DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment, filed 1/21/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending with claims 6-10 being currently added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a proximal end portion”, “a distal end portion”, “a proximal end portion side”, and “a distal end portion side”.
Claim 2 recites a “proximal end portion side”.
Claim 6 recites “a proximal end portion side”, “a proximal end-side portion”, “a proximal end-side end”, “a proximal end portion”, “a distal end-side portion”, “a distal end-side end”, and “a distal end portion side”.
Claim 7 recites a “proximal end-side portion” and a “proximal end portion side”.
Claims 8-10 recite a “proximal end-side portion”.
It is unclear and therefore indefinite as to how many proximal and distal parts or portions are being claimed (i.e. is “a proximal end portion” the same as “a proximal end portion side”).
It appears that applicants are trying to better claim the locking base protrusion in an attempt to overcome the cited art. However, the cumbersome terminology introduces doubt as to the exact structure being claimed and thus makes it difficult to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. It is noted that only the “proximal end-side portion” and the “distal end-side portion” are explicitly identified in the drawings (e.g. 22 and 23). The phrases “proximal end portion” and “distal end portion” do not appear to be recited in the specification (e.g. the specification appears to use “proximal end portion side ” and “distal end portion side”.
As best understood by the examiner, the art cited below discloses the claims as recited regarding the various ends and sides of the locking base protrusion. Although the examiner see the merits of applicants’ amendments and arguments, it appears that the amendments fall short of what the arguments present. Applicants are reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Dependent claims 3-5 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nozue et al. (JP2014019231 – see English translation - IDS).
Regarding claim 6: Nozue discloses a vehicle interior material 106 (Figs. 1, 2). Nozue discloses an interior material main body portion 106, 106a, 106b, 106c and an attachment section 114, 112 protruding from the interior material main body portion and inserted into an opening portion of an attached section (Figs. 1-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]). Nozue discloses that the vehicle interior material is attached to the attached section by locking the attachment section 112 to the opening portion (Figs. 1-6; [0020]). Nozue discloses the attachment section includes a plate-like portion extending in a predetermined direction from the interior material main body portion (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses an inclined portion (portion of 114) that is inclined so that a thickness gradually decreases toward a distal end of the plate-like portion (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses a pair of slits (illustrated but unnumbered) formed in the plate-like portion along the predetermined direction (Figs. 4, 6). Nozue discloses a locking base positioned between the slits, extending in the predetermined direction, and elastically deformable in a thickness direction of the plate-like portion (Figs. 4-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]). Nozue discloses the locking base has a protrusion 114 that is raised in the thickness direction of the plate-like portion and locked to and held by the opening portion by interference of a proximal end portion side of the locking base with the opening portion (Figs. 4-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]).
Nozue discloses that the locking base has a proximal end-side portion extending from a proximal end-side end of the protrusion 114 toward a proximal end portion and a distal end-side portion extending from a distal end-side end of the protrusion toward a proximal end-side end of the inclined portion (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses that the locking base has a portion having different cross-sectional areas on the proximal end portion side and the distal end portion side with respect to the protrusion (Figs. 4, 5 – the cross-sectional areas, above and below protrusion 114 are different). Nozue discloses that the proximal end-side portion has a smaller thickness dimension than the distal end-side portion (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 7: Nozue discloses that the proximal end-side portion has a minimum cross-sectional area on the proximal end portion side with respect to the protrusion (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 8: Nozue discloses that the proximal end-side portion has a smaller width dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 9: Nozue discloses that the proximal end-side portion has a smaller thickness dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 10: Nozue discloses that the proximal end-side portion has a smaller thickness dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue et al. (JP2014019231 – see English translation - IDS) in view of Kim et al. (US 20080289155).
Nozue discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 1: Nozue discloses a vehicle interior material 106 (Figs. 1, 2). Nozue discloses an interior material main body portion 106, 106a, 106b, 106c and an attachment section 114, 112 protruding from the interior material main body portion and inserted into an opening portion of an attached section (Figs. 1-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]). Nozue discloses that the vehicle interior material is attached to the attached section by locking the attachment section 112 to the opening portion (Figs. 1-6; [0020]). Nozue discloses the attachment section includes a plate-like portion extending in a predetermined direction from the interior material main body portion (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses a pair of slits (illustrated but unnumbered) formed in the plate-like portion along the predetermined direction (Figs. 4, 6). Nozue discloses a locking base positioned between the slits extending in the predetermined direction, and elastically deformable in a thickness direction of the plate-like portion (Figs. 4-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]). Nozue discloses the locking base has a protrusion 114 that is raised in the thickness direction of the plate-like portion and locked to and held by the opening portion by interference of a proximal end portion side of the locking base with the opening portion (Figs. 4-6; [0018], [0020], [0021]).
Nozue discloses that the protrusion 114 has a first surface inclined from a proximal end portion toward a top portion with respect to a longitudinal direction of the locking base (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses a second surface inclined from the top portion toward a distal end portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the locking base (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses the first surface and the second surface are inclined in opposite directions with respect to a thickness direction of the locking base (Figs. 4-6). Nozue discloses the locking base includes a portion having different cross-sectional areas on the proximal end portion side and a distal end portion side with respect to the protrusion (Figs. 4, 5 – the cross-sectional areas, above and below protrusion 114 are different).
Nozue does not explicitly disclose that an inclination angle of the first surface is greater than an inclination angle of the second surface. Kim discloses that an inclination angle of the first surface is greater than an inclination angle of the second surface (Figs. 2, 4a). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the protrusion of Nozue so that an inclination angle of the first surface is greater than an inclination angle of the second surface as taught by Kim. As both Nozue and Kim are directed to vehicle attachment structures, as attachment clips are known in the art, as attachment clips have different structures, and as Kim teaches a specific structure (i.e. that an inclination angle of the first surface is greater than an inclination angle of the second surface), it would have been within routine skill to select a specific protrusion geometry from a finite selection of locking protrusion configurations. Such a simple substitution, selection, and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Nozue, as modified by Kim, discloses that the locking base has a minimum cross-sectional region having a minimum cross-sectional area on the proximal end portion side with respect to the protrusion (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 3: Nozue, as modified by Kim, discloses that the minimum cross-sectional region has a smaller width dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 4: Nozue, as modified by Kim, discloses that the minimum cross-sectional region has a smaller thickness dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Regarding claim 5: Nozue, as modified by Kim, discloses that the minimum cross-sectional region has a smaller thickness dimension than the other portions of the locking base (Figs. 4, 5 – Nozue discloses this limitation as the positioning of the different cross-sectional areas are very broadly recited as to positional relationships between the structures of the locking base/attachment section).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-5 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Applicants’ arguments, directed to claims 1-5 are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Applicants’ arguments which may be directed to claims 6-10 are moot as these are newly added claims and the rejections are set out hereinabove.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/11/2026