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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opaque component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural connection or relationship between the light source, carrier layer and foil.
Claim 6 recites “the outer surface” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependence on Claim 1.
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)(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.
The applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Izquierdo (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0162603).
Regarding Claim 1, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3 and 10, an illuminated or illuminable trim part 1 of or for a vehicle 3, comprising: a light source 28 for providing light; a transparent or translucent carrier layer 10 comprising a light guide 13 , at least one component applied to the carrier layer, or at least one painted layer (colored layer 5) applied to the carrier; and a foil (metal looking decoration layer 6 or laminated foil 24), the foil comprising printed areas or having at least one cut-out through which the light provided by the light source 28 can penetrate.
Regarding Claim 2, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3 and 9-10, the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein: the opaque component or the painted layer 5 are applied such that at least one blank area on the carrier is formed that is covered neither by the opaque component nor the painted layer; and the foil 24 is transparent or translucent to light provided by the light source and arranged in the blank area.
Regarding Claim 3, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3 and 9-10 the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein the printed areas are translucent or opaque to the light provided by the light source 28 (opaque layer 23 Para 0086).
Regarding Claim 4, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 9-10 The illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein the carrier layer 9, 10 has an outer surface (outer forward layer 9) and an inner surface, the inner surface facing the light source (the light guide 13 forms part of the inner layer 10 which light source 28 is coupled to Figure 10), wherein the opaque component or the painted layer or the foil 24 is arranged in the inner surface .
Regarding Claim 6, Izquierdo, as best understood, discloses in Figures 1-3 and 9-10, the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, further comprising a transparent or translucent layer 11 applied to the outer surface of the carrier layer (Para 0049).
Regarding Claim 7, Izquierdo discloses in Figueres 1-3 and 9-10, the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein a transparent or translucent anti-fog layer 22 is applied on the foil (PMMA material 22 Para 0076).
Regarding Claim 8, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3, the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein the painted layer 5 comprises void areas through which the light can penetrate (uncovered areas 6 are shown to be adjacent to the painted layer 5).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Izquierdo discloses a method for producing the illuminated or illuminable trim part of claim 1, comprising: printing the printed areas on the foil; inserting the foil into an injection mold; and molding the transparent carrier layer and thereby overmolding the foil further comprising forming the foil by high pressure forming between the steps of printing and inserting. (the molding of the extractors to the light guide including the foil Para’s 0077-0083).
Regarding Claim 12, Izquierdo discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising producing the carrier layer 9, 10 and the opaque component in two-component injection molding (the features such as layers 22, opacity layers 23 and foil 24 are molded and injection molded in two steps to the light guide that is already molded Para’s 0077-0083).
Regarding Claim 13, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3 and 9-10, a vehicle 3, comprising a trim part 1 according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Izquierdo discloses in Figures 1-3 a vehicle, comprising a trim part 1 manufactured by the method of claim 10.
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.
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.
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 applicant is respectfully advised that in examining a pending application, the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably convey. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d. 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izquierdo (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0162603).
Regarding Claim 5, Izquierdo does not disclose the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein the printed areas 5 (art printed but does not explicitly disclose ink or paint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ink or paint for the printing material for decorative layer 5 because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result providing a thin coating of opaque material to the surface. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Izquierdo does not explicitly disclose in Figures 1-3 and 9-10 the illuminated or illuminable trim part according to claim 1, wherein a further painted layer is arranged on the painted layer 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have multiple painted layers on top of the colored layer 5 in order to enhance the color or hue or richness of the color since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schone (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0100159), Mayer (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0032918) and Schneebauer (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0010137) disclose illuminated trim components for a vehicle having a carrier and decorative layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J MAY whose telephone number is (571)272-5919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-3:30pm.
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, Jong-Suk (James) 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.
/ROBERT J MAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875