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 .
Claim 20 is 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.
The phrase “each polymeric insert” (cl 20:1) is indefinite because base claim 15 recites one insert. The phrase should be changed to –the polymeric insert--.
Correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 15,16,18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR10-2018-0068785 (English machine translation provided herewith).
It should be noted that article claims are examined for its structure rather than how the article is used or what the article does. See MPEP 2114.
15. A polymeric product of an automotive lighted structure (KR10-2018-0068785: automobile radar-penetrating cover), comprising:
a base layer with an interface surface (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5; colored resin layer 20);
an overlay stack with the overlay stack being in contact with a portion of the interface surface (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5; first transparent cover 10);
a the polymeric inserts and
wherein the insert is a clear or transparent composition (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5; second transparent cover 30 is transparent).
16. (Previously Presented) The polymeric product of claim 15, where the base layer is a non- transparent or opaque plastic (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5; colored resin layer 20).
18. (Previously Presented) The polymeric product of claim 15, where the polymeric insert is formed from a polymeric composition that is at least semi-transparent, translucent or transparent (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5; second transparent cover 30 constitutes the insert).
20. (Previously Presented) The polymeric product of claim 15, wherein each polymeric insert is encompassed by an encapsulation region within the polymeric product (KR10-2018-0068785: short specification; figs 4 and 5).
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(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2018-0068785 as applied to claim 1 above. The above teachings of KR10-2018-0068785 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 17, KR10-2018-0068785 teach a second transparent cover extending to a peripheral edge boundary of the polymeric product (KR10-2018-0068785: figs 4-5), but does not teach the overlay stack being a plurality of polymeric layers that include at least semi-transparent, translucent or a transparent plastic. Since automotive parts including radar covers having a cover of multiple layers are well-known in the automotive parts art for its aesthetic and marketing appeals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the second transparent cover of KR10-2018-0068785 to have multiple layers in order to create diverse aesthetically pleasing covers.
Regarding claim 19, KR10-2018-0068785 does not teach decorative imprints in the base layer or the stack. Since decorated protective layers or substrates are well-known in the automotive parts art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to decorate the colored resin layer or second transparent cover of KR10-2018-0068785 in order to form decorative automotive parts having diverse aesthetic appeal.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 4110390 and WO2016/110469 teach composite articles comprising a base layer, a polymeric insert, and an overlay stack.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights