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.
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.
For claim 1, Riha et al. (7100941) disclose a cladding part (10,12, FIG.1), comprising:
a carrier part (20); and
a surface cover (32,32A) 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).
The surface cover of Riha et al. is connected to the carrier part in a releasable manner as seen at [0084] which allows for the removal of fabric layer (32A) from the door area (14A) to provide an alternative design look/appearance (see also claim 25). In this way, the surface cover is fastened to the carrier part in a ‘releasable’ manner as broadly recited and interpreted.
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 and releasable 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).
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 Gardner, Jr. (6753057).
Riha et al., as modified, 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 Gardner, Jr. (below).
PNG
media_image3.png
279
426
media_image3.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 Gardner, Jr. in order to allow ventilated devices to pass conditioned air therethrough for occupant comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant argues the inventorship of Aumann (12208751 published as 2022/0355746) and Aumann (2022/0154373) is identical to that of the present application and these references do not qualify as prior art under 102(a)(2). Examiner is persuaded by this argument and apologizes for any confusion of the prior office action.
It should be noted that 5/11/23 is the effective filing date of the current application because no translation of the German priority document has been provided, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55.
Aumann ‘373 has a public availability date of 5/19/22 which is earlier than the EFD of the current application. However, the date falls within the 1-year grace period and qualifies for exception 102(b)(1)(A).
Likewise, Aumann (751) was published as PGPUB US 2022/0355746 which has a public availability date of 11/10/22. This date is also earlier than the EFD of the current application but likewise falls within the 1-year grace period and qualifies for the same exception.
Examiner has removed from the rejections above both Aumann references.
Upon further consideration of the Riha et al. reference, the examiner asserts that the surface cover thereof is releasable as broadly recited and interpreted because, as seen at [0084], the reference discloses that the surface cover allows for the removal of fabric layer (32A) from the door area (14A) to provide an alternative design look/appearance (see also claim 25). In this way, the surface cover is considered to be fastened to the carrier part in a ‘releasable’ manner.
Moreover, examiner notes that the limitation which was present in Aumann is not novel as both Sasser et al. (2004/0099020) and Kielinen et al. (2016/0075081), which were provided in the prior office action, both teach a dashboard/instrument panel trim releasably fastened to a carrier component, such as by hook and loop type fasteners.
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.
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_image4.png
194
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The following references all teach a surface cover connected to a carrier part in a releasable manner and could be used to form a 103 type rejection. These references include DE 974, Sasser et al. (2004/0099020) and/or Kielinen et al. (2016/0075081).
DE 974 (DE 102011114974) discloses a self-adhesive layer (21).
PNG
media_image5.png
208
513
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Specifically, the self-adhesive layer (21) of the flooring of DE 974 allows for the interior lining to be changed and affixed quickly and easily.
Sasser et al. (2004/0099020) discloses two components connected together in a releasable fashion via hook and loops.
Kielinen et al. (2016/0075081) teaches a dashboard/instrument panel with an interior trim releasably fastened to a carrier component.
PNG
media_image6.png
548
839
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As set forth above any of the reference could be used in combination with Riha et al., as modified. That is modification could be made to the surface cover of Riha et al., as modified, of the initial embodiment in order to allow separable and releasably connection, taught by DE 974 or Sasser et al. or Kielinen et al. As set forth above, a PHOSITA would be motivated to do so 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.
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