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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oevrard et al (French Patent Publication 2,937,932).
Re claim 1, Oevrard et al. discloses an interior trim part of a vehicle, comprising a carrier (4, figure 4) having a first surface (see the annotated figure below), a second surface (see the annotated figure below), and at least one opening (see the annotated figure below) penetrating the carrier from the first surfaces to the second surface, a membrane layer (5, 12, figure 1) applied to the first surface and covering the opening, a décor layer (6) applied to the membrane layer, and an electronic module (10, 14, figure 1) detachably arranged within the opening and contacting the membrane layer or interacting with the membrane layer, wherein the electronic module is decoupled from the carrier by dampening elements (see the annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
553
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, the carrier is molded on the membrane layer or vice versa (see page 3, paragraphs 4-6 of the machine translation which discloses the 5 is molded to the frame 4).
Re claim 3, the membrane layer is fastened to the first surface of the carrier by a first adhesive layer (68, figure 3).
Re claim 7, the electronic module is fastened to the carrier by a screw- or snapping connection (22, figure 1).
Re claim 10, a housing (20, figure 1) is fastened to the carrier, said housing is enclosing the electronic module.
Re claim 11, Oevrard et al. discloses a vehicle, comprising an interior trim part according to claim 7.
Re claim 12, Oevrard et al. discloses a method for manufacturing an interior trim part according to claim 1, comprising the following steps:
- producing the carrier by over molding the membrane layer such that the membrane layer and the carrier are fastened to each other (see page 3, paragraphs 4-6 of the machine translation which discloses the 5 is molded to the frame 4) or injection molding the carrier followed by the steps of applying a first adhesive layer to the first surface and fastening the membrane layer to the carrier.
Re claim 13, the method includes placing the lamination tool (54, figure 2) such that it is contacting the second surface and the membrane layer, and laminating the décor layer (6) on the membrane layer (see the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
479
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 15, the method includes fastening the electronic module to the carrier by a screw- or snapping connection (22).
Re claim 16, the method includes fastening a housing (20) to the carrier such that the housing is enclosing the electronic module.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oevrard et al (French Patent Publication 2,937,932).
Re claim 5, Oevrard et al. discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for the membrane layer having a thickness of between .05 mm and 4 mm. Oevrard et al. is silent as to the thickness of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a membrane layer, such as that disclosed by Oevrard et al., to have a thickness of between .05 mm and 4 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and the device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case it appears the devices would perform similarly given the same relative dimensions. See In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, 225 UPA 232 (1984).
Re claim 6, Oevrard et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for the décor layer having a thickness (TD) of between .2 mm and 4 mm. Oevrard et al. is silent as to the thickness of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a decor layer, such as that disclosed by Oevrard et al., to have a thickness of between .2 mm and 4 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and the device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case it appears the devices would perform similarly given the same relative dimensions. See In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, 225 UPA 232 (1984).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oevrard et al. (French Patent Publication 2,937,932) in view of Oevrard et al. ‘942 (US Patent 9,767,942).
Oevrard et al. discloses all the limitations of the claims, as applied above except for the décor layer is applied to the membrane layer by a second adhesive layer.
Oevrard et al. ‘942 teaches applying a décor layer (14) to a membrane layer (10) by an adhesive (see column 3, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify an interior trim part, such as that disclosed by Oevrard et al., to have the décor layer be applied to the membrane layer by a second adhesive layer, as taught by Oevrard et al. ‘942, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to attach the interior trim part to the membrane layer in a conventional and cost-effective manner of upholstery.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oevrard et al (French Patent Publication 2,937,932) in view of Valcher (WIPO Publication WO2021/180624A1).
Re claim 8, Oevrard et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim, as applied above, except for at least one vibration generating element is either integrated into the electronic module or interacting with the electronic module such that vibrations generated by the vibration generating element are transferred to the membrane layer and the decor layer.
Valcher teaches at least one vibration generating element (36, figure 10) being either integrated into the electronic module or interacting with the electronic module such that vibrations generated by the vibration generating element are transferred to a layer (206).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an interior trim part, such as that disclosed Oevrard et al., to have at least one vibration generating element be either integrated into the electronic module or interacting with the electronic module such that vibrations generated by the vibration generating element are transferred to the membrane layer and the decor layer, as taught by Valcher, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to alert the user of the device that the electronic module has been activated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oevrard et al. (French Patent Publication 2,937,932) because the reference fails to disclose “the electronic module is decoupled from the carrier by damping elements”. Applicant asserts that the connection between support 13 and armature 4 in the Oevrard et al. reference is rigid and intended for securing the support and not for decoupling the electronic module form the carrier by “damping elements”. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Applicant’s arguments seem to rest on the difference in rigidity between the structure of the Oevrard reference and applicant’s own discloses invention. However, rigidity or flexibility with regard to the damping elements of applicant’s own damping elements is not disclosed in applicant’s originally filed specification, claims, or drawings. In fact, applicant’s originally filed application gives no indication of how much dampening or what type of material a structure must have to be considered a “damping element” according to the claims. Therefore, by its own nature, the structures identified in the annotated figures above of the Oevrard reference can be considered “damping elements” as they must inherently damp vibrations between the carrier and electronic module simply by their presence. Their effectiveness in this regard is not part of applicant’s originally filed disclosure and so regardless of the flexibility, rigidity, or material of the structure identified as the “damping elements” in the Oevrard reference, the structure must satisfy the claim language as it will provide some dampening however small that may be.
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 Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (517) 272-5109. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
March 11, 2026