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
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 May 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “B surface” (claim 15; figure 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests changing “another exterior A surface 48” and “exterior A surface 48” to --another exterior A surface 50--, and changing “terminal register 50” to --terminal register 48-- (paragraphs 0025, 0027), so as to better match with the reference characters shown in figures 3 and 4.
Examiner suggests changing reference character “56” in the phrase “exterior A surface 56” (paragraph 0029) to the appropriate reference character for this exterior A surface, since reference character “56” is assigned to the acoustic passageway.
Examiner suggests changing “acoustic passageway 42” to --acoustic passageway 56-- (paragraph 0030), since reference character “56” is assigned to the acoustic passageway.
Reference characters “64”, “66”, and “68” appear to be mixed-up in paragraphs 0031-0032. For instance, paragraph 0031 sets forth “automotive trim component 64”, ‘latticed top surface 66”, “latticed mid layer 68”, and “backside layer 70”, while paragraph 0032 sets forth “backside layer 68”, “top surface 64”, “mid layer 66”, and “backside layer 66”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there is no reference to the elected invention/embodiment. Examiner suggests at least adding in a sentence regarding the claimed acoustic passageway. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 16 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. In regards to claim 16, it is unclear which A surface is being referenced by the phrase “the A surface” (line 3) since both “exterior A surface” and “another exterior A surface” have been previously claimed in preceding claim 14. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 14, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 6578658 B2). Jones et al. discloses an automotive system (while the embodiment in figures 6A-7B is pointed out below, other embodiments may also apply) comprising:
(claim 14) an automotive trim component having a body (formed by door inner panel #224, door module #240, and interior door trim panel #250) defining an acoustic passageway (including acoustic chamber #262) therein and an exterior A surface (including interior surface of interior door trim panel #250), and a lattice (including speaker grill #255) cooperating with the body such that the lattice defines another exterior A surface (interior surface of speaker grill #255) contiguous with the exterior A surface and a structural acoustic matrix (flexible material of speaker grill #255 that allows sound to travel into the vehicle cabin) configured to direct sound from the acoustic passageway into a vehicle cabin (figures 6A-7B; column 6, line 35-column 7, line 8);
(claim 15) wherein the automotive trim component further includes a thermoplastic layer (door module #240 is preferably made of a thermoplastic material; column 6, lines 35-49) assembled on the lattice (including speaker grill #255) configured to mate to a B surface of a vehicle (figures 6A-7B);
(claim 20) wherein the acoustic passageway (#262) is coupled to an air induction (air passes through speaker grill #255).
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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 6578658 B2). While Jones et al. does not specifically disclose wherein a portion of the lattice that defines the structural acoustic matrix (including speaker grill #255) has a material with a durometer greater than the lattice that defines the A surface, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and for the predictable result of providing a softer surface on portions of the vehicle trim that do not include the speaker grill, for both aesthetic and comfort purposes.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 6578658 B2) in view of Hartmann (US 5939682 A). Jones et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the lattice (including speaker grill #255) is a mesh including interwoven strands. Hartmann teaches an automotive system comprising an automotive trim component (including composite trim panel #20) defining an acoustic passageway (passageway for sound transmission from audio speaker #36) therein, and a lattice (including grid #26) defining a structural acoustic matrix configured to direct sound from the acoustic passageway into a vehicle cabin, wherein the lattice is a mesh including interwoven strands (#28; figures 1A, 1B; column 2, line 41-column 4, line 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automotive system of Jones et al. to include the lattice is a mesh including interwoven strands, as taught by Hartmann, so as to “provide a vehicle trim panel with enhanced sound transmission characteristics, while maintaining the strength of the trim panel” (Hartmann: Abstract; column 1, lines 35-37, 43-45; column 2, lines 5-9).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 6578658 B2) in view of Hartmann (US 5939682 A), further in view of Subat et al. (US 11110839 B2). Jones et al., as modified by Hartmann, does not specifically disclose a plurality of printed material forms the lattice. Subat et al. teaches vehicle speakers including 3D printed lattice grilles (including grille members #224; other embodiments may also apply; 3D printed lattice discussed throughout specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automotive system of Jones et al., as modified by Hartmann, to include 3D printed lattice grilles, as taught by Subat et al., so as to provide a particularly beneficial manufacturing process and structure for applications in which the speaker is likely to come into contact with a human body, where the use of a 3D printed lattice can provide protection to underlying electrical components (Subat et al.: column 3, lines 19-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses vehicle trim components, speakers, and 3D printed products. Of specific note are:
Tanino et al. (US 4728143 A), Bertolini et al. (US 6226927 B1), Michael (US 20030124271 A1), Maekawa (US 20050013459 A1), Schoemann et al. (US 7073843 B2), Tilli et al. (US 7313247 B1), and Honji et al. (US 11445292 B2) disclose an automotive trim component having a body defining an acoustic passageway therein and an exterior A surface, and a lattice cooperating with the body such that the lattice defines another exterior A surface contiguous with the exterior A surface and a structural acoustic matrix configured to direct sound from the acoustic passageway into a vehicle cabin.
Thompson et al. (US 5298694 A) discloses a thermoplastic water barrier for a vehicle trim component.
Kurihara (US 5623133 A) discloses a speaker grille with woven fabric.
Kasami et al. (JP 2006281932 A), Tamaoki (JP 2017019312 A), Hara (JP 2018008645 A), and Preisler et al. (US 20220348147 A1) disclose vehicle trim including a body, acoustic passageway, and structural acoustic matrix.
Skrbis et al. (US 11299079 B1) discloses a vehicle console including an integrated air channeling system and make of a 3D lattice matrix.
Draxler et al. (WO 2017093264 A1), Faruque et al. (US 10286821 B1), and Li et al. (US 10744711 B2) disclose 3D printed vehicle trim.
Schmidt et al. (US 10748336 B2) discloses 3D printed lattice mesh structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights