiner is interpreting the limitation as the component body can be formed or provided.
Claims 13-20 recites the limitation “particle structure” is interpreted as a layer of particles that can be applied to the surface of the component body which corresponds to [0018] of instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2016/0075290 (Catlin).
Regarding Claim 12, Catlin teaches a method of producing a trim element (abstract and [0003]), wherein the trim element has a surface texture that is visible in a finished state of a motor vehicle body comprising the trim element ([0003], the complete trim component has a decorative layer affixed to the trim component, establishing an aesthetically desirable show surface), the method comprising the steps of:
forming a component body constituting the trim element, wherein the component body has a surface and is formed by an additive build-up operation from a hardenable material which is built up in an additive manner (optional limitation as suggested by the alternative limitation “or”; thus, no patentability is given), or providing the component body formed by the additive build-up operation from the hardenable material built up in the additive manner (Figure 3 and [0019], vehicle trim component 32 where the vehicle trim component 32 comprises of a substrate 49 formed of thermoset polymer that can be harden [0020]);
hardening the surface of the component body (Figure 3 and [0017], during the manufacturing process, the material bonds to the decorative layer 36 (e.g., as the heated liquid material cools and hardens), forming a unitary component having an aesthetically desirable show surface. The decorative layer 36 is part of the final trim component 32); and
forming the surface texture as deformations (Figure 3 and [0027], air pressure adjacent to the rear surface 44 of the decorative layer 36 drives the decorative layer 36 into contact with the support surface 38 of the platen 34) in the surface of the component body prior to the hardening of the surface of the component body and/or during the hardening of the surface of the component body ([0017], during the manufacturing process, the material bonds to the decorative layer (e.g., as the heated liquid material cools and hardens), forming a unitary component having an aesthetically desirable show surface. In other words, air pressure drives the decorative layers 36 into contact with the support surface 38 of the platen 34, which is the definition of deformation under broadest reasonable interpretation of changing the shape through the application of pressure, to form a unitary component having an aesthetically desirable show surface), wherein the surface texture on the surface of the component body is a decorative three-dimensional design of an outer surface of the trim element that is visible in a finished state of the trim element and in the finished state of the motor vehicle body ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 22, Catlin teaches a trim element of a motor vehicle body produced by the method of claim 12, the trim element comprising: the surface with the surface texture, wherein the surface texture is a three- dimensional design of an outer surface of the trim element in a finished state of the trim element of the motor vehicle body ([0017] and MPEP 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2002/0119289 (“Czajka et al” hereinafter Czajka) and WO2018/013628 (“Kurtoglu et al” hereinafter Kurtoglu).
Regarding Claim 12, Czajka teaches a method of producing a trim element ([0003]-[0004], invention directed to using thermoplastic elastomers to fabricate automotive interior surfaces), wherein the trim element has a surface texture that is visible in a finished state of a motor vehicle body comprising the trim element ([0006]-[0007], the surface texture created a gloss on the finished state of the article), the method comprising the steps of:
forming a component body constituting the trim element, wherein the component body has a surface and is formed by an additive build-up operation from a hardenable material which is built up in an additive manner (optional limitation as suggested by the alternative limitation “or”; thus, no patentability is given), or providing the component body formed by the additive build-up operation from the hardenable material built up in the additive manner (Figure 7 and [0042], instrument panel section 54 comprises of a plurality of layers adhered and formed in a layer by layer fashion); wherein the surface texture on the surface of the component body is a decorative three-dimensional design of an outer surface of the trim element that is visible in a finished state of the trim element and in the finished state of the motor vehicle body (Figure 7 and [0042] and [0020], the surface texture also provide smooth surface with high gloss).
Czajka further discloses a vacuum forming process is used to form skin 20 into the instrument panel section with a grain or pattern formed therein. The vacuum forming process applies heat to skin 20 that re-heats the skin such that the surface of the skin actually flows and reforms as a smooth surface on a microscopic level ([0020]). Czajka fails to teach hardening the surface of the component body; and forming the surface texture as deformation in the surface of the component body prior to the hardening of the surface of the component body and/or during the hardening of the surface of the component body,
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurtoglu discloses a method of producing a composite article made up of elastomeric material which provides elasticity, and a thermoplastic material which provides low permeability) and can be used in a wide array of commercial products such as wheel assembly ([0026]). Kurtoglu teaches hardening the surface of the component body ([0030], the initial portion 26); and forming the surface texture as deformation (Figure 6C, [0033], pressing a plurality of particles 30 into a surface 28 of an initial portion 26 comprising uncured elastomer) in the surface of the component body (Figure 6D, engagement voids 20 on the surface 28 of the initial portion 26; the engagement voids having different cross-sectional profiles ([0024]) which implies these voids are three-dimensional) prior to the hardening of the surface of the component body ([0033]).
Czajka and Kurtoglu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of forming surface pattern/texture on an elastomeric materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Czajka such that it discusses all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Kurtoglu to provide a plurality of distinct engagement voids to increase adhesion ability ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the surface texture (Kurtoglu, Figure 6D, engagement voids 20) is formed by applying a particle structure (Figure 6B, particles 30) which generates the surface texture on the surface of the component body, onto the surface of the component body ([0037] and Figure 6A-6E).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure (Kurtoglu, Figure 6B, particles 30) is a particulate granular material comprising loose particles (Figure 6B, particles 30 and [0035] implies loose particles with various diameters) and/or loose particle agglomerates.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure (Kurtoglu, Figure 6B, particles 30) is a planar structure (Figure 6B shows the particles are in a planar form) having a particle surface (Figure 6B, the top surface of the particles are considered to the be particle surface).
Regarding Clam 16, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure is a carrier element with particles (Kurtoglu, [0037], the particles are attached to a press) and/or particle agglomerates fastened on the carrier element by adhesive bonding.
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure (Kurtoglu, [0037], the combination of a press and particles) is dissolvable, at least partially, in a solvent and/or is thermally decomposable ([0033], the particles are dissolvable in solvent).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure is water-soluble (Kurtoglu, [0033] dissolving the particles in a polar solvent which comprises water [0040]).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure has particles with a size in a range of between 10 and 100 µm (Kurtoglu, [0035], particles have an average diameter of from about 10 to about 500 µm).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the particle structure is pressed with a contact pressure onto the surface of the component body (Kurtoglu, [0037], the particles are pressed into the surface using a press) and/or wherein the surface of the component body is pressed with a contact pressure against the particle structure.
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Czajka teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the hardening is affected by thermal energy and/or energy radiation (Kurtoglu, [0030] and [0037], heating to cause the hardening of the component).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Czajka teaches a trim element of a motor vehicle body produced by the method of claim 12, the trim element comprising: the surface with the surface texture, wherein the surface texture is a three- dimensional design of an outer surface of the trim element in a finished state of the trim element of the motor vehicle body (Czajka, Figure 7 and MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Catlin does not disclose “forming the surface texture as deformations in the surface of the component”, at least because the decorative layer preexists the component body.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, the term “deformation” is interpreted as the action or process of changing in shape or distorting, especially through the application of pressure. Catlin discloses the use of air pressure adjacent to the rear surface 44 of the decorative layer 36 drives the decorative layer 36 into contact with the support surface 38 of the platen 34 (Figure 3 and [0027]). During the manufacturing process, the material bonds to the decorative layer (e.g., as the heated liquid material cools and hardens), forming a unitary component having an aesthetically desirable show surface ([0017]). Thus, during the manufacturing process, the materials are bond to the decorative layer while through the use of air pressure, the decorative layer are pressed into contact with the support surface of the platen, which formed deformation of the decorative layer on the surface of the harden material,
The Applicant argues Czajka does not discloses “forming the surface texture as deformations in the surface of the component” since the skin is not formed by deforming the surface of the foam layer”.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The Examiner is relied upon Kurtoglu to disclose the recited feature of claim 12. In particular, Kurtoglu discloses pressing a plurality of particles 30 into a surface 28 of an initial portion 26 comprising uncured elastomer (Figure 6C, [0033]). The act of pressing the particles to form surface texture is deformation. Thus, it does teach the claimed limitations of claim 12. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754