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
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 16-20, without traverse, in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 29, 2025.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 26, 2024, and October 2, 2025, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 05253964).
Ogawa discloses an air bag cover having a thin-walled part usually covering an air bag arranged in a folded-up state, which is subjected to insert molding in such a state that an insert net having a slit part (flexible) arranged thereto is embedded in the thin-walled part, the core for molding the thin-walled part is provided to a mold in a freely up-and-down movable manner and the end edge of the slit part 4 of the insert net is pressed to the mold by the core to inject a urethane material (abstract and Figures 1-2), as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where Ogawa does not disclose the opposing edge portions of the reinforcing layer are molded, as in claim 16. In claim 16, the phrase, “for use over an airbag” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In claim 16, the phrase, “formed from a molding material” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a panel substrate and a flexible reinforcing layer. The reference suggests such a product because Ogawa discloses an air bag cover having a thin-walled part usually covering an air bag arranged in a folded-up state, which is subjected to insert molding in such a state that an insert net having a slit part (flexible) arranged thereto is embedded in the thin-walled part, the core for molding the thin-walled part is provided to a mold in a freely up-and-down movable manner and the end edge of the slit part 4 of the insert net is pressed to the mold by the core to inject a urethane material (abstract and Figures 1-2).
Concerning claim 17, Ogawa does not disclose the length of each edge portion being molded.
Concerning claim 18, Figure 1 of Ogawa shows an H-shaped tear seam having an areal extent that defines an airbag door region, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
296
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 19, Figures 7-8 of Ogawa shows opposing edge portions extend along a back side of opposing airbag doors of the panel, as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
397
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 20, Ogawa discloses an air bag cover having a thin-walled part usually covering an air bag arranged in a folded-up state, which is subjected to insert molding in such a state that an insert net having a slit part (flexible) arranged thereto is embedded in the thin-walled part, the core for molding the thin-walled part is provided to a mold in a freely up-and-down movable manner and the end edge of the slit part 4 of the insert net is pressed to the mold by the core to inject a urethane material (abstract).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurson et al. (FR 3109344).
Hurson discloses a panel (1) for interior trim of a motor vehicle, said panel comprising: a core (2) having an edge (5), two upper (6) and lower ( 7) for reinforcing said core, said layers being based on reinforcing fibers embedded in polyurethane foam, a functional element (8) fixed to said edge by at least one fixing means (9), said means comprising a holding part (10) of said element and an anchoring part (11) in said generally rod-shaped core, said core being provided with a hole (12) arranged so that said anchoring part passes through it, the internal wall (13) of said hole being covered with a layer of foam coming from said lower layer so that said layer of foam forms a reinforcing wall (14) of the anchoring of said anchoring part (abstract) where an upper covering layer 19 is overmolded by the foam of the upper reinforcing layer 6 (paragraph 29). Hurson does not disclose the opposing edge portions of the reinforcing layer are molded, as in claim 16.
In claim 16, the phrase, “for use over an airbag” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In claim 16, the phrase, “formed from a molding material” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a panel substrate and a flexible reinforcing layer. The reference suggests such a product because Hurson discloses a panel (1) for interior trim of a motor vehicle, said panel comprising: a core (2) having an edge (5), two upper (6) and lower ( 7) for reinforcing said core, said layers being based on reinforcing fibers embedded in polyurethane foam, a functional element (8) fixed to said edge by at least one fixing means (9), said means comprising a holding part (10) of said element and an anchoring part (11) in said generally rod-shaped core, said core being provided with a hole (12) arranged so that said anchoring part passes through it, the internal wall (13) of said hole being covered with a layer of foam coming from said lower layer so that said layer of foam forms a reinforcing wall (14) of the anchoring of said anchoring part (abstract) where an upper covering layer 19 is overmolded by the foam of the upper reinforcing layer 6 (paragraph 29).
Concerning claim 17, Hurson does not disclose the length of each edge portion being molded.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 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 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781