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 .
Benefit & Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 365 (c) with PCT/GB2023/051227, which in turn claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with GB 2206824.1. The certified copy of foreign priority has been filed with the Office on 10/23/2024. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention was recognized as 05/10/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3, 5, 7-13, 18-19, 21-25, and 27 are objected to because of the informalities, below.
Re Claims 3, 5, 7-13, and 18:
On line 1, “A layered trim structure as claimed in claim” should be changed to – [[A]] The layered trim structure of claim – in order to put the claims in proper form.
Re Claim 19:
On line 1, “a layered trim structure” should be changed to – [[a]] the layered trim structure – in order to put the claim in proper form.
Re Claims 21-25 and 27:
On line 1, “A method of manufacturing a layered trim structure as claimed in claim” should be changed to – [[A]] The method of manufacturing [[a]] the layered trim structure of claim – in order to put the claims in proper form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Re Claim 3:
On line 3, the claim recites “an opaque outer layer”; however, it is unclear if the outer layer is a new outer layer that is opaque or is a typographical error and meant to be the at least partially opaque masking layer or is a typographical error and meant to be the outer layer. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. After careful review of Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner has best understood there to be a typographical error and Applicant meant to refer to and further limit the outer layer on line 1 of claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner has interpreted – the outer layer – in order to execute compact prosecution.
Re Claim 5:
The claim depends upon canceled claim 4. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. As best understood, Applicant meant for the claim to depends upon claim 3. However, the Examiner notes if the claim is meant to depend upon claim 3, the claim would be indefinite for depending on an indefinite claim until the indefiniteness of intervening claim 3 were remedied.
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, 7-13, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drbohlav et al. (DE 102019124491 A1; listed as Cite No. 3 under Foreign Patent Documents in the IDS filed on 10/23/2024; English machine translation provided and referred to as “D1”) in view of Boyer (US 20080157432 A1; “D2”).
Re Claim 1:
D1 discloses a layered trim structure (flexible sheet-like structure 1; shown in Fig 1 and described below) comprising
an outer layer (cover layer 10) comprising a pattern (described as textile layer in the 5th ¶ of PDF Page 12 and in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as top layer 10 can be a textile layer, a perforated leather layer or a perforated leather-like layer) and at least one area configured to allow transmission of light (areas near areas 12, Fig 1),
a resiliently compressible spacer layer (spacer layer 6th; described in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as spacer layer 6th, for example a foamed material; “6”) configured to allow transmission of light (Fig 1) and
an at least partially opaque masking layer (opaque separation layer 8th; “8”) provided between the outer layer and spacer layer (between 10 and 6),
the masking layer (8) configured with at least one opening corresponding in position to the at least one area configured to allow transmission of light (correspondence shown in Fig 1).
D1 does not disclose a stitching pattern in the outer layer.
D2 teaches a layered trim structure (coverstock 110 and substrate 120, Fig 2) comprising an outer layer (skin 122) comprising a stitching (stitching 113).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (“PHOSITA”) to modify the outer layer of D1 to include the stitching of D2 for the benefit of obtaining a desired look and feel (D2: ¶ 0014).
Re Claim 7:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
The combination in claim 1 does not explicitly necessitate that D1 discloses the outer layer (10) is provided with one or more extensions extending outwardly from an edge thereof.
D2 teaches an outer layer (122) is provided with one or more extensions extending from an outer edge thereof (shown in Fig 3 of D2 with the Examiner’s annotations, below).
Figure 3 of D2 with the Examiner's annotations
PNG
media_image1.png
416
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure the outer layer of D1 with one or more extensions as taught (in at least principle) by D2 for the added utility of application to corner surfaces.
Re Claim 8:
The claim depends upon claim 7.
Due to the combination in claim 7, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein each of the one or more extensions is provided with openings or apertures therethrough for at least disposed stitching (13) in Fig 3 of D2 with the Examiner’s annotations, above.
Re Claim 9:
The claim depends on claim 1.
Due to the combination in claim 1, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the stitching pattern (D2: 13) is stitched into the outer layer (D1: 10).
Re Claim 10:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
D1 further discloses wherein the masking layer is shaped to include at least one area (12) configured to allow transmission of light into the outer layer (16 into 10, Fig 1)
Due to the combination in claim 1, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the masking layer (D1: 8) is shaped to correspond with the configuration of the stitching pattern (D2: 13) because it would not have been obvious to shape the masking layer to not be configured to the stitching pattern.
Re Claim 11:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
D1 further discloses wherein the masking layer (8) has at least one opening (12) corresponding in position to the at least one area configured to allow transmission of light (13 corresponding to area near 12, Fig 1).
Re Claim 12:
The claim depends upon claim 11.
D1 further discloses wherein the at least one masking layer (8) corresponds to at least one area (area of 12) configured to allow transmission of light (12) including at least one area of perforations (12) in one or more clusters (clusters of 12), areas (area of 12) or arrays (array of 12).
Due to the combination and reasoning in claim 11, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the openings (12) in the masking layer is sufficiently large because the opening is sufficient to allow transmission of light (13).
Re Claim 13:
The claim depends upon claim 12.
Due to the combination in claim 12, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein at least one masking portion is provided in the masking layer corresponding to the stitching pattern in the masking pattern because it necessarily occurs that the correspondence of overlap would have been inherent due to the combination in claim 1.
Re Claim 18:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
Due to the combination in claim 1, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the spacer layer (6) is embossed to deform the spacer layer (6) to decreased thickness in a at least one area corresponding to the stitching pattern (13) on the outer layer (10) due to the configuration of the decreased thickness in the space layer (compressible material 124) of D2 in at least one are corresponding to stitching (D2: 13) on the outer layer (D2: 122).
With regard to before assembly, the limitation is a Product-By-Process limitation under MPEP § 2113. Under analysis, a PHOSITA would not have recognized a difference in the structure of the claimed spacer layer embossment and the at least suggested spacer layer embossment of D1.
Re Claim 19:
The claim depends upon claim 1.
D1 further discloses a light source (light source 14) operable in use (evident by light 13) to direct light through the spacer layer (6) to the outer cover (10) to be visible though the at least one area (area near 12) configured to allow light transmission of light (Fig 1).
Re Claim 20:
D1 discloses a method of manufacturing a layered trim structure (evident by the structure of flexible sheet-like structure 1; shown in Fig 1 and described below), the method comprising the steps of
providing a pattern (described as textile layer in the 5th ¶ of PDF Page 12 and in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as top layer 10 can be a textile layer, a perforated leather layer or a perforated leather-like layer) and at least one area configured to allow transmission of light (areas near areas 12 shown in Fig 1 with transmission of light 13) in an outer layer (in cover layer 10),
positioning an at least partially opaque masking layer (opaque separation layer 8th; “8”) comprising at least one opening (areas 12) relative to the outer layer (relative to 10) such that the at least one opening (12) in the masking layer (in 8) corresponds in position to the at least one area (area near 12) configured to allow transmission of light in the outer layer (Fig 1), and
placing a resiliently compressible spacer layer (spacer layer 6th; described in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as spacer layer 6th, for example a foamed material; “6”) configured to allow transmission of light (13) onto at least partially opaque masking layer (onto 8, Fig 1) to sandwich the at least partially opaque masking layer to the outer layer (sandwich 8 to 10, Fig 1).
D1 does not disclose providing a stitching in the outer layer.
D2 teaches providing a stitching (stitching) in an outer layer (in skin 122).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the method of D1 by including the step of providing stitching as taught (in at least principle) by D2 for the benefit of obtaining a desired look and feel (D2: ¶ 0014).
Re Claim 21:
Due to the combination in claim 20, it would have been obvious of a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting the step of including a step of deforming the spacer layer (6) to decreased thickness corresponding to the stitching pattern (13) due to due to the configuration of the decreased thickness in the space layer (compressible material 124) of D2 in at least one are corresponding to stitching (D2: 13) on the outer layer (D2: 122).
Re Claim 22:
The claim depends upon claim 21.
Due to the combination in claim 20 and reasoning in claim 21, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the deformed, decreased thickness spacer layer (D1: 6 transposed with D2: 124) is formed by compression of the spacer layer corresponding to the stitching pattern (D1: Fig 1 transposed with D2: Fig 2).
Re Claim 23:
The claim depends upon claim 21, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the layered trim D1 as modified of D2 to be an equivalent method to the claimed method below for the purpose of providing a layered trim structure including stitching and area for light to transmit through, the method comprising:
the deformation of the spacer layer is achieved at the same time or as a consequence of attaching the respective layers together.
Re Claim 24:
The claim depends upon claim 20.
Due to the combination in claim 20, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the layered trim D1 as modified of D2 to be an equivalent method to the claimed method below for the purpose of providing a layered trim structure including stitching and area for light to transmit through, the method comprising:
a step a step of pressing the respective layers together using a heated press having at least one raised part corresponding to the stitching pattern in the outer layer to hold the layered trim structure together and to plastically deform the spacer layer corresponding to the stitching pattern.
Re Claim 25:
The claim depends upon claim 20.
Due to the combination in claim 20, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize the layered trim D1 as modified of D2 to be an equivalent method to the claimed method below for the purpose of providing a layered trim structure including stitching and area for light to transmit through, the method comprising:
a step using a vacuum process to hold the trim structure assembly relative to an illuminated/illuminatable substrate to hold an inner surface of the spacer layer into contact with the illuminated/illuminatable substrate with the effect that a quilted texture becomes apparent on an outer surface of the outer layer.
Re Claim 26:
D1 discloses a method of manufacturing a layered trim structure (evident by the structure of flexible sheet-like structure 1; shown in Fig 1 and described below), the method comprising the steps of
providing a pattern (described as textile layer in the 5th ¶ of PDF Page 12 and in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as top layer 10 can be a textile layer, a perforated leather layer or a perforated leather-like layer) and at least one area configured to allow transmission of light (areas near areas 12 shown in Fig 1 with transmission of light 13) in an outer layer (in cover layer 10),
placing a resiliently compressible spacer layer (spacer layer 6th; described in the 2nd ¶ of PDF Page 13 as spacer layer 6th, for example a foamed material; “6”) configured to allow transmission of light (shown in Fig 1) onto at least partially opaque masking layer (opaque separation layer 8th; “8”) to sandwich the at least partially opaque masking layer to the outer layer (sandwich 8 to 10).
D1 does not disclose including stitching in an outer layer and deforming the spacer layer to decrease thickness corresponding to the stitching pattern.
D2 teaches including stitching (stitching 18) in an outer layer (in skin) and deforming a spacer layer (compressible layer 124) to decrease thickness corresponding to the stitching pattern (shown in Fig 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the method of D1 by including the step of providing a stitching and deforming the spacer layer as taught (in at least principle) by D2 for the benefit of obtaining a desired look and feel (D2: ¶ 0014).
Re Claim 27:
The claim depends upon claim 26.
Due to the combination in claim 26, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize D1 as at least suggesting wherein the deformed, decreased thickness spacer layer (D1: 6 transposed with D2: 124) is formed by compression of the spacer layer corresponding to the stitching pattern (D1: Fig 1 transposed with D2: Fig 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re Claim 3:
The closest prior art of record (D1) fails to any one of disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the combined structure and functionality of the at least one perforation as set forth in the claim.
Re Claim 5:
The claim would contain allowable subject matter due to its interpreted dependence on claim 3 if indefiniteness were remedied in intervening claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 but not relied upon, above, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it discloses a layered trim layer comprising masking layers that include perforations to allow light to transmit therethrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH G DELAHOUSSAYE whose telephone number is (469)295-9088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, James Greece can be reached at (571) 272-3711. 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.
KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE JR.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/KEITH G. DELAHOUSSAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights