DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-7 made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed July 10, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemmer (DE 102008054721 B3), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claim 1, Schlemmer teaches a skin material comprising an outer cover layer (20; i.e. “skin layer”), an inner cover layer (10; i.e. “intermediate layer”), and a design layer (1) (Fig. 3A; par. 42). As shown in Figure 3A, each of the layers (1, 10, 20) has a top side and a bottom side, which respectively correspond to each of the layers’ recited “front side” and “back side” (Fig. 3A). The front side of the intermediate layer (10) is disposed adjacent to (i.e. “on”) the back side of the skin layer (20), and the front side of the design layer (1) is disposed adjacent to (i.e. “on”) the back side of the intermediate layer (10) (Fig. 3A). Opening on the back side of the design layer (1) are first recesses (2, 12) that extend through the design layer (1) and into the intermediate layer (10) such that the ends (i.e. “bottoms”) of the recesses are defined within and positioned between the front and back sides of the intermediate layer (10) (Fig. 3A).
Schlemmer teaches that the cover layers (i.e. which correspond to the recited “skin” and “intermediate” layers) in his product may include a combination of transparent (i.e. more light-transmissive) and semi-transparent (i.e. less light-transmissive) layers, and that the decorative layer is made of a material with a minimum thickness that does not allow light transmission (i.e. the layer is opaque) (par. 7, 19, 40). Therefore, Schlemmer’s decorative layer demonstrates a lower light transmittance than any/either of the cover layers, including one that corresponds to the “skin layer” and one that corresponds to the “intermediate layer”.
The teachings of Schlemmer differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach that the intermediate layer (10) demonstrates a lower light transmittance than the skin layer (20) in his product (Fig. 3A). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the outer, “skin” layer to be more light-transmissive than the inner, “intermediate” layer (i.e. and for the intermediate layer to be less light-transmissive than the skin layer) because Schlemmer teaches that the cover layers can be a combination of transparent and semi-transparent layers (discussed above), thereby rendering obvious making either of the layers transparent (i.e. more light-transmissive) or semi-transparent (i.e. less light-transmissive) including rendering obvious making the skin layer transparent and the intermediate layer semi-transparent, because there would be little or no point in making the inner “intermediate” layer transparent and the outer “skin” layer only semi-transparent because it would not be possible to see that the inner layer was transparent due to it being obscured by the outer layer, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in Schlemmer’s art, and because it is old and well-known to place transparent layers as the outermost layers on decorative products, such as Schlemmer’s.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Schlemmer may be considered to differ from the current invention in that the product discussed above does not include a second recess opening in the back side of the design layer that extends into the design layer towards the intermediate layer, wherein the bottoms (i.e. “first bottoms”) of the first recesses discussed above have a first depth that is greater than the second depth of the bottom (i.e. “second bottom”) of the second recess. However, Schlemmer does teach that recesses can be drilled into the design layer to a certain depth (i.e. which does not extend all the way through the layer) to ensure sufficient light transmission through the layer when the layer is backlit, thereby creating a desired visual effect without additional light-influencing materials (par. 49). Schlemmer also teaches that the depth of the drilled recesses influences light properties such as color and intensity, and that including such recesses in the design layer (i.e. rather than making through-holes) maintains stability, structural strength, and processibility of the design layer (par. 50). Schlemmer also teaches that the recesses, which he refers to as “scattering sections” in his intermediate layer, can be designed with a variety of different shapes and sizes, thereby allowing the scattering effects of the recesses to be adapted and adjusted (par. 43).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include recesses that open on the back side of the design layer and extend into the design layer toward the intermediate layer, but not all of the way through the design layer (i.e. wherein the second recesses in the design layer have a second bottom with a depth that is less than the depth of the first bottoms of the first recesses), in Schlemmer’s product in order to create regions with a desired light-transmission ability that creates a desired visual effect without the inclusion of additional light-influencing materials while still maintaining stability, strength, and processability of the material. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure some of the recesses that are present in the intermediate layer to have different depths from some of the other recesses in order to achieve desired light properties within the layer, such as light intensity and color, and in order to achieve a desired decorative effect. It further would have been obvious to select appropriate shapes and sizes for the recesses in Schlemmer’s intermediate layer, including selecting for some of the recesses to have greater “first” depths than some of the others’ “second” depths, according to the desired/required scattering effects for the recesses and product as a whole, and in order to achieve a desired aesthetic effect.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, as shown in Figure 3A, the first recesses (2, 12) include a lateral surface that has an inclined part (i.e. each of the sloped sides) that extends in a direction that intersects a plane normal direction of a surface of the skin layer (20) (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, as shown in Figure 3A and when viewed from a “plane normal direction of a surface of the skin layer”, the first recesses (2, 12) include a narrower part (2, i.e. “base-width part”) with lateral surfaces that extend perpendicular to the plane of a surface of the skin layer, and a wider part (12, i.e. “wide-width part having a width greater than the base-width part”) with inclined lateral surfaces that project in different extending directions on opposite sides of each recess (i.e. the left and right sides; i.e. each wide-width section of a first recess has a plurality of inclined parts with different extending directions) and that extend in different directions from the extension directions of lateral surfaces of the narrower part (2) of the recesses (Fig. 3A). The lateral surfaces of the base-width and wide-width parts can be considered singularly as “the lateral surface” of the first recess, wherein the lateral surface of the first recess has a plurality of inclined parts with different extending directions.
To the extent that Schlemmer’s exemplified recess shapes are not considered to meet the shape requirements of claim 5 and to differ from the claimed invention in this manner, it is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select appropriate shapes and sizes for the recesses in Schlemmer’s intermediate layer, including selecting for the first recesses to have lateral surface(s) with a plurality of inclined parts that extend in different directions, according to the desired/required scattering effects for the recesses and product as a whole, and in order to achieve a desired aesthetic effect, as taught by Schlemmer (par. 43, 50).
Regarding claim 7, Schlemmer teaches that the recesses in his product are preferably formed with a laser (par. 23). Additionally, the requirement that the recesses are formed by laser processing is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. Schlemmer’s product meets the claim requirement because it has the structure that is implied.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102, 102/103, 103
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102, 102/103, and 103 in view of Sakonaka (JP 2018-163341 A) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed July 10, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the current rejections.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784