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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application, claims 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 8 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 December 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants' claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 28 June 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the WO 2023/274490 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-7: Claim 1 recites the limitation --a dedicated aesthetic design appeal-- in line 7. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention. As such, the limitation renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to give the limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation with respect to the colour coating pattern (i.e., any pattern).
Claims 2-7, which depend from claim 1, fail to clarify the issue and are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Birkenstock teaches 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).)
Regarding Claim 2: Birkenstock teaches 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 teaches that the sheet metal component includes an aluminum alloy ([0012] of Birkenstock).
Regarding Claim 7: Birkenstock teaches that the plastic support component includes a mounting means ([0009] of Birkenstock).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birkenstock (DE 102005032421 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muntean (DE 102014201439 A1).
Birkenstock is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 3: Birkenstock 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 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, 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Misaras (US 2002/0101738 A1).
Birkenstock is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 4: Birkenstock 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 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, 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Wind et al. (US 2013/0130674 A1).
Birkenstock is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 4: Birkenstock 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 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, 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 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
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