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 .
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In re Claim 9, the method discloses a step of “wherein in a still viscous state of the plastic”. However, it appears that the specification provides antecedence for “For orienting the fibers, they are oriented in an injection molding process or continuous casting process, for example, provided that the plastic is still viscous or liquid”1, and “wherein in a viscous state of the plastic, the fibers in the plastic are preferably oriented…”2
The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not disclosed in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 608.01(o).
Applicant is respectfully requested to either amend the specification to include “a still viscous state”, or perhaps amend the claim to align with the disclosure of paragraphs [00012] or [00019].
Claim Objections
In re Claims 2 and 9, insufficient antecedent basis has been provided for the limitation, “the longitudinal extension”. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been understood as if to disclose “[[the]] a longitudinal extension”.
In re Claim 9, line 2, please correct the typographical error between “plastic” and “fibers” such that the limitation discloses “wherein in a still viscous state of the plastic[[.]], fibers in the plastic are oriented”.3
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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 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 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 of this title, 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, 3 – 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Uhlenbusch et al (EP 3321113) in view of Bastian et al (DE 102009010950).
In re Claims 1, 5, and 7, and Claims 8 and 10, Uhlenbusch et al discloses an interior component (40) for an air vent (third embodiment, figs 9 – 12: (10)) of a vehicle [0048],
the interior component (40) being designed as a grid4 element of the air vent (10),
the interior component comprising at least one grid strut5 (annotated, below) that extends across a vent opening (20) in the air vent,
the grid element being made of plastic [0022],
the grid element having a one-piece design (“the housing of the air outlet and the deflection element can be formed in one piece, with the deflection elements being injection-molded onto the housing by thins struts” [0026], and
PNG
media_image1.png
344
1187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the air vent comprising6:
a housing (12) that forms a vent opening; and
the interior component (40) being arranged at the housing and overlaying the vent opening (20) at an end-face side of the housing that is associated with an interior (“passenger compartment”) of the vehicle [0048].
Uhlenbusch et al lacks:
wherein the grid element is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic, and
wherein the grid element having a coating that overlays the plastic at least on a visible side of the grid element.
Bastian et al teaches a grid element (1) for an air vent (not shown) of a vehicle [0019],
the grid element comprising at least one grid strut that extends across a vent opening (not shown) in the air vent [0021],
the grid element (1) being made of plastic (7) [0019],
the grid element having a one-piece design (“injection mold” [0022 – 0023]) and is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic (7),
the grid element having a coating (4) that overlays the plastic (7) at least on a visible side of the grid element [0009],
wherein the coating is “visually designed and made visually appealing” [0009]; and
wherein the coating is a chrome coating (fig 3: (8), [0022]) or a chrome-colored coating7.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Uhlenbusch et al as taught by Bastian et al, such that the system comprises:
wherein the grid element is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic, and
wherein the grid element having a coating that overlays the plastic at least on a visible side of the grid element, and
wherein the coating is a chrome coating
for the benefit of “an element (that) is firm and stable and can be designed in an aesthetically pleasing way, but which can also be manufactured cost-effectively” [0005].
In re Claims 3 and 4, the proposed system has been discussed, wherein the coating is “visually designed and made visually appealing” [0009], but Bastian et al does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coating is a black lacquer8, or
wherein the coating is a matte or glossy lacquer9.
However, upon consideration of the disclosure of Bastian et al, it would have been obvious to try modifying the coating such that the coating is a black, a matte, or a glossy lacquer, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest. Please note that criticality for the claimed limitations has not been disclosed [00020, 00032].
In re Claims 8 and 10, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claim 8, see above, In re Claim 1 wherein the proposed combination discloses a method for manufacturing an interior component for an air vent of a vehicle, the method comprising:
designing the interior component as a grid element;
covering at least partially a vent opening in the air vent via the grid element; and
providing the grid element with at least one grid strut that is designed to extend across the vent opening, the grid element having a one-piece design and being made of plastic, the grid element being made of fiber-reinforced plastic; and
providing the grid element with a coating that overlays the plastic, at least on a visible side of the grid element.
In re Claim 10, see above In re Claims 3, 4, and 5, wherein the grid element is provided with a matte, glossy, black, a chrome-colored, or a chrome coating.
Claims 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Uhlenbusch et al (EP 3321113), in view of Bastian et al (DE 102009010950), and further in view of Frisch et al (DE 102018114939).
In re Claims 2 and 6, the proposed system has been discussed, but Uhlenbusch et al is silent as to:
wherein fibers in the plastic in the region of the grid strut are oriented in [[the]] a longitudinal extension of the grid strut.
wherein the grid strut extends free of support at least 80 millimeters, or at least 100 millimeters, or at least 120 millimeters.
Frisch et al teaches an interior component (figs 1, 5: (20/21)) for an air vent(10) of a vehicle, the interior component comprising at least one grid strut (“an extruded profile” (20)) that extends across a vent opening (16) in the air vent, the grid element being made of plastic [0019 – 0020], the grid element having a one-piece design and is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic [0012, 0020], and the grid element having a coating (44)[0014] that overlays the plastic at least on a visible side of the grid element;
wherein fibers in the plastic in the region of the (longitudinal) grid strut are oriented in the longitudinal extension of the grid strut (“the extruded profile can be reinforced and stiffened by fiber material running unidirectionally along the longitudinal axis of the extruded profile, for example carbon, aramid and/or glass fibers”) [0013].10
wherein the grid strut extends free of support at least 80 millimeters, or at least 100 millimeters [0026], or at least 120 millimeters11.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by Frisch et al, such that the system comprises:
wherein fibers in the plastic in the region of the grid strut are oriented in [[the]] a longitudinal extension of the grid strut, and
wherein the grid strut extends free of support at least 80 millimeters, or at least 100 millimeters, or at least 120 millimeters,
for the benefit of increasing stiffness in extruded profiles having a length more than 200 mm [0026], inhibiting deflection if a force is applied [0030].
In re Claim 9, the proposed method has been discussed (see above, In re Claim 8, 2), wherein the grid element is manufactured using an injection molding process (Uhlenbusch [0026]; Bastian et al [0011 - 0012), and wherein in a still viscous state of the plastic[[.]], (Bastian et al: “flow” [0022]) fibers in the plastic are oriented (Frisch et al [0020]; apparent, in an extrusion process), at least in the grid strut such that they extend in the longitudinal extension of the grid strut.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Frisch (US 2019/0366807 second embodiment, figs 4 – 6) discloses an interior component (Title) for an air vent of a vehicle [0020],
the interior component being designed as a grid12 element** of the air vent,
“FIG. 4 shows an air guiding slat according to the invention according to a second exemplary embodiment. It likewise has an elongate basic body 10′ on whose end sides there are again formed bearing journals 12′ for pivotably mounting in a housing of an air vent. The basic body 10′ can consist, for example, of the same material as the basic body 10 of the air guiding slat shown in FIG. 1 or of another material.” [0039]
As the air guiding slat of Frisch extends across the housing of the air vent, it forms an element of a grid.
the interior component comprising at least one grid strut13 (10’/14’) that extends across a vent opening in the air vent,
the grid element being made of plastic [0039],
“The basic body 10′ can consist, for example, of the same material as the basic body 10 of the air guiding slat shown in FIG. 1 or of another material”. [0039]
“The basic body 10 FIG. 1 consists of a plastic, produced in the present case in a plastic injection molding process. For example, it can be a glass fiber reinforced plastic. The basic body 10 has an elongate shape and its ratio of length to thickness is at least 3:1” [0036]
the grid element having a two-piece design and is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic, and
[0018] According to a particularly practical embodiment, the basic body can be produced in an injection molding process. Injection molding processes allow even complicated geometries to be fashioned in a simple manner. A combination of extrusion (of the decorative element), lamination (of the decorative element), injection molding (of the basic body) and cutting to size (cutting the extruded profile to length) is thus possible overall according to the invention.
the grid element having a coating (14’) that overlays the plastic at least on a visible side of the grid element [0040].
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Fidh (US 2019/0054804), who discloses an air vent for a vehicle (Abstract), the air vent comprising:
a housing (figs 2A, 2B: (32)) [0046] that forms a vent opening (34/36); and
The vent housing 32 may be made of a polymeric material, such as, for example, a polypropylene composite having a mineral filler. The material used to construct the vent housing 32 may be rigid or flexible to allow for assembly of components of the air register 30 and may be formed using any injection molding technique known in the art. The use of a polymer, such as polypropylene with mineral filler, provides for lower overall production costs as compared to polypropylene without mineral filler, while still providing the necessary rigidity of structural features.[0046]
an interior component (180) [0054];
the interior component (180) being designed as a grid element (as seen in the figures) of the air vent,
PNG
media_image2.png
389
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the interior component (180) comprising at least one grid strut14 (40) that extends across a vent opening in the air vent,
the grid element being made of plastic**
The chambers 150 may be formed from a polymeric material**, such as, for example, polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, or a combination thereof. The use of such materials combined with the geometry of the chambers provides for reduced cost and weight compared to other materials and configurations, which may be comprised of materials having 30% to 60% glass fiber content. The combination of upright/vertical sidewalls 152, 154 spaced apart and interconnected by substantially horizontal upper and lower surfaces 156, 158 provides the necessary stiffness to allow for replacing current materials with a high flex modulus material in the polycarbonate/acrylonitrile butadiene styrene composition. ([0054]),
the grid element having a one-piece design (as seen in figs 5A, 5B) and is made of a fiber-reinforced plastic [0054], and
the interior component (80) being arranged at the housing and overlaying the vent opening (24/36) at an end-face side of the housing that is associated with an interior (fig 1: (12)) of the vehicle
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on T – Th: 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang, can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 paragraph [00012]
2 paragraph [00019]
3 Please refer to specification paragraphs [00012, 00019]
4 grid (n): a network of uniformly spaced horizontal and perpendicular lines. © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
5 strut (n): a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length. . © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
6 Claim 7
7 Claim 5
8 Claim 3
9 Claim 4
10 Claim 2
11 Claim 6
12 grid (n): a network of uniformly spaced horizontal and perpendicular lines. © 2026 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
13 strut (n): a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length.
14 strut (n): a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length.
Prosecution Insights