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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the two groups have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the restriction mailed 4/24/2026. Plus, the below rejection demonstrates that the claims do not have unity of invention because prior art reads on at least elected Group I. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by USPAP 2024/0286322 to Fumagalli or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2024/0286322 to Fumagalli in view of USPN 2021/0086670 to Kozlowski.
Claim 1, Fumagalli discloses a method for manufacturing an interior panel, comprising: a panel base part of the interior panel being heated to a first temperature, wherein the panel base part is made of composite material, and matrix of the composite material is a first material, reinforcement of the composite material is a second material, and the first temperature is at least a softening point of the first material; the heated panel base part and a panel surface part being stacked on a first mold for press-molding; wherein, the panel surface part includes a surface side section and a back side section, and the surface side section provides a surface of the interior panel, and the back side section is set to be on back side of the surface side section, and the back side section has a first material component made of first material; and the back side section and the panel base part are connected by the first material component; the first mold on one side and a second mold on other side being close and kept for a first period; and the first mold on one side and the second mold on other side being open, to obtain the interior panel (see entire document including [0001], [0002], [0011]-[0016] and [0061]-[0078]). In the event that it is shown that the applied prior art does not disclose the claimed embodiment with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because the prior art specifically discloses the claimed constituents and molding steps.
Claim 2, the first material includes polypropylene (PP), and the second material includes natural fibers and/or synthetic fibers ([0064]-[0066]).
Claim 3, the first temperature is 40°C-60° C higher than the softening point of the first material ([0015] and [0061]).
Claims 4 and 6, Fumagalli discloses that the first mold and/or the second mold may be horizontally or vertically moveable, wherein the heated panel base part and the panel surface part being stacked on the moving mold for press-molding, and then the two molds are closed and kept for the first period ([0104]-[0112]). Plus, the examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to construct a mold wherein each half is vertically or horizontally moveable or just one half is vertically or horizontally moveable and the other half is fixed.
Claim 5, Fumagalli does not appear to specifically mention the claimed mold positioning system but Kozlowski discloses that it is known in the art to use the claimed mold positioning system (see entire document including [0132]-[0138] and Figures 33-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the interior panel with the claimed mold positioning system to provide alignment of the mold and molding components.
Claim 7, the back side section comprises a foam layer and a base layer, and the foam layer is connected with the surface side section, and the base layer is connected with the panel base part, wherein the base layer is of a non-woven fabric configuration, as the first material component, and fibrous material of the non-woven fabric configuration is the first material ([0068]-[0078]).
Claim 8, the back side section comprises a foam layer, and one side of the foam layer is connected to the surface side section, the other side is connected to the back side section, and material of the foam layer includes the first material, and the foam layer serves as the first material component ([0068]-[0078]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights