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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Species A2, B1, C1, D1, E2, F2, G1, H1, Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-13 in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 9-10, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A1, B2, C2, D2, E1, F1, G2, H2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/03/2025.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “first polymer fibers” instead of “vertically lapped first polymer fibers”, like the other claims. The limitation should be amended for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8 and 11-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “so that the vertically lapped polymer material with the adhered sheet”. This limitation is indefinite, as there is no recitation of “an adhered sheet” recited in Claim 1. Therefore, it is uncertain what three-dimensional configuration is being formed with the vertically lapped polymer material
For purposes of examination, it is assumed the optional at least one sheet is adhered adjacent to at least one of the first surface and second surface of the vertically lapped polymer material and the adhered sheet is the at least one of the adhered sheet.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 11-13 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “hard touch headliner”. The Specification defines “soft touch” as having additional lapped layers. However hard touch does not seem to be defined in the Specification and does not seem to be a well-known term of art. In addition, hard touch is a subjective term, which also renders the claim indefinite (MPEP §2173.05, IV). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be certain of the metes and bounds of the limitation.
For purposes of examination, the definition of hard touch headliner is a headliner that does not have more than one lapped layers, as soft touch requires an additional lapped layer.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin (US 2006/0151239 A1) in view of Kelman et al. (US 5,660,908 A) and Patrick (US 5,892,187 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Albin teaches a component for a vehicle headliner (Abstract; Paragraph 0015) comprising a vertically lapped polymer material constructed from at least vertically lapped first polymer fibers (Paragraph 0008, 0016-0017), where the vertically lapped polymer material, polyester, comprises a first surface and a second surface. (Fig. 1, Item 12). Albin teaches this lapped polymer material operates as acoustic absorption (Paragraph 0007) Albin teaches at least one polymeric sheet, polyester, adhered adjacent to the second surface of the vertically lapped polymer material (Paragraph 0023, 0025; Fig. 1, Item 14).
Albin teaches the first surface of the vertically lapped polymer material is molded to include one or more structural features that project from the first surface so that the vertically lapped polymer material with the adhered sheet has a three-dimensional configuration. (Fig. 1-5; Paragraph 0030).
Albin does not specifically teach the headliner is recyclable or the vertically lapped polymer material and the sheet are the same polymer.
Kelman teaches a headliner material (Abstract) formed of a fibrous layer of polyethylene terephthalate and a sheet layer comprising polyethylene terephthalate. (Claim 1 of Kelman; Column 4, Lines 17-20). Kelamn teaches forming all the layers of this headliner material from the same polymer material, PET, makes recycling the headliner much easier. (Column 1, Lines 30-35). Patrick teaches having a recyclable headliner improves the environmental compatibility of the vehicle and responds to environmental restrictions placed on vehicles. (Column 1, Lines 21-30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the vertically lapped polymer material fibers and the sheet of Albin out of PET to ensure the headliner is easier to recycle as taught by Kelman and as Patrick teaches a recyclable headliner allows the headliner to adhere to environmental restrictions and increase environmental compatibility of the headliner.
Regarding Claim 2-3, Kelman teaches making the vertically lapped first polymer fibers and the sheet of the same polyester, PET, as discussed above. (Claim 1 of Kelman; Column 4, Lines 17-20).
Regarding Claim 4, Albin shows the structural features of the vertically lapped polymer material contacting another part; therefore, the structural features are configured for attachment to another part. (Fig. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Albin teaches the one or more structural features only projects from the first surface of the vertically lapped polymer material. (Fig. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Albin teaches the component is used in a headliner. (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 8, Albin teaches a hard touch headliner, as it does not require more than one vertically lapped polymer material layer. (Fig. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 11, Albin teaches the three-dimensional configuration can be used an interior component, such as an interior door of automobile. (Paragraph 0003-0005, 0015).
Regarding Claim 12, Albin teaches the three-dimensional configuration can be used an interior component in an automotive vehicle. (Paragraph 0003-0005, 0015).
Regarding Claim 13, Albin teaches an adhesive thermoplastic film layer can be used to adhere the at least one sheet to the second surface of the vertically lapped polymer material. (Paragraph 0036).
Albin does not teach this adhesive thermoplastic film layer is the same polymer as the first vertically lapped polymer fibers.
Kelmar teaches using PET adhesive layers to bond layers of the headliner. (Column 3, Lines 12-18). Kelamn also teaches forming all the layers of this headliner material from the same polymer material, PET, makes recycling the headliner much easier. (Column 1, Lines 30-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art also use PET adhesive sheet layer in Albin to ensure the headliner of Albin is easier to recycle.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781