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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024 and 07/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites chemical formulas: TiO2 and Al2O3 and the numbers in each should be subscripts. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski (US 4,126,727).
Regarding claim 1, Kaminski discloses a decorative sheet material (i.e., trim component) for use in upholstery or vehicle interiors (column 1, lines 5-15) comprising a substrate (12) having a “trim face”, decorative area (18) defining a first portion of the decorative sheet trim face and the remainder of the decorative sheet (e.g., portion 16) defining a second portion of the decorative sheet trim face (Fig. 2 and 3).
Kaminski discloses the first portion of the trim face having a refractive index different form that of the second portion, due to the difference in colors (white vs. black; column 5, lines 5-10 and 25-25). The whole of the decorative sheet material trim face being covered with a transparent and/or translucent coating having a thickness of form about 0.05 to about 2 microns to give interference or other optical effect (column 2, lines 45-55), overlapping the claimed thickness of between 5 nm and 1 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
The decorative area having a different chemical composition from that of the rest of the trim face (column 11, lines 60-65 and column 12, lines 10-15 and 20-25).
Regarding claim 2, Kaminski teaches the substrate made of polymer (column 3, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 3, Kaminski teaches the coating is a layer of decorative chips or flakes (column 2, lines 45-55) and includes oxides (column 8, liens 5-10).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kaminski teaches the coating comprising a stack of layers consisting of two layers of TiO2 with a layer of Al203 (e.g., titanium dioxide-coated mica platelet) (column 6, lines 55-67, column 7, lines 64-67)
Regarding claim 6, Kaminski teaches that the coating may have a color (column 7, lines 55-60) however does not teach the color characterized in L*a*b* by L* between 28-60, a* being between -9 and -0.6 and b* being between 21 and 31.
However, as Kaminski teaches different hues and colors (column 2, lines 15-20), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the color including within the L*a*b* space as claimed for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Alternatively, it is well established that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04.I).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
