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 § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 8857565) in view Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA – see prior actions which set forth that what was taken to be known in the art is now regarded as AAPA). Regarding claim 14, Harrison et al. disclose “a method, comprising: receiving” a created design (Figure 2, column 2, lines 34-36: Examiner notes that the design must implicitly be created, and ‘received’ by the person making the design, as shown in Figure 2); producing, using an additive production process, a die based on the design (column 2, lines 48-55); and embossing, using the die, the design in a component material layer of a component (column 3, lines 1-7), wherein the die has an adhesive layer (sentence bridging columns 2 and 3) and wherein the die remains on a back side of the component material layer facing away from a visible side of the component material layer as a stiffening element after the embossing (Figure 13).” Harrison et al. fail to specifically disclose that the receiving is done “by a digital platform from a customer terminal or via a user program on the customer terminal, a submission” or that the submission is “of a design that is selected by a customer or that is created by the customer.” However, AAPA discloses that it was known to have customers digitally design their own desired product, via, e.g., their smartphones or home computers, and transmit the digital design to a manufacturer/store that then manufactures the design created by the customer, in order to have a product that is more customizable and/or to have a process that is quicker or more streamlined. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Harrison et al. to use such a digital platform and system in order to have a more customizable product and/or to have a process that is quicker or more streamlined. Harrison et al. further disclose that the system is heated after embossing in order to “further” cure the adhesive (column 3, lines 20-22), but fails to disclose “warming the component material layer before the embossing.” However, AAPA discloses that at the time of filing of the invention, it was known to warm sheet materials which are to be embossed, prior to the embossing, in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to warm the thin flexible layer of Harrison et al. before embossing in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier.
Claim(s) 10-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 8857565) in view of Stokes (US 2005/0053275), Pollack (US 11428512), and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA – see prior actions which set forth that what was taken to be known in the art is now regarded as AAPA). Regarding claims 10 and 14, Harrison et al. teach “a method, comprising: receiving” a created design (Figure 2, column 2, lines 34-36: Examiner notes that the design must implicitly be created, and ‘received’ by the person making the design, as shown in Figure 2); producing a die based on the design (column 2, lines 48-55); and embossing, using the die, the design in a component material layer of a component (column 3, lines 1-7), wherein the die has an adhesive layer (sentence bridging columns 2 and 3) and wherein the die remains on a back side of the component material layer facing away from a visible side of the component material layer as a stiffening element after the embossing (Figure 13).” Harrison et al. fail to disclose that the producing is accomplished by a 3D printer. However, Stokes discloses that 3D printers are known to produce stamping dies, that 3D printers include those using laminated object modelling (paragraphs 48-49). Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method of Harrison et al. is analogous to laminated object modelling in that multiple layers are laminated together to make a 3D object. Stokes further shows that the 3D printer receives a digital design and creates a 3D object (paragraphs 98-102, Figures 25 and 26). Furthermore, Pollack discloses that 3D printing a single piece and using an adhesive to bond multiple pieces together are known suitable methods for producing a 3-dimensional object (column 7, lines 24-37). It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material or method based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to: a) substitute 3D printing for the layered adhesion method of Harrison et al.; and/or b) use 3D printing to create the 3D design of Harrison et al. Upon modifying Harrison et al., the 3D printer would receive the design and print the design, as is known from Stokes. Harrison et al. fail to specifically disclose that the receiving is done “by a digital platform from a customer terminal or via a user program on the customer terminal, a submission” or that the submission is “of a design that is selected by a customer or that is created by the customer.” However, AAPA discloses that at the time of the filing of the invention, it was known to have customers digitally design their own desired product, via, e.g., their smartphones or home computers, and transmit the digital design to a manufacturer/store that then manufactures the design created by the customer, in order to have a product that is more customizable and/or to have a process that is quicker or more streamlined. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Harrison et al. to use such a digital platform and system in order to have a more customizable product and/or to have a process that is quicker or more streamlined. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Harrison et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 10 above, but fail to disclose “checking, using digital data from the design selected by or created by the customer, a quality of the design on the component, an achievability of the design on the component, or an achievability of the production of the die corresponding to the design,” or “wherein the digital data from the design selected or created by the customer is supplemented or corrected, wherein the supplementation or correction involves supplementing or correcting depth information or a picture quality.” However, logically, if the manufacture of the customer’s design is not feasible, a store or manufacturer would want to know beforehand so that time and materials are not wasted by a failed manufacturing attempt. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to check the achievability of, at least, the die component to avoid wasting time and or materials from a failed manufacturing attempt. Furthermore, if the customer’s design could be corrected to make it feasible before beginning the manufacturing process, the manufacturer/store would want to be able to fix it so that the product could be produced, and thus be able to sell the product. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to correct the digital information of the customer’s design in order to have a design which can be feasibly produced. Furthermore, in this instance, since the design involves depth information (see Figures 5 and 6), in the instance where the depths provided in the customer’s design are incompatible or incorrect, one having ordinary skill in the art would therefore correct the depth information in order to make the design producible. Regarding claim 13, Harrison et al. further disclose “wherein the design is embossed on one side in the component material layer by the die, wherein the one side is the visible side of the component material layer (Figure 13).
Regarding claim 14, Harrison et al. further disclose that the system is heated after embossing in order to “further” cure the adhesive (column 3, lines 20-22), but fails to disclose “warming the component material layer before the embossing.” However, AAPA discloses that at the time of filing of the invention, it was known to warm sheet materials which are to be embossed, prior to the embossing, in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to warm the thin flexible layer of Harrison et al. before embossing in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier. Regarding claim 15, Harrison et al. further disclose “wherein the component material layer is a flat material (column 3, line 1).” Regarding claims 17 and 18, the claims are directed to an intended use of the component; the component of Harrison et al. is more than capable of being used as vehicle interior component, or as a floor mat, seat cover, or a fabric lining. Regarding claim 19, Harrison et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 10 above, except “wherein the die is heated by infrared radiation or microwave radiation prior to the embossing the design.” Harrison et al. further disclose that the system is heated after embossing in order to “further” cure the adhesive (column 3, lines 20-22). However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of filing of the invention, it was known to use heated dies in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, infrared heaters were known means of heating dies. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to heat the dies in the modified method of Harrison et al. in order to make the embossing process quicker and/or easier, and to use infrared heaters to heat the dies because they were known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 20, Harrison et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 14 above, except “wherein the component material layer is warmed before the embossing by heated plates or rollers.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filing of the invention, it was known to use heated rollers or plates to heat a fabric. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use heated rollers or plates in order to heat the fabric in the modified method of Harrison et al. because it was known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. Since Applicant did not traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c).
Regarding claim 21, Harrison et al. further disclose “ wherein the component material layer is a textile (abstract: fabric).”
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al., Stokes, Pollack and AAPA, further in view of Domash (US 20140116632).
Regarding claim 16, Harrison et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 10, above, and further disclose that the component material layer is a fabric or thin flexible material (column 3, line 1), but fail to disclose that the material is leather. However, Domash discloses using leather as the exterior of an acoustic panel (paragraph 78). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use leather as the exterior of the acoustic panel of Harrison et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose (see MPEP §2144.07), and/or in order to achieve a desired aesthetic effect that is associated with leather. Furthermore, since leather is considered to be thin and/or flexible, one having ordinary skill in the art would have had even more reason to consider using it as the material layer of Harrison et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Examiner notes that claim 14 recites “an additive production process.” The method of Harrison et al. is clearly an additive production process in that it is a process which produces a design through an additive process. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an additive production process” includes the method shown by Harrison et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853