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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cladding part configured as a door trim, seat trim, or pillar trim of claims 1 and 8; the surface cover being fastened to the carrier part in a form-fitting and releasable manner of claims 8 and 14; the clearances for ventilated devices as recited in claims 13 and 15 in association with (in combination with) a door trim, seat trim, or pillar trim as provided in claims 1 and 8 (as clearances 22 are only shown with the embodiment of the instrument panel/dashboard) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Riha et al. (7100941) in view of the well known prior art and further in view of Dieckmann et al. (12275357) or alternatively, Schidan et al. (9022447).
For claim 1, Riha et al. (7100941) disclose a cladding part (10,12, FIG.1), comprising:
a carrier part (20); and
a surface cover (32) of a knitted fabric material (see at least Col 8, lines 49-50),
the surface cover being configured to cover a surface of the carrier part at least in sections,
wherein a predetermined breaking point (26/26A, 36, 44,46) is configured in the surface cover. The predetermined breaking point is configured as a line.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The surface cover comprises at least one yarn which runs along the predetermined breaking point in the knitted fabric material and has lesser mechanical properties (tensile “strength”) than other yarns (higher tensile strength) that form the knitted fabric material (see Col 16, lines 38 thru Col 17, line 67).
Riha et al. go on to disclose that the carrier part has a reduced thickness obtained by selective subtraction of material from a passenger-facing surface (top surface) of the carrier part (Col 6, line 57-Col 7, line 5; the weakened area can be formed in both the top surface of the panel, or alternatively in both the top and bottom surfaces of the panel; see also at least Col 4, lines 9-12).
For claim 1, as amended, the cladding part is provided for use as an instrument panel or dashboard.
For claim 3, the predetermined breaking point is configured as a weakening of the surface cover.
For claim 5, a thickness of the surface cover (32) in a region of the predetermined breaking point and a thickness of the surface cover (32) in regions which are adjacent to the region of the predetermined breaking point are of identical size (Col 4, lines 19-23).
For claim 6, the carrier part (20) has a predetermined breaking point, and
the carrier part predetermined breaking point and the predetermined breaking point of the surface cover (32) are disposed so as to be mutually parallel (Col 8, lines 34-36).
For claim 8, Riha et al. inherently disclose the method for producing the cladding part as described above including generating a surface cover (32) from knitted fabric material;
generating a carrier part (20);
applying the surface cover to at least one portion of a surface of the carrier part,
wherein, while generating the surface cover, a predetermined breaking point is integrated into the surface cover;
the surface cover (32) is connected to the carrier part (20) in a materially integral or form-fitting manner (including but not limited to molding).
Riha et al. lack two elements, that the knitted fabric is 3d knitted and that the surface cover is releasably connected to the carrier part.
For the first element, Riha et al. disclose a knitted fabric but fails to disclose the fabric is 3d knitted. However, examiner took official notice in the action of 10/7/25 that 3d knitting fabrics/textiles is well-known.
Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse was not adequate in the next response. Therefore, in the OA of 12/17/25, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement was taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the knitted fabric of Riha et al. by 3d knitting as taught by the well known prior art because the surface cover can be made in a single operation where in comparison to other forming methods the same shaped part would have required a more complex multistep operation to be carried out for manufacture. Doing so would allow for ease of manufacture and save on cost and time to produce.
Furthermore, regarding the 3d knitting limitation, the applicant should be aware of the MPEP section 2113, which provides that the method of forming or producing a product in an apparatus claim is not germane to the issue of its patentability.
Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and not dependent upon the method of production. See MPEP 2113. The product in a product-by-process claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. No distinctive structural characteristics is recited in the claim and provided to the final product of the present invention than is disclosed in the combination of the prior art references as set forth above.
For the second element, Riha et al., as modified, disclose the surface cover (32) connected to the carrier part (20) in a materially integral or form-fitting manner (including but not limited to molding).
Riha et al., as modified, lack the surface cover connected to the carrier part in a releasable manner, a feature taught by Dieckmann et al. as seen where an interior trim component of 3d knitted fabric is releasbly fastened with a multiplicity of tabs (Claim 8) or alternatively Schidan et al. which provide one surface of a trim covering with part (3) for releasable connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the surface cover of Riha et al., as modified, separable and releasably connected as taught by Dieckmann et al. or Schidan et al. in order to allow for ease in removability/releasability thereof. Motivation for the combination is known from the court which has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make components separable, it would be obvious to do so for that purpose (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)) and from Dieckmann et al. which discusses a desire for separation of materials at the end of the service life of the components to aid in recyclability. Modifying as set forth above would not have provided a new or unexpected result.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Riha et al. (7100941), as modified and applied above with respect to claims 1 and 8 in view of Aumann et al. (2022/0154373) or Gardner, Jr. (6753057).
Riha et al., as modified, apparently disclose clearances.
PNG
media_image2.png
316
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the clearances are not directly associated with the cladding part, a feature taught by both Aumann et al. (as seen below, left) as well as Gardner, Jr. (below, right).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
279
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the surface cover of Riha et al., as modified, with clearances as taught by either Aumann et al. or Gardner, Jr. in order to allow ventilated devices to pass conditioned air therethrough for occupant comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding examiner’s assertion above, the following reference are further examples and evidentiary support of 3d knitting contoured surface covers similar to that of Riha et al.
Both Dieckmann et al. (12275357) (below, left) and Aumann et al. (2022/0154373) (below, center and right) teach 3d knitting fabric for use as an interior component of a motor vehicle. Dieckmann et al. provides support in the Abstract and throughout the specification including claims 1 and 8. Aumann et al. discloses support at least at [0014].
PNG
media_image5.png
162
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
200
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
204
408
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The effective filing dates for Dieckmann et al. and Aumann et al., respectively, are 10/19/21 and 11/19/20 with Dieckmann et al. falling within the 1-year grace period for exceptions (as the EFD for the current application is 5/12/22.
Additionally, DE 102018103923 (DE 923), with a filing date of 8/22/9, teaches a 3d knitted fabric for an interior component of a vehicle.
For amended claim 1, Applicant argues that there is no explanation in the combination rejection as to why it would be obvious to employ 3d knitting because the reference discloses the use of flat fabrics. Examiner notes as set forth in the last action that motivation to produce a knitted fabric in this manner can be based on cost, time, and ease of manufacture. In addition, it is known that 3d knitting allows for production of knitted fabrics in a single operation where in comparison to other forming methods the same shaped part would have required a more complex multistep operation. With regard to the argument that Riha et al. disclose the use of flat fabrics, the examiner does not find this limiting and notes that at least in FIG.1 of Riha et al. the surface cover includes a specific contour. Moreover, the process of 3d knitting can be used for “flat fabrics” as well and nothing in the reference vitiates that use.
Applicant further argues there is nothing in the prior art of record providing any advantages of applying 3d knitted fabrics specifically “to carrier parts configured for use as dashboards or the like”. But, as examiner attempted to make clear in the interview of 2/10/26 (see summary of 2/13/26), the advantages of 3d knitted fabrics are well known. The choice to select a known material or method of production need not come from the area into which the material or process is applied nor does the motivation to combine need to originate from the dashboard art.
For amended claim 8, Applicant argues Riha et al. do not teach or suggest a surface cover being fastened to a carrier part in a form-fitting and releasable manner. The examiner disagrees. Riha et al. do provide for fastening in a form-fitting manner, as set forth above, and lacks only the releasable limitation to which examiner has provided a new rejection.
Applicant goes on to argue that Riha et al. fails to describe alternative methods of construction beyond molding, namely mechanical fastening (to allow for releasability). Examiner acknowledges that Riha et al. do provide molding but asserts that nothing in the reference vitiates other methods of manufacture. Examiner notes that substituting one known method for an alternative well known method of forming/manufacturing is not outside the scope for a PHOSITA. Moreover, as set forth above the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to make components separable, it would be obvious to do so for that purpose and Dieckmann et al. teach a desire to manufacture components in a releasable manner to allow for separation of materials at the end of the vehicle service life for recyclability, while Schidan et al. teach the same to allow for different coefficients of material and expansion/contraction thereof.
With regard to new claims 13-15, new rejections are set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Demedash (5797643) teaches a fabric cover for a portion of the vehicle where the cover is releasably attached by snap fastener elements.
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B