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 II, claims 9-17, in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 28, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In order to improve the clarity of the claim, it is suggested to amend the claim to include the full names of the materials listed as “ABS/MABS”, “TPU”, “PSU”, “ASA”, “PETG”, or “PCABS”. For the purpose of applying prior art, these terms will be interpreted as follows: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene/methyl methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS/MABS), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polysulfone (PSU), acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA), polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG), and polycarbonate-acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (PCABS). It is also noted that the term “polypropylene” is listed twice.
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.
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 9-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “wherein the paint layer is formed of a chrome-like high-metallic organic binder” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the phrase “chrome-like high-metallic organic binder” are not clearly defined.
First, it is noted that the phrase "chrome-like" renders the claim indefinite because the addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III). In the instant case, it is not clear whether the phrase “chrome-like” is intended to refer only to chrome (i.e., chromium metal), to any chrome-colored (i.e., silver) metallic material, to any metallic material of any color, etc.
It is also unclear what is meant by the phrase “high-metallic organic binder” – whether this is intended to require that the paint layer includes an organic binder and a high content of metallic material, that the paint layer comprises an organic binder and has a highly metallic appearance, that the organic binder is composed of a metallic material, etc.
In looking to paragraphs [0007] and [0026] of the as-filed specification, the chrome-like high-metallic organic binder is said to provide a visually appealing and distinctive appearance, enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the trim component, wherein the paint layer is clear or pigmented, wherein pigments may include but are not limited to aluminum, copper, zinc (or alloys thereof), stainless steel, nickel, or interference pigments (based on mica, thin metal in between various plastics, etc.). Paragraph [0007] discloses that the pigments can be of any shape but are often non-spherical in nature, wherein PVD aluminum flakes in particular are preferred because of their high aspect ratio and can typically be formulated at high pigment to binder ratios.
Based on this disclosure, the aforementioned limitation directed to the paint layer being formed of a “chrome-like high-metallic organic binder” appears to intend to require that the paint layer comprises an organic binder and a pigment which is either metallic or has a metallic appearance (e.g., interference pigments). It is noted that the examples of pigments listed in the specification include copper and thus are not limited to metallic pigments having a silver (i.e., chrome-like) appearance. The instant specification does not appear to disclose a content of the pigment the paint layer, or a pigment to binder ratio therein, such that the scope of the term “high-metallic” is not clearly defined. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification to be satisfied when the paint layer comprises an organic binder and a pigment which is metallic or produces a metallic appearance.
Regarding claims 10-17, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 9.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US 2019/0194479).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Hara et al. teaches a decorative coating film (1), for example an emblem attached to the surface of resin substrate (20) that is a front grill (F) of an automotive body (A) ([0034], Figs. 1, 3). The decorative coating film (1; paint layer) is applied to a surface of the resin substrate (20), and a transparent resin coating film (2; coating layer) may be further laminated on the decorative coating film ([0035]-[0036], Fig. 1). The decorative coating film (1) comprises fine silver particles (1a), nickel oxide having a wire shape (1d), and a polymeric binding resin (1b) having light transmission properties, which binds the silver particles dispersed in the coating ([0037], [0060], Fig. 2). Hara et al. teaches that the decorative coating film having the fine silver particles exhibits a metallic luster ([0013], [0059]), thus corresponding to the claimed chrome-like high-metallic organic binder.
Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meinke et al. (US 2009/0257241).
Regarding claim 9, Meinke et al. teaches a trim component (20) comprising a substrate (30), a finish layer (32; paint layer), and a mask (34) ([0039], Fig. 5). The substrate provides a base for the trim component and can be made of polymeric material [0040]. The finish layer (32) can be a coating applied to the substrate, wherein exemplary coating materials include metallic paints such as Ghost Chrome or other automotive grade paints ([0044]), where automotive grade paints such as Ghost Chrome include an organic binder and a metallic pigment, thus corresponding to the claimed chrome-like high-metallic organic binder.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Meinke et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches that exemplary polymeric materials for the substrate (30) include silicone and nylon (synthetic resin), and that the substrate can be translucent [0040].
Regarding claim 12, Meinke et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches that the finish layer (32; paint layer) transmits light generated from an illumination source located on the rearward side of the substrate, wherein the optical characteristics (e.g., light transmissivity) of the finish layer can be controlled by selective control of finish properties such as chemical composition, color, applied thickness, and the like ([0041], [0043]).
Regarding claims 13-15, Meinke et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. As noted above, Meinke et al. teaches that the mask (34) may be formed on a surface of the finish layer (32; paint layer) and may be formed of an opaque material, thus creating a masked portion (46) and an unmasked portion (48) ([0049], [0067], Fig. 5). The mask layer can therefore be taken to correspond to the claimed coating layer which includes an opaque coating to achieve areas of selective illumination.
Meinke et al. further teaches that the finish layer (32) can be coated with a protective clear coat, which can be tinted to achieve a selected color [0044]. The protective clear coat can alternatively be taken to correspond to the claimed coating layer which includes a clear coat that is tinted.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinke et al. (US 2009/0257241) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kraut et al. (US 2021/0115293).
Regarding claim 11, Meinke et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. Although Meinke et al. teaches that the finish layer (32) can be texturized to create selected visual and tactile characteristics, such as to have a texture different than the texture of the adjacent areas of the vehicle so that an observer can identify and differentiate the trim component from the rest of the vehicle ([0042]), the reference does not expressly teach that the substrate (30) has a textured surface such that the surface is rough or uneven.
Kraut et al. teaches a coating system used to visually hide low-profile surface features and to establish, accentuate, and/or modify the optical properties of high-profile surface features to achieve a desired optical and/or haptic effect (Abstract, [0047], [0132]). Similar to Meinke et al., Kraut et al. teaches that an article comprising the coating system can be, for example, a thermoplastic which is fabricated using additive manufacturing such as three-dimensional printing, and that the coating systems can be applied to articles found in automobile interiors ([0057], [0128]). Kraut et al. further teaches that it can be desirable to intentionally incorporate topographical features into a surface of a three-dimensional printed article, such as in the form of regular or irregular patterns, to create intentional visual effects [0103].
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 trim component of Meinke et al. by incorporating topographical features on the surface of the substrate such that a rough or uneven surface is formed, as taught by Kraut et al., in order to impart a desired optical and/or haptic effect to the trim component, consistent with the teachings of Meinke et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinke et al. (US 2009/0257241) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Vieu (WO 2017/068255, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 16, Meinke et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, including that the finish layer can be coated with a protective clear coat (coating layer). Although Meinke et al. teaches that the finish layer can be texturized to create selected visual and tactile characteristics, such as to have a texture different than the texture of the adjacent areas of the vehicle so that an observer can identify and differentiate the trim component from the rest of the vehicle ([0042]), the reference does not expressly teach that the protective clear coat includes a compound comprising silica, alumina, talc, stearates, low molecular weight thermoplastics, or waxes as claimed.
Vieu teaches a method for painting a substrate, such as a motor vehicle bodywork element, to achieve a metallic, matte, and textured effect [0006]. Similar to Meinke et al., Vieu teaches that the paint comprises a first base layer (104) comprising pigments or elements (106) producing a metallic effect, and a second coat of textured and matte varnish (108) applied to the first base layer ([0022], Fig. 1). The varnish may include solid particles and elements producing a matte effect, such as silica [0022]. Vieu teaches that, due to its textured and matte nature, the varnish makes surface defects of the bodywork significantly less visible [0003].
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 trim component of Meinke et al. by incorporating a compound such as silica in the protective clear coat, as taught by Vieu, in order to produce a matte effect which makes surface defects of the substrate less visible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshi (WO 2024/237151, machine translation via EPO provided) teaches a metallic decorative laminate (100) comprising a resin substrate (130) coated with a glossy resin layer (110-112) having a lustrous material (120) such as aluminum flakes dispersed therein ([0011], [0059], Fig. 2). Hoshi teaches that the total light transmittance of the metallic decorative laminate can be adjusted as needed by the amount of lustrous material, the shape of the lustrous material, the amount of pigment, etc. ([0026]-[0027]).
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