DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of electing Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because Group I, Claims 1-8, drawn to a method for manufacturing a motor vehicle body part, classified in CPC group/subgroup: B05D 3/06, Group II, Claims 9-10, drawn to a device for manufacturing a motor vehicle body part, classified in CPC group/subgroup: B23K 26/362, so the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, the term "substantially" is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation greater than or equal to between 100 and 1000 millimeters, and the claim also recites preferably between 300 and 700 millimeters, preferably between 400 and 600 millimeters which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation between 40 and 200 µm, and the claim also recites preferably between 70 and 120 µm, preferably substantially equal to 100 µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayat et al. (WO 2020053368A1) in view of Guillier et al. (EP 3530476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khayat teaches a method for manufacturing a motor vehicle body part (Abstract, Fig. 1) comprising the following steps: depositing at least one opaque (a semi-transparent or semi-translucent) coating on at least part of one face of a main body of the body part, the main body being made of transparent or translucent plastic (Abstract, [00047], [00053]), and producing a set of micro perforations in the opaque coating by removing the opaque coating using a laser beam locally irradiating the opaque coating, an irradiation the laser beam consisting rectilinear successive lines ([00038], [0064], [00071], [00076], [00079]). Khayat does not explicitly teach an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of substantially rectilinear successive trajectory lines. However, an analogous art, Guillier teaches treatment of a painted surface of a motor vehicle using a laser (Abstract, [0001]) comprising an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines ([0017], [0033], Figs. 3- 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines to the method of coating in Khayat, because Guillier disclosed the use of an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines as a whole to provide a striated visual effect in a given direction ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Khayat teaches a method as disclosed above. Khayat does not explicitly teach wherein the irradiation trajectory comprises at least in part the repetition of a same trajectory line pattern composed of several substantially rectilinear successive trajectory lines. However, an analogous art, Guillier teaches treatment of a painted surface of a motor vehicle using a laser (Abstract, [0001]) comprising wherein the irradiation trajectory comprises at least in part the repetition of a same trajectory line pattern composed of several substantially rectilinear successive trajectory lines ([0017], [0033], Figs. 3- 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines to the method of coating in Khayat, because Guillier disclosed the use of the irradiation trajectory comprises at least in part the repetition of a same trajectory line pattern composed of several substantially rectilinear successive trajectory lines as a whole to provide a striated visual effect in a given direction ([0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Khayat teaches a method as disclosed above and non-irradiation sections of the opaque coating so as to allow at least some of several micro perforations to be produced (Abstract, [00047], [00053], [00038], [0064], [00071], [00076], [00079]). Khayat does not explicitly teach wherein at least one trajectory line is composed of irradiation sections. However, an analogous art, Guillier teaches treatment of a painted surface of a motor vehicle using a laser (Abstract, [0001]) comprising wherein at least one trajectory line is composed of irradiation sections ([0017], [0033], Figs. 3- 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines to the method of coating in Khayat, because Guillier disclosed the use of at least one trajectory line is composed of irradiation sections as a whole to provide a striated visual effect in a given direction ([0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Khayat teaches wherein a focal length between an emission source of the laser beam and the face of the body part is greater than or equal to between 100 and 1000 millimeters ([ 00021], [00024], [00053]).
Regarding claim 5, Khayat teaches wherein the focal length between the emission source of the laser beam and the face of the body part ([ 00021], [00024], [00053]). Khayat does not explicitly teach wherein the focal length is modified within the irradiation trajectory of the face of the body part. However, an analogous art, Guillier teaches treatment of a painted surface of a motor vehicle using a laser (Abstract, [0001]) comprising wherein at least one trajectory line is composed of irradiation sections ([0017], [0033], Figs. 3- 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an irradiation trajectory of the laser beam consisting solely of rectilinear successive trajectory lines to the method of coating in Khayat, because Guillier disclosed the use of at least one trajectory line is composed of irradiation sections as a whole to provide a striated visual effect in a given direction ([0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Khayat teaches wherein at least some of the micro perforations are substantially parallelogram-shaped such as rectangular as shown in Fig. 14 (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, Khayat teaches wherein a width of a scanning band of the laser beam on the face of the body part is between 40 and 200 µm ([00024], in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Khayat teaches wherein the opaque coating is formed by at least one layer of paint ([00061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/HAI Y ZHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights