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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on June 12, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21-24, and 27 are cancelled; claim 10 is amended; claim 29 is new; resulting in claims 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 29 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter et al. (EP 3279055, machine translation previously provided) in view of Bieder (WO 2013/020627, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 26, Alter et al. teaches a sandwich panel (10; interior surface arrangement, decorative structure) with a heating function for a vehicle, comprising an upper cover layer (12; outer decorative layer), a foam core (14; first haptic layer), and a lower cover layer (16; carrier layer), wherein an electrical heating layer (20; planar heating element) is provided between the upper cover layer and the foam core ([0001], [0051], see Fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The heating layer (20) is integrally connected to the upper cover layer (12) via an adhesive film (15) and, if necessary, to the upper side of the foam core (14) via a further adhesive film (15), and the underside of the foam core is also attached to the lower cover layer (16) via an adhesive film (15) [0051]. Alter et al. teaches that the lower cover layer (16; carrier layer) comprises a phenol resin-glass fiber laminate (fiber-reinforced polymer) [0051].
Alter et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that a second haptic layer is arranged between and adhesively bonded to the upper cover layer (12; outer decorative layer) and the heating layer (20; planar heating element).
However, in the analogous art of interior trim parts for motor vehicles, Bieder teaches an interior trim component comprising a decorative material (5; outer decorative layer), a substrate (9; second haptic layer), a thermoplastic layer (10), a heating textile (4), an upper cover layer (3), a honeycomb core (1), and a lower cover layer (2) ([0052]-[0054], Fig. 1). Bieder teaches that the decorative material (5) provides the visible surface of the component and can include a textile such as a polyester fleece, while the substrate (9) can be arranged on a rear surface of the decorative material in order to conceal defects and to adapt the surface in order to meet the haptic requirements, e.g., to form a smooth surface [0053]. Bieder teaches that suitable materials for the substrate include a foam material, a nonwoven fabric, or a spacer fabric ([0017], [0053]). Bieder further teaches that an intermediate bonding layer may be provided to improve the adhesion of the decorative material (5) to the substrate (9), and that a thermoplastic layer (10) may be provided to ensure the bonding of the heating textile (4) to the substrate (9) by melting or fusing ([0051], [0054]).
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 sandwich panel taught by Alter et al. by including a second haptic layer comprising a foam, a nonwoven fabric, or a spacer fabric arranged between and adhesively bonded to the upper cover layer (12) and the heating layer (20), as suggested by Bieder, in order to conceal defects to meet the haptic requirements for the component surface, e.g., to provide a smooth surface, and to ensure the necessary interlayer adhesion between the adjacent layers.
Regarding claims 25 and 28, Alter et al. in view of Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claims 10 and 26 above, and Alter et al. further teaches that the heating layer is made up of a flat fiber network made up of a large number of electrically conductive fibers (heating wires) ([0017]-[0021]), wherein the conductive fibers are leveled out in that they are flat.
Regarding claim 29, Alter et al. in view of Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. As noted above with respect to claim 10, The heating layer (20; planar heating element) is integrally connected to the upper cover layer (12; outer decorative layer) via an adhesive film (15) and, if necessary, to the upper side of the foam core (14; first haptic layer) via a further adhesive film (15), and the underside of the foam core is also attached to the lower cover layer (16; carrier layer) via an adhesive film (15) ([0051], Fig. 1), and Bieder further teaches that an intermediate bonding layer (adhesive) may be provided to improve the adhesion of the decorative material (5; outer decorative layer) to the substrate (9; second haptic layer), and that a thermoplastic layer (10; adhesive) may be provided to ensure the bonding of the heating textile (4; planar heating element) to the substrate (9) by melting or fusing ([0051], [0054]). The adhesive film and meltable thermoplastic layer which are each provided to ensure bonding of the adjacent layers therefore correspond to the claimed adhesives which adhesively bond the first and second haptic layers to the planar heating element and to the carrier layer and outer decorative layer, respectively.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alter et al. (EP 3279055, machine translation previously provided) in view of Bieder (WO 2013/020627, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Aichner et al. (US 6,231,940, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Alter et al. in view of Bieder teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. Although Bieder teaches that the substrate (9; second haptic layer) can be a spacer fabric which is arranged behind the decorative material (5) to conceal defects and to adapt the surface to meet haptic requirements ([0053]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the spacer fabric has the form of a knitted spacer fabric.
However, in the analogous art of interior trim parts for motor vehicles, Aichner et al. teaches an interior fixture or fitting part (1) comprising a rigid molded support part (2), a layer of a knitted textile spacer fabric (3) provided on the surface of the support part, and a layer of natural leather (4) which forms the decorative layer located on the surface of the spacer fabric (col 6, Ln 6-22; Figs. 1-3). Aichner et al. teaches that the knitted spacer fabric is used to achieve the desired haptic quality and requisite adhesion by absorbing pressure and tensile loads, thus preventing the decorative leather from peeling away (col 3, Ln 47-56; col 5, Ln 43-50).
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 interior surface arrangement of Alter et al. in view of Bieder by selecting a knitted spacer fabric as the spacer fabric of the substrate arranged behind the outer decorative layer, as suggested by Aichner et al., in order to impart the desired haptic qualities to the trim part and to improve the adhesion and dimensional stability thereof.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
In light of the amendments to claims 10 and 26, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Bieder and based on Kozlowski et al. are withdrawn, as Bieder does not teach or suggest the first haptic layer comprising a foam layer, and Kozlowski et al. does not teach or suggest the carrier layer comprising a fiber-reinforced polymer.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 of the remarks filed June 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Alter does not qualify as analogous art and therefore cannot form the basis of an obviousness rejection.
This argument is not persuasive. As acknowledged by the Applicant, the claimed invention is directed to an interior surface arrangement for a motor vehicle (see preamble in claims 10 and 26). Neither the claims nor the instant specification disclose a specific form or structure of the interior surface arrangement, e.g., that the product is usable as a specific component within a motor vehicle such as a component forming a part of a door of the motor vehicle, a part of the center console, dashboard, steering wheel, seat, flooring, carpeting, headliner, or the like. Therefore, the present invention is merely directed to a generic laminate having an outer decorative layer, a planar heating element, a carrier layer, and a pair of haptic layers, where the laminate can have any form that is capable of use as a surface material in an interior of a motor vehicle.
The Applicant cites paragraph [0001] of Alter et al., which states that the invention generally relates to a sandwich panel with heating function for a vehicle, in particular for a rail vehicle, where the sandwich panel is intended to be used in particular as a structural component – i.e., for force absorption, with weight-bearing properties – in vehicle construction. The sandwich panel having a heating function as taught by Alter et al. therefore is encompassed by the generically claimed “interior surface arrangement for a motor vehicle”, as there is nothing in the claim that precludes a structural sandwich panel from also being a decorative surface panel. Moreover, it is noted that Alter et al. also specifically states that the term “vehicles” refers in particular to rail vehicles, but that road vehicles or aircraft may also be considered [0001]. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the field of automotive interior decorative trim would not look to structural floor panel engineering of rail and aircraft vehicles is not persuasive, as the invention disclosed by Alter et al. is expressly recognized as belonging to the field of road vehicles (i.e., motor vehicles) rather than being confined to only rail vehicles and aircraft. Alter et al. is thus analogous to the claimed invention at least in that it is from the same field of endeavor (e.g., heated interior laminate panels for motor vehicles) as the claimed invention.
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights