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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 03/06/2026. Currently claims 9-16 are pending in the application; with claims 15-16 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 9-14, drawn to a method in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Robin (US Patent Number 3,767,742), hereafter, referred to as “Robin”, in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0130305 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Wang”.
Regarding claim 9, Robin teaches (column 1, lines 62-70; column 3, lines 20-36; column 7, lines 7-27; Figs. 6 and 7) a process for producing a component assembly (suitable) for a vehicle (Figs. 6 and 7; component assembly of "plastic film 27" and "thermoplastic foam"; page 1, lines 31-61; column 7, lines 7-27; Figs. 6 and 7) comprising the steps of:
providing a film having a film outer side and a film inner side (column 7, lines 7-27; Figs. 6 and 7),
providing an injection molding tool (die) having an injection element and a mold element, wherein the injection element and the mold element can be moved relative to one another (Figs. 6 and 7, reference signs 23 and 26),
positioning the injection element in an injection position at a spacing from the film inner side (column 7, lines 7-27),
positioning the mold element on the film inner side (column 7, lines 7-27),
injection molding a foaming carrier material onto the film inner side to form a carrier integrally bonded to the film inner side (column 1, lines 62-70; column 3, lines 20-36; column 7, lines 7-27; figures 6 and 7), and
after the injection molding operation, moving the injection element out of the injection position and away from the film inner side into a molding end position, wherein the mold element remains positioned on the film inner side to form at least a gap in the support material (column 1, lines 62-70; column 3, lines 20-36; column 7, lines 7-27; Figs. 6 and 7).
But Robin fails to explicitly teach that the film materials is translucent. However, Wang teaches that the use of interior lighting arrangement for automotive use comprises an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) encapsulated in a light diffusing material disposed in a frame with a lens overlying the light diffusing material, the array of LEDs and the frame (para. [0003]) to reduce harsh glare and improve aesthetics. Wang also teaches in one aspect of the lighting arrangement, that the light diffusing material is translucent epoxy material (para. [004]). Wang further teaches in another aspect of the lighting arrangement, that the lens is configured as a light diffuser (para. [0005]), which is essentially a translucent material (film). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wang, and combine the feature of translucent film material for an automobile application, because that would allow the light from LEDs to diffuse, and create desired appearance by reducing harsh glare and improving aesthetics (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Robin teaches that the method is carried out as an injection molding-integral foam method; by teaching an “one-shot process" (page 1, lines 31-61; column 3, lines 20-36; column 7, lines 7-27; figures 6 and 7), with solid compact surface layers and a foamed core as a result of withdrawing the injection element.
Regarding claim 11, Robin teaches a process for producing a component assembly that is suitable for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to implement the increase in wall thickness which is to be achieved during thermoplastic-foam injection molding in accordance with the structural specification by routine optimization. Therefore, the determination that the final molding position is between 50% and 150% further away from the film inner side than the injection position; would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation to achieve desired thickness.
Regarding claim 12, Robin teaches in Figs. 6-7, that the method comprises of a step, wherein the molding body loads the translucent film with pressure during the injection molding in order to hold the translucent film in a predefined position (column 7, lines 7-27).
Regarding claim 13, Robin teaches a process, wherein the foaming carrier material comprises an agent for releasing carbon dioxide and water; by teaching to use blowing agents which decompose on heating to yield a gas, for example, solids such as sodium bicarbonate which yields carbon dioxide and water on heating (column 4, lines 8-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim 9, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject
matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of references (of record) does not teach or fairly suggest the (by themselves or in combination) a process comprising “the step of applying a laminating layer on the film outer side” for a process as defined by the independent claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights