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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 17, and 19-32 are currently pending, of which claims 26-32 are withdrawn. Claim 17 has been amended.
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.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopes (DE 10 2014 019 607) and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2017/0336045).
Regarding claim 17, Kopes discloses a vehicle decorative element having a contour light (0008), which is produced as a materially bonded composite with at least two plastic components by injection molding (0012).
with a first plastic component (24) that can be galvanically coated or lacquered (26) and forms the decorative element (Fig. 3-4, 0032),
with a second plastics component (28) consisting of a transparent or translucent and galvanically inert material (Fig. 3-4, 0032). The second plastics component is positioned on a rear face, is adjacent to the first plastics component and partially covers the first plastic component rear face (Figs 3-4), and forms a contour light region through which light from an optical waveguide element can pass (Figs. 2-4, 0031-0032), and
where there is a ledge produced from the first plastics component that fastens and fixes the light guide element (22) positioned on the rear face (see annotated Fig. 3 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
663
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from Fig. 3 above, a web (e.g., bottom surface) of the optical waveguide element (22) is fixed to a web (e.g., top surface) of the part component produced from the first plastics component which is pointing in a direction of the rear side.
Kopes does not teach the web of the optical waveguide element having an elongated shape that protrudes from a surface of the optical waveguide element and a far end of the at least one web of the part component produced from the first plastics component is in contact with a long side of the elongated shape.
Kobayashi, in the analogous field of vehicle lamps (0001), discloses a light guide comprising a flange part (25). The flange having an elongated shape which protrudes from a surface of the light guide (Fig. 4 and 10).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the waveguide element of Kopes to include a flange, as taught by Kobayashi, providing a surface to mount the light guide (0048).
Given the terms “far end” and “long side” are arbitrary and not structurally defined, there is a combination of Kopes and Kobayashi where a far end of the at least one web of the part component produced from the first plastics component is in contact with a long side of the elongated shape.
Please note, claim 1 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “injection-molding method”, the above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 19, as Kopes teaches the same method of manufacturing of multicomponent injection-molding (0012) a material transition of the first plastics component and the second plastics component taking place continuously and without a wall thickness discontinuity in a region of a material formed between the part component product from the first plastics component and a part component produced from the second plastics component is expected.
Regarding claim 20, Kopes teaches a step at the front-side region of the material interface (step; 36). Kopes does not teach that the height is at least 0.5 mm.
However, Kopes teaches that the shoulder provides an edge for the electroplated layer during electroplating of the decorative part which allows for precise guidelines to be created in order to reliably avoid galvanization of the area of surface (30) which is to be illuminated (0036). Thus, it would have been obvious to have optimized the size, including the height of the step to avoid galvanization of the illuminated surface. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopes in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Roys et al. (US 2009/0274922).
Regarding claims 21-24, modified Kopes discloses the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Kopes does not teach the front side of the first or contour region of the part including a protective layer composite consisting of at least one lacquer layer.
Roys, in the analogous field of vehicle decoration parts (0001), discloses a shaped article having a finished decorative layer (0006). The decorative layer comprising a color layer (14) and attached directly to the color layer an adhesion-promoting primer layer (16; instant first lacquer layer) (0030, Fig. 1) and an outer film (12; instant second lacquer layer) consisting of a transparent, abrasion and chemically resistant material (0024).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the part of Kopes to include a primer and protective outer films layers on the outer surface, as taught by Roys, to provide surface properties meeting OEM criterial for interior automotive use (0006).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopes in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sandmeyer et al. (US 2014/0167440).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kopes discloses the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above. While Kopes teaches the decorative part embedded/arranged with a panel e.g., of a vehicle door (0029, 0031), Kopes does not teach that the connection is via an adhesive bond or welded connection.
Sandmeyer, in the analogous field of decorative vehicle parts (0001), teaches bonding of the decorative layer to a carrier part by use of an adhesive (0036).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to adhesive attached the decorative part of Kopes to a panel, as taught by Sandmeyer, to connect the decorative part to the panel part (0036).
Please note, claim 25 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “is produced by”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Kopes and Kobayashi would not result in the claimed structure of a far end of the at least one web of the part component produced from the first plastics component is in contact with a long side of the elongated shape.
These structures however can be arbitrarily selected on the at least one web of the part component and of the elongated shape. They are not structurally defined in the claims and there is not frame of reference for what is considered the “far end” or “long side.”
Correspondence
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zwick (DE102006015156A1) teaching a light guide with an elongated portion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights