DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 04/13/2026 have been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 16, 18-22, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (DE 3634559) and Sandhu et al. (US20140239663)
Regarding claim 13, Mueller discloses a vehicle cockpit of modular design for a motor vehicle, comprising: a lower part of an instrument panel (13) (figs 1-4); an upper part of the instrument panel (11) (figs 1-4); a first technology-carrier (12) arranged between the lower part of the instrument panel and the upper part of the instrument panel (figs 1-4), and is fastenable to a supporting tube (30) (figs 1-4), and the first technology-carrier extends over a distance amounting to between 60 % and 90 % of a width of the vehicle cockpit along the transverse axis of the vehicle (figs 1-4), and the first technology-carrier is interchangeable (abstract, page 2), wherein the first technology-carrier is a separate component from the lower part of the instrument panel and from the upper part of the instrument panel (fig 1).
Mueller is silent regarding the fact that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar as far as to a right A-pillar.
Sandhu teaches that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar (20a) as far as to a right A-pillar (20b) (fig 1, [0042]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mueller and Sandhu before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Mueller to include the fact that the vehicle cockpit extends along a transverse axis of the vehicle from a left A-pillar as far as to a right A-pillar in order to provide structural support.
Regarding claim 16, Mueller further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is formed of a single material (figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Mueller further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is configured to accommodate a control element and/or a display element (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Mueller further discloses that at least one of the first or second technology-carriers is interchangeable jointly with the control element and/or the display element (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Mueller further discloses that the lower part of the instrument panel is provided for structurally differing motor vehicles (figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 21, Mueller further discloses that the upper part of the instrument panel is provided for motor vehicles of identical construction (intended use, figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 22, Mueller further discloses that at least one cavity configured to stiffen the technology-carrier and/or an air duct is integrated into the technology-carrier (figs 1-4 show cavities on 12).
Regarding claim 24, Mueller further discloses A motor vehicle comprising a vehicle cockpit according to claim 13 (abstract , figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 25, Mueller further discloses that the upper part of the instrument panel is a separate component from the lower part of the instrument panel (figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 26, Mueller further discloses that the first technology- carriers is interchangeable independent of the upper part of the instrument panel and the lower part of the instrument panel (figs 1-4).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (DE102013013356A1) and Sandhu et al. (US20140239663) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 20050264040).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mueller and Sandhu is silent regarding the fact that the material is a synthetic material
Bailey teaches that the material is a synthetic material ([0012] discloses the use of a synthetic material).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mueller, Bailey and Sandhu before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Mueller and Sandhu to include the first or second technology-carriers is formed of a single or synthetic material as taught by Bailey in order to provide high structural integrity ([0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 16-26 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.
Conclusion
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 DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, 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 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
06/18/2026
Prosecution Insights