DETAILED ACTION
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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application, claims 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 13 has been added.
Amendments to the claims 1 and 5, filed on 27 March 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 March 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 March 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in further view of Keller et al. (DE 102015225955 A1).
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1) in view of Keller et al. (DE 102015225955 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Birkenstock discloses a decorative trim piece, for use as an automotive part, consisting of a metal-plastic composite body, the metal-plastic composite body comprising a metal sheet part, preferably of an aluminum alloy, that forms a decorative area on a surface thereof, and a plastic support part, wherein the plastic support part is affixed to the metal sheet part with the assistance of an adhesion promoter, and wherein the decorative area is treated to have a glossy or colored surface ([0001], [0009]-[0013], [0015], [0021], and [0022] of Birkenstock). (In the instant case, the glossy or colored surface of the decorative area is considered to meet the claimed --color coating pattern generating a dedicated aesthetic design appeal--, since it provides the area with a number of desirable aesthetic features (e.g., embossed letters, debossed letters, colors) ([0015] of Birkenstock).) Specifically, Birkenstock provides for --a hybrid component for automotive applications, the hybrid component comprising: a sheet metal component; and at least one plastic support component connected to the sheet metal component; wherein a decor section of the sheet metal component includes a colour coating pattern--.
Birkenstock fails to disclose --a sheet metal component containing local micro-structuring in the form of undercuts; and at least one plastic support component positively connected to the sheet metal component; wherein form-locking micro-connections are formed between the plastic support component and the sheet metal component--.
Keller discloses a hybrid component comprising a first workpiece consisting of a first material (e.g., steel sheet) having raised sections that form undercuts, and a second material (e.g., plastic) applied in a form-fitting manner such that, with the help of the undercuts, create a positive connection (figures 1A to 2E, [0001], [0005], [0006], [0008], and [0009] of Keller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the hybrid component of Keller with the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in order to have --a sheet metal component containing local micro-structuring in the form of undercuts; and at least one plastic support component positively connected to the sheet metal component; wherein form-locking micro-connections are formed between the plastic support component and the sheet metal component--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the hybrid component of Keller with the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock, from the stand-point of creating high bond strength between the materials of the hybrid component in a form-fitting manner that prevents any relative movement between the two materials ([0004] and [0006] of Keller). (In the instant case, since Birkenstock discloses that the sheet metal has a thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm ([0016] of Birkenstock), the undercuts formed by Keller would necessarily be smaller than the thickness (i.e., would be in the microscale). As such, the undercuts would form micro-connections as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 2: Birkenstock in view of Keller discloses that the decor section includes an anodised layer, wherein the color coating pattern is enclosed in the anodised layer ([0015], [0021], and [0022] of Birkenstock). (In the instant case, Birkenstock discloses forming a colored oxide layer which is then subjected to a protective surface coating ([0022] of Birkenstock), which would involve the application of an anodised layer on the colour coating as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 6: Birkenstock in view of Keller discloses that the sheet metal component includes an aluminum alloy ([0012] of Birkenstock).
Regarding Claim 7: Birkenstock in view of Keller discloses that the plastic support component includes a mounting means ([0009] of Birkenstock).
Regarding Claim 13: Birkenstock in view of Keller discloses the claimed hybrid component. The claimed limitation of --the undercuts are formed by chemical etching or laser patterning-- is a "product-by-process" limitation, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps are considered and any distinctive structural characteristics imparted by the process steps. See MPEP §2113(I). In the instant case, since the process steps of "chemical etching or laser patterning" do not impart any distinctive structural characteristics beyond the teachings of forming the claimed undercuts, and Birkenstock in view of Keller discloses the claimed "sheet metal component containing local micro-structure in the form of undercuts", the limitation is considered taught.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1) in view of Keller et al. (DE 102015225955 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muntean (DE 102014201439 A1).
Birkenstock in view of Keller is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 3: Birkenstock in view of Keller fails to disclose --the decor section is covered by a transparent or translucent protection layer--.
Muntean discloses a vehicle trip part having different surface areas with different optical impressions, wherein a transparent glossy layer is formed on the first and second surface areas which can be form of metal ([0001], [0007]-[0008], and [0010] of Muntean). (In the instant case, while Muntean does not explicitly recite the glossy layer is a protection layer as claimed, in that it covers the underlaying material it can be considered to afford some protection (albeit minor) to the underlying surface, and would therefore be considered equivalent to a "protection layer".)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the shiny layer of Muntean with the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller in order to have --the decor section be covered by a transparent or translucent protection layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the shiny layer of Muntean with the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller, from the stand-point of creating a particularly high-quality impression ([0008] of Muntean).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1) in view of Keller et al. (DE 102015225955 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misaras (US 2002/0101738 A1).
Birkenstock in view of Keller is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 4: Birkenstock in view of Keller fails to disclose --the sheet metal component further includes at least one opening, wherein the opening is a sensor window or allows for backlighting--.
Misaras discloses backlighting for an automotive trim panel, wherein openings are formed through the trim panel to allow light to pass through (figures 1 to 3B and [0001] of Misaras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the backlighting of Misaras with the sheet metal of the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller in order to have --the sheet metal component further includes at least one opening, wherein the opening is a sensor window or allows for backlighting--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the backlighting of Misaras with the sheet metal of the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller, from the stand-point of backlighting an automotive trim panel ([0001] of Misaras).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1) in view of Keller et al. (DE 102015225955 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Wind et al. (US 2013/0130674 A1).
Birkenstock in view of Keller is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 4: Birkenstock in view of Keller fails to disclose --the sheet metal component further includes at least one opening, wherein the opening is a sensor window or allows for backlighting--.
De Wind discloses a door handle assembly for a door of a vehicle that includes an illumination module, wherein the handle includes an aperture (ref. #18a) into which is disposed and connected an illumination module (ref. #16), and wherein the illumination module comprises a cover (ref. #26) directly contacting the aperture, and an illumination source (ref. #20) (figures 2 and 3, abstract, [0028], [0030], and [0032] of De Wind).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the illumination module of De Wind with the sheet metal of the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller in order to have --the sheet metal component further includes at least one opening, wherein the opening is a sensor window or allows for backlighting--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the illumination module of De Wind with the sheet metal of the hybrid component disclosed by Birkenstock in view of Keller, from the stand-point of providing lighting at or along the exterior of the door handle to enhance viewability ([0006] of De Wind). (In the instant case, De Wind discloses adding illumination to a portion of a vehicle for enhancing viewability, which would be at least an aesthetic design choice to be incorporated into the hybrid component of Birkenstock.)
Regarding Claim 5: Birkenstock in view of Keller and De Wind further discloses a cover pane (ref. #26; "cover") inserted in the opening, and is connected to the sheet metal component and/or to the plastic support component (figures 2 and 3, abstract, [0028], [0030], and [0032] of De Wind).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Silvanus et al. (DE 102009018151 A1) discloses the joining of a metal body having undercuts with a plastic body plasticized to fill the undercuts.
Van der Straeten et al. (DE 102016215493 A1) discloses a hybrid component of a metal joining partner and a plastic joining partner, wherein the surface of the metal joining partner is treated to have microstructured depressions into which the plastic enters.
Weingand et al. (DE 102018003150 A1) discloses a metal-plastic composite component having the surface of the metal provided with micro-undercuts , and the plastic component heated to encompass the undercuts.
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 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights