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 surface cover being fastened to the carrier part in a releasable manner of claims 1 and 8 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: newly amended [0030] now discloses FIG.3 showing the surface cover connected to the carrier in both an integral “or” form-fitting and releasable manner. It is unclear and confusing how the drawing figure can show both scenarios in the alternative. That is, it is unclear how the FIG.3 can simultaneously show one scenario where the surface cover connected to the carrier integrally and at the same time show the connection in a ‘form-fitting and releasable manner’. Further, there is no support visually for the connection in a releasable manner. There is no “fastening element” (described at [0031]) visibly shown in FIG.3. Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 12 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 Aumann et al. (12208751, with an EFD of 5/10/21).
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).
For claim 1, Riha et al. lack two elements, that (1) the knitted fabric is 3d knitted and
(2) the surface cover is releasably connected to the carrier part in a form fitting manner.
For the first element (1), 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 (2), 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
Aumann et al. (12208751, with an EFD of 5/10/21) which discloses this feature (Abstract; Col 2, lns 1-4 and 43-49).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
508
media_image2.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, separable and releasably connected as taught by Aumann et al. in order to allow for ease in removability/releasability/replaceability 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)). 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_image3.png
316
559
media_image3.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_image4.png
202
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
279
426
media_image5.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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Aumann et al. (12208751, EFD of 5/10/21) in view of Riha et al. (7100941).
For claim 1, Aumann et al. ‘751 disclose a cladding part, comprising:
a carrier part (10, FIG.2); and
a surface cover (20) of a knitted fabric material, the surface cover being configured to cover a passenger-facing surface of the carrier part at least in sections, the surface cover being fastened to the carrier part in a form-fitting and releasable manner, the knitted fabric material being a three-dimensional knitted fabric material,
wherein the cladding part is configured as an instrument panel or dashboard;
wherein a predetermined breaking point (“airbag weakening”) is configured in the surface cover,
wherein the carrier part has a reduced thickness obtained by selective subtraction of material (via a “laser”) from a passenger-facing surface of the carrier part.
Aumann et al. is silent on the predetermined breaking point being configured as a line,
wherein at least one yarn runs along the predetermined breaking point in the knitted fabric material and has lesser mechanical properties than other yarns that form the knitted fabric material.
This feature is taught by Riha et al. (7100941) teaching 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.
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).
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 airbag weakening of Aumann et al. as a line where a yarn has lesser strength/reduced thickness than the surrounding material as an obvious expedient to weakening with a laser based on effective and available manufacturing techniques, cost, and time. Modifying in this manner would achieve the same predictable result of weakening the cladding part at an airbag location.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Since applicant has not disclosed that having weakening the predetermined point in a particular manner solves any stated problem (in the original disclosure) or is for any particular purpose, it appears that other methods would perform equally well.
The choice to modify is deemed to have been an obvious design choice as set forth above and would not change the use of the device or produce an unexpected result.
For claim 3, Aumann et al., as modified, provides the predetermined breaking point configured as a weakening of the surface cover.
For claim 5, Aumann et al., as modified, provides a thickness of the surface cover in a region of the predetermined breaking point and a thickness of the surface cover in regions which are adjacent to the region of the predetermined breaking point are of identical size.
For claim 6, Aumann et al. do not disclose the carrier part having a predetermined breaking point coinciding in a parallel manner with the predetermined breaking point. However, this feature is taught by Riha et al. and 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 carrier part of Aumann et al. with a corresponding breaking point as taught by Riha et al. in order to aid in airbag deployment.
For claim 15, Aumann et al. disclose the surface cover having clearances through which ventilation devices can be routed.
For claim 8, Aumann et al. inherently disclose the recited method for producing a cladding part, including comprising the steps of: generating a surface cover (20) from knitted fabric material; generating a carrier part (10); applying the surface cover to at least one portion of a passenger-facing surface of the carrier part (FIG.2), the surface cover being fastened to the carrier part in a form-fitting and releasable manner (FIG.2 and at least Col 2, lines 1-4 and 43-49),
wherein, while generating the surface cover, a predetermined breaking point is integrated into the surface cover (“airbag weakening”),
wherein the carrier part has a reduced thickness (via laser) along the predetermined breaking point, the reduced thickness being obtained by selective subtraction of material from a passenger-facing surface of the carrier part, and
wherein the cladding part is configured as an instrument panel or dashboard.
Aumann et al., as modified with Riha et al. above, provides the additional subject matter where the predetermined breaking point is configured as a line, and the additional step of at least one yarn runs along the predetermined breaking point in the knitted fabric material and has lesser mechanical properties than other yarns that form the knitted fabric material.
For claim 12, the knitted fabric material comprises a three-dimensional knitted fabric material.
For claim 13, further comprising forming clearances in the surface cover through which ventilated devices can be routed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Drawings
Applicant’s amendment to the specification at [0030] does not obviate the drawing objection. It is unclear how FIG.3 can show both scenarios and no fastening elements are shown to provide support of the form-fitting and releasable attachment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant provides on the record (see the remarks of 4/28/26 (bottom of page 8)) a statement of common ownership with Dieckmann (exception 102(b)(2)(C)).
The arguments with regard to Dieckmann and Schidan are moot.
Applicant further argues Riha, the primary reference, cannot properly be modified with Schidan or any other reference in an attempt to arrive at "the surface cover being fastened to the carrier part ... in a releaseable manner," because applicant purports per MPEP 2143.01(VI), the proposed modification changes the principle of operation of a Riha. This is not found persuasive. Applicant appears to assert that because Riha does not provide “alternative processes to molding” no alternatives are available or capable of use with the invention.
Examiner disagrees.
Initially, examiner would like to reiterate that which was already set forth in the Response to Arguments of the prior FINAL action mailed 3/5/26 (at the top of Page 7).
“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”. Examiner further notes that a PHOSITA understands that separation of materials is useful at the end of the vehicle service life for recyclability.
Examiner notes the proposed method of manufacturing in Riha is not limiting and is set forth only as a preferable form of manufacture (Col 8, lines 44-46), (one with benefits that Riha has identified and outlined), but not an exclusive one. There is nothing in Riha that vitiates the use of alternative methods of manufacture. Applicant has not identified any aspect supporting such a reading. Applicant does not show that Riha’s device would be rendered inoperable by the modification. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The two prong test for this line of argument requires 1) a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the prior art; and 2) a change in the basic principle under which the prior art was designed to be operative. In this instance, 1) no substantial reconstruction or redesign is required as Riha does not vitiate the use or employment of other methods (other types of molding, glue, interference or friction fits, or mechanical fastening) to produce the device. The reference does not discourage a PHOSITA from following “alternative paths” to produce an air bag cover with a pre-weakened portion. And 2) providing the outer layer with weakened fibers or yarns in a releasable manner to the substrate does not frustrate the principles of operation of Riha, nor does it change the basic principles under which the prior art was designed to be operative. Namely it does not change the weakening or pre-weakening of the surface cover but merely the attachment or connection of the that layer to the substrate itself.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 103 for claims 13 and 15
Applicant notes in the remarks that the inventorship of Aumann (Thomas Aumann, Florian Dechant, and Johann Gasslhuber) is identical to that of the present application, which has a priority date of May 12, 2022, and a filing date of May 11, 2023. Aumann was published on May 19, 2022, less than one year before the actual filing date of the present application and after the priority date. Applicant then argues, per 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1), Aumann is not prior art to the present application.
This is not persuasive.
Examiner asserts Aumann (US 2022/0154373) has an effective filing date of 11/19/20 and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2).
The effective filing date (EFD) of the current application is 5/12/22 more than one year after the EFD of the reference. Since Aumann ‘373 falls outside the 1-year grace period, no exceptions apply and the reference can be used as prior art as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102018103923 (DE 923), with a filing date of 8/22/19, teaches a 3d knitted fabric for an interior component of a vehicle.
Aumann et al. (2022/0154373) teach 3d knitting fabric for use as an interior component of a motor vehicle (see [0014]).
Demedash (5797643) teaches a fabric cover for a portion of the vehicle where the cover is releasably attached by snap fastener elements.
PNG
media_image6.png
194
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The following references are particularly pertinent to the form-fitting and releasable connection of the carrier part and surface cover:
Sasser et al. (2004/0099020) which discloses two components connected together in a releasable fashion via hook and loops.
Kielinen et al. (2016/0075081) teaching a dashboard/instrument panel with an interior trim releasably fastened to a carrier component.
PNG
media_image7.png
548
839
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights