Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/807,458

METHOD FOR PRODUCING A DECORATIVE ELEMENT HAVING A FUNCTIONAL OPENING AND DECORATIVE ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103§DP
Filed
Aug 16, 2024
Examiner
SELLS, JAMES D
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lisa Dräxlmaier GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
710 granted / 874 resolved
+16.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 874 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 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) 1-3, 6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Heffelbower (US 2013/0341817). Regarding claim 1, Heffelbower discloses a method for producing a decorative element for a motor vehicle having a functional opening, the method comprising: providing a decorative cut-out, the decorative cut-out including a through hole (substrate 15 with line or hole 16); providing a functional layer (skin 13); producing a composite including the decorative cut-out and the functional layer by fixing the decorative cut-out to the functional layer using an attachment side of the decorative cut-out (shown in Fig. 4); and filling the through hole of the decorative cut-out with a filling material to form the functional opening (foam material 35 is injected through line 16 between substrate 15 and skin 13). Regarding claim 2, Heffelbower shows a gap between substrate 15 and skin 13 – see Figs. 2-5). Regarding claim 3, Heffelbower discloses injecting 35 foam material through line or hole 16 through substrate 15 to fill the gap between substrate 15 and skin 13. It is the examiner’s position that the hole 16 inherently must be cut into substrate 15. Regarding claim 6, Heffelbower functionally glues substrate 15 and skin 13 together by injecting foam material 35 therebetween. Regarding claim 15, Heffelbower discloses wall 26 which functions as a spacing device. Regarding claim 17, Heffelbower discloses making an automotive trim panel (i.e. decorative element). 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) 4-5 and 7-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heffelbower (US 2013/0341817) as described above in view of Diehl et al (US Patent 11,787,161). Diehl discloses an automotive trim panel with decorative layers (decorative layers 6 and 10) and light-transmissive layers (cover layer 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ light-transmissive layers, as taught by Diehl, in the method of Heffelbower in order to provide the predictable result of imparting desirable visual and protective features to the trim component. In addition, it is the examiner’s position that the specific materials (functional layers, electronic assembly as well as the through holes and holding element) are well known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious to employ in the method of Heffelbower based on the desirable physical properties of the trim panels being manufactured. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/807,516 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of applicant’s claims 1-17 are contained within or made obvious by claims 1-11 and 20 of 18/807,516. In particular, 18/807,516 recites: A method for producing a decorative element with a functional body for a motor vehicle, the method comprising: providing the functional body and a decorative cut, the functional body including a visible side and a back side, the decorative cut including a visible side, an adhesive side, and an insertion opening corresponding to the functional body; providing a filling tool including a sealing unit that corresponds to the insertion opening of the decorative cut; inserting the decorative cut into the filling tool and inserting the functional body into the insertion opening so that an assembly formed from the decorative cut and the functional body is supported via the sealing unit; forming a non-destructively detachable and fluidically tight fixation between the sealing unit and the assembly on the visible side of the decorative cut and the visible side of the functional body; and filling the insertion opening of the decorative cut with a filling material. 18/807,516 also recites a decorative element for a motor vehicle, the decorative element produced via the method described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. JAMES D. SELLS Primary Examiner Art Unit 1745 /JAMES D SELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600055
Hollow Artificial Log And Manufacturing Method Therefor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598915
CONDENSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE CONDENSED CYCLIC COMPOUND, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590665
Monitoring of Lined Pipeline
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583187
BELT MOLDING MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570876
WATER-DISPERSED PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE SHEET FOR RE-PEELING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 874 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month