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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 3/18/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2025 was filed and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15-21 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the light source of claim 18 and the display layer of claim 20, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
In regard to claim 15, the invention is directed to an illuminated display for a vehicle component. However, neither the display nor the light source have been recited in the independent claim—these elements are critical to the practice of the invention. These elements must be recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-21 and 28 are further rejected for depending on claim 15.
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.
Claim 16 and 20 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.
In regard to claim 16, the application recites “preferably 4.5 to 6.5 mm, further preferably 5 to 6 mm.” The limitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 20, the application recites “especially a display.” The limitation of “especially” makes it unclear if this element is a part of the invention, rendering it indefinite. This must be amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15, 18, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller (DE 10 2017 215 126 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Muller discloses an injection-molded component for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a first foil insert (8) comprising a first print region;
a second foil (2) insert comprising a second print region; and
a transparent polymer layer (6) disposed between the first foil insert and the second foil insert, wherein the first print region is configured as a panel for coverage of sections of the second print region. (Figure 3; see machine translation)
In regard to claim 18, Muller discloses a light source (21) configured for coupling of light into the polymer layer, wherein the light source is configured to run at least partly around a circumference of the injection-molded component.
In regard to claim 28, Muller discloses a motor vehicle comprising an injection-molded component according to claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (DE 10 2017 215 126 A1).
In regard to claim 16, Muller fails to disclose that the polymer layer has a thickness of 3 to 7 mm.
However, this is routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the polymer layer of a thickness of 3 to 7 mm in order to provide for a low profile.
In regard to claim 17, Muller fails to disclose that the polymer layer is made from polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) and/or polycarbonate (PC). However, PMMA and PC are known plastics, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the polymer layer of PMMA or PC in order to use known plastics.
In regard to claim 19, Muller discloses the first foil insert has a surface that faces away from the polymer layer.
Muller fails to disclose the surface has a coating.
However, protective coatings, such as UV coatings, are notoriously old and well-known, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply a protective coating in order to protect the first foil insert from elements.
In regard to claim 20, Muller discloses the second foil insert, on a surface that faces away from the polymer layer.
Muller fails to disclose a third foil insert or an optical surface, especially a display.
However, adding a third foil insert would be merely a duplication of parts, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an additional foil insert in order to improve upon the decorative effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art taken as a whole does not show nor suggest an injection-molded component for a motor vehicle, comprising a first foil insert comprising a first print region, a second foil insert comprising a second print region, and a transparent polymer layer disposed between the first foil insert and the second foil insert, wherein the first print region is configured as a panel for coverage of sections of the second print region, a light source configured for coupling of light into the polymer layer, wherein the light source is configured to run at least partly around a circumference of the injection- molded component, the second foil insert, on a surface that faces away from the polymer layer, has a third foil insert or an optical surface, especially a display, and wherein the first print region and the second print region are configured such that transparent regions are provided for measurement by optical sensors as specifically called for the claimed combinations.
The closest prior art, Muller (DE 10 2017 215 126 A1), does not include the first print region and the second print region are configured such that transparent regions are provided for measurement by optical sensors as required by the claim and there is no motivation absent the applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the Muller reference in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Neitzke (US 2007/0141353 A1) disclose a decoration layer.
Yang (US 2009/0160087 A1) disclose a decoration layer.
Breunig et al (US 2012/0032592 A1) disclose a decorative element.
Cannon et al (US 2014/0211498 A1) disclose a trim element.
Schelter (US 2018/0178736 A1) disclose a component.
Van Den Brand et al (US 2022/0287186 A1) disclose a laminate layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 6:00 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, James (Jong-Suk) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E DUNAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights