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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 10, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-14 and 16-18 are amended; claim 15 is canceled; claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-14 and 16-18 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graetzl et al. (DE 102019108418, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 14, Graetzl et al. teaches a composite material (1; decorative article) comprising a support layer (10; base layer) for several plastic areas (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25; discrete islands) made of a rigid plastic (first material) ([0019], Figs. 1-2). As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the plastic areas are attached to a first base layer surface of the support layer at discrete positions thereon [0020].
The support layer may be made of an elastic material (second material), such as a thermoplastic polyurethane or thermoplastic elastomer (polymeric material) [0008]. In the areas (second section) where the rigid plastic areas are formed, the support layer is no longer deformable [0022]. However, the plastic areas are spaced apart from each other, leaving an area (26, 27; first section) between them in which the support layer remains flexibly deformable ([0022], Figs. 2-4). The composite material is therefore stretchable only in regions arranged between the plastic areas.
With respect to the preamble limitation reciting “for decoratively covering at least a portion of one or more objects”, it is noted that this limitation is a functional limitation related to the intended use of the claimed product. Any decorative article which is capable of performing the claimed function is considered to satisfy this limitation. The composite material taught by Graetzl et al. is capable of decoratively covering a portion of an object (e.g., a vehicle interior component, [0016]), and thus satisfies the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the plastic areas may be formed on the support layer using an additive manufacturing process, such that the plastic areas can have a wide variety of shapes and cross-sections ([0014], [0021]). As shown in Fig. 1, the islands may be arranged in an irregular pattern on the support layer.
Regarding claim 9, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Graetzl et al. teaches that the support layer is made of an elastic material, such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), wherein such materials exhibit high elasticity and allow for multiple repeated movements of the composite material without any visible damage or aging of the flexible material [0008]. The composite material made of TPU or TPE is therefore considered to be elastically stretchable in at least two directions.
Regarding claim 11, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the rigid plastic area may be made of a fiber-reinforced plastic material [0011]. Suitable reinforcing fibers include carbon or aramid fibers ([0011]), which correspond to the claimed flame retardant substance.
Regarding claim 16, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the plastic areas may be formed by an additive manufacturing process such as fused deposition modeling (FDM) or three-dimensional printing, in which a three-dimensional body is constructed by stacking several layers of extruded material on top of each other in succession [0007]. The plastic areas therefore are configured as projections which extend from the first base layer surface of the support layer.
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 (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 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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graetzl et al. (DE 102019108418, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (KR 1998-0043158, machine translation via IP.com provided).
Regarding claim 8, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Graetzl et al. teaches that the support layer can be made of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), and that the rigid plastic area can be made of a thermoplastic, such as PA6, and can include reinforcing fibers such as carbon, glass, or aramid fibers ([0008], [0010]-[0011]). Graetzl et al. further teaches that the composite material can be used as a vehicle component, e.g., an outer skin component or an interior component such as a door panel or a dashboard panel ([0016]), but does not expressly teach that the composite material is configured to pass the vertical burn test.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle components, Baek et al. teaches a resin composition used for door panels, vehicle interior covers, trunk and seat barrier walls, etc., wherein the resin composition has flame retardancy of UL 94V0 grade without melt-fall during combustion (p. 2). In particular, Baek et al. teaches incorporating a flame retardant component at an amount sufficient to enable the resin composition to pass the UL 94 vertical combustion test (p. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite material of Graetzl et al. by incorporating a flame retardant additive into the resin composition used to form the support layer and/or the plastic areas at an amount sufficient to enable the vehicle component to pass the 12 second or 60 second vertical burn test, as suggested by Baek et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to improve the flame retardant properties of the component, thus ensuring a high level of safety for vehicle occupants.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graetzl et al. (DE 102019108418, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bangle et al. (US 2004/0130182, newly cited).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Graetzl et al. teaches that the rigid plastic area can be made of a thermoplastic material such that a durable bond can be created between the flexible material and the rigid plastic area, wherein the rigid plastic area can include reinforcing fibers such as carbon, glass, or aramid fibers, and wherein the vehicle component is preferably an outer skin component such as a spoiler ([0010]-[0011], [0016]), the reference does not expressly teach that the first material used to form the rigid plastic area includes a metal.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle components, Bangle et al. teaches an at least partially moveable motor vehicle outer skin, wherein at least one mechanically moveable adjusting element (28) is provided beneath an edge of the section enabling the outer skin (26) to be elastically deformed (Abstract, [0101], Figs. 3-5). In one embodiment, Bangle et al. teaches a tailgate (44) having a stressed-skin design in which an elastic outer skin (60) stretches across the metal plates (46, 48) of the tailgate and across the steel plates (50, 54, 56) of the spoiler (52), where the spoiler is displaceable from the resting position into a usage position through a pneumatic cylinder (58) ([0107]-[0109], Fig. 9). Bangle et al. teaches that the outer skin may contain a magnetic material so that the elastic material rests against ferromagnetic components such as the steel plates of the spoiler in an adhesive manner to prevent undesirable fluttering of the outer skin at high travel speeds ([0024], [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite material of Graetzl et al. by using any rigid material, such as a metal material, as suggested by Bangle et al., to form the rigid areas which are non-deformable and which enable flexible deformation of the elastic support layer in the areas therebetween. Although Graetzl et al. preferably uses a combination of thermoplastic materials in the support layer and the rigid plastic areas to form a durable bond therebetween, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming a similar bond between the support layer and rigid metal areas based on the teachings of Bangle et al., for example, by incorporating magnetic material into the support layer to allow the support layer to be secured to the metal material by a ferromagnetic bond.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graetzl et al. (DE 102019108418, machine translation via EPO provided) as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Graetzl et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. Although Graetzl et al. teaches that the plastic areas (discrete islands) can be a wide variety of shapes and cross-sections, wherein it is possible to produce complex structures for the plastic areas by additive manufacturing ([0021]), the reference does not expressly teach that the plastic areas configured as projections are tapered in a direction extending away from the first base layer surface, or that the projections have at least one flank or one or more rounded edges as claimed.
However, Graetzl et al. does further teach that in operation, the rigid plastic area (20) is lifted by an adjusting device (40) in order to change the outer contour of the composite material, wherein the rigid plastic is arranged in a recess of the supporting structure (30) ([0024]-[0025], Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite material of Graetzl et al. by forming the rigid plastic areas such that the edges are tapered and/or rounded as claimed in order to ensure that the plastic area can be easily lifted and returned to position without grazing the adjacent supporting structure.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claims 1-18 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the preamble of the claims in the response filed April 10, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-18 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 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 18 in the response filed April 10, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8 of the remarks filed April 10, 2026, with respect to Graetzl et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues that Graetzl fails to mention that the composite material (1) is configured such that it is stretchable only in regions which are arranged at least partially between the rigid plastic areas (20, 24, 25). The Applicant argues that paragraph [0022] of Graetzl discloses that the base layer (10) is not freely deformable where the rigid plastic areas (20, 24, 25) are formed, but that Graetzl does not specify the type of deformability and appears to refer to bending rather than stretching.
This argument is not persuasive. As shown in Fig. 4 of Graetzl et al., the support layer (10) is extended in length (i.e., stretched) in the region adjacent to the edge of the rigid plastic area (20) when the rigid plastic section is pressed by the adjusting device (40) [0025]. Graetzl et al. further teaches that the support layer (10; base layer) is made of an elastic material, such as a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), which exhibit high elasticity and allow for multiple repeated movements of the composite material without any visible damage or aging of the flexible material [0008]. The support layer made of an elastic material such as a thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Graetzl et al. is understood to be stretchable only in the regions of the article located between the rigid plastic areas, thus satisfying the claimed limitation requiring that the decorative article is stretchable only in regions arranged at least partially between the islands.
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 incorporating the limitations of previous dependent claim 15, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Xie et al. have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights