DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/01/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9 should be -- the three-dimensionally shaped film-like visible part -- in order to be consistent with terminology as recited in claim 1, line 1
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, line 3 recites the limitation “at least partially transilluminated”. The term “transilluminate” was interpreted to be causing light to pass through.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMEOKA (JP 2019107921), and in view of BOPPART (US 2015/0356895) and CAI (US 2020/0375040).
Regarding claim 1, KAMEOKA discloses a backlit vehicle trim part, in particular a vehicle badge, comprising
a three-dimensionally shaped film-like visible part (102, Fig.8B), which can be at least partially transilluminated and the visible side of which forms the vehicle trim part or vehicle badge (e.g. a logo), and
one or a plurality of light elements (15, Fig.8B) is arranged on the rear side of the visible part,
wherein the visible part is a closed, non-perforated film, and
wherein three-dimensional deformations (105, Fig.8) in the form of convex embossings (as seen in Fig.8, the three-dimensional deformations 105 are convex embossings integrally formed in the film-like visible part 102), are integrally formed in the visible part.
KAMEOKA fails to disclose a three-dimensionally shaped film-like visible part made of plastic, a light housing, which is arranged on the rear side of the visible part, is joined to the visible part, and wherein the visible part is a closed, non-perforated plastic film which is joined on the rear side to the light housing by an in-mold back-molding operation applied to the three-dimensionally pre-shaped film.
However, BOPPART discloses a visible part (4, Fig.8) made of plastic (para[0074]) and a closed, non-perforated plastic film.
However, CAI discloses a light housing (120, Fig.1), arranged on the rear side of a closed, non-perforated visible part (160, Fig.1), contains a light element (140, Fig.1) and is joined to the visible part, and the visible part is joined on the rear side to the light housing by an in-mold back-molding operation applied to the visible part (para[0016]).
Therefore, in view of BOPPART, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plastic material as taught by BOPPART to the film-like visible part of KAMEOKA in order to provide a typical formable material for the visible part.
Therefore, in view of CAI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light housing as taught by CAI to the light elements of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART in order to house and protect the light elements.
Regarding “an in-mold back-molding operation”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See MPEP § 2113. See also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985)). First, while CAI was used to show the in-mold process, CAI is not required to address the claim because only the structure(s) necessarily present from the method is (are) given patentable weight. Second, an in-mold process was considered to be a typical process for joining a visible part to a housing. In the instant case, the limitations failed to distinguish from the structure of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI.
Regarding claim 2, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI as discussed above for claim 1 further discloses wherein the light housing has a U-shaped profile in cross-section (as seen in Fig.1 of CAI, the light housing 120 has a U-shaped profile in a cross-sectional view).
KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI as discussed above for claim 1 fails to disclose the light housing made of plastic has a cylindrical or pot-shaped design.
However, CAI further discloses the light housing (120, Fig.1) made of plastic (para[0016]).
Therefore, in view of CAI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plastic material as taught by CAI to the light housing of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to provide a typical formable material for the visible part.
Regarding “the light housing has a cylindrical or pot-shaped design”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognize that the shape of the light housing can be selected for a desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cylindrical-shape or pot-shape to the light housing of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to provide a desired shape.
Regarding claim 4, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI fails to explicitly disclose wherein the visible part has a thickness in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 mm.
Regarding “the film-like visible part has a thickness in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 mm”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a thickness in the range of 0.3mm to 0.6mm to the thickness of the film-like visible part of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to provide a desired thickness based on the properties of the film-like visible part transmitting light for a desired application.
Regarding claim 6, KAMEOKA further discloses wherein the embossings (105, Fig.8B) are translucent when backlit, and are chrome-colored or metal-colored when back-lighting is absent (as seen in para[0043], the embossings 105 transmit light when backlight and are metal-colored when back-lighting is absent).
Regarding claim 8, KAMEOKA further discloses wherein the visible part (102, Fig.8B) is made of a single-layer that is at least partially transparent (as seen in Fig.8B, the film-like visible part 102 is at least partially transparent because the film-like visible part transmits light), which is at least transparent in the region of the embossings (as seen in Fig.8B, the embossings 105 is at least transparent because the embossing 105 transmits light) and, in this region, has a translucent metal layer (109, Fig.8B) thereon.
Regarding “a translucent metal layer vapor-deposited or sputtered thereon”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See MPEP § 2113. See also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Only the structure(s) necessarily present from the method is (are) given patentable weight. In the instant case, the limitations failed to distinguish from the structure of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI.
Regarding claim 10, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI as discussed above for claim 1 discloses a method of producing the vehicle trim part according to claim 1, wherein the light housing is molded onto the rear side of the visible part using the in-mold method.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMEOKA (JP 2019107921) modified by BOPPART (US 2015/0356895) and CAI (US 2020/0375040), and in view of SALTER (US 2017/0200403).
Regarding claim 3, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI fails to disclose wherein light-guiding structures are arranged in the cover surface of the light housing.
However, SALTER discloses light-guiding structures (as seen in para[0050], the “light-guiding structures” was considered to be the roughened surface or facets) are arranged in a cover surface of a light housing (62, 48, Fig.6).
Therefore, in view of SALTER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate light-guiding structures as taught by SALTER to the light housing of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to scatter and diffuse light.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMEOKA (JP 2019107921) modified by BOPPART (US 2015/0356895) and CAI (US 2020/0375040), and in view of MULDER (US 2014/0119038).
Regarding claim 5, KAMEOKA further discloses wherein one or a plurality of print layers (107, Fig.5B) are arranged on the rear side of the visible part (102, Fig.5B).
KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI fails to disclose one or a plurality of print layers are covered toward the bottom by an adhesion promoter.
However, MULDER discloses a print layer (5, Fig.4; as seen in para[0045], the print layer 5 can be a polymer material with a thin layer of metal) is covered toward the bottom by an adhesion promoter (as seen in para[0046], since the “adhesion promoter” was considered to be the adhesive layer securing the print layer 5 and the housing 30, 54,).
Therefore, in view of MULDER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adhesion promoter as taught by MULDER to the print layer of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to secure the print layer to the light housing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMEOKA (JP 2019107921) modified by BOPPART (US 2015/0356895) and CAI (US 2020/0375040), and in view of PILES GUILLEM (US 2021/0387570).
Regarding claim 7, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI fails to disclose wherein the visible part is made of a multi-layer film that is at least partially translucent in the region of the embossings.
However, PILES GUILLEM discloses a film-like visible part (124, Fig.1) is made of a multi-layer film that is at least partially translucent (as seen in para[0019], the visible part 124 can be composed of multiple layers).
Therefore, in view of PILES GUILLEM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate multiple layers as taught by PILES GUILLEM to the film-like visible part of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to provide layers to the film-like visible part.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMEOKA (JP 2019107921) modified by BOPPART (US 2015/0356895) and CAI (US 2020/0375040), and in view of DELLOCK (US 2017/0101047).
Regarding claim 9, KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI fails to disclose wherein the light housing, on the side thereof that is open toward the bottom, is joined to a housing bottom by a detent or screw of weld or adhesive connection.
However, DELLOCK discloses a light housing (26, Fig.3) is joined to a housing bottom (32, Fig.3) by means of an adhesive connection (para[0033].
Therefore, in view of DELLOCK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light housing is joined to a housing bottom by means of an adhesive connection as taught by DELLOCK to the light housing of KAMEOKA modified by BOPPART and CAI in order to provide a connect a typical multiple piece housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the presented claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. The visible part has been further defined and amended in the claims. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES ENDO whose telephone number is (571)272-2782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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, JONG-SUK LEE can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/J.M.E/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875