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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “the framework” of claim 6 is not shown nor labeled, “the embedding bar” of claim 14 is not shown nor labeled, “an injection molding framework” of claims 16 and 17 is not shown nor labeled. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “the framework” recited in claim 6 and “an injection molding framework” as recited in claims 16 and 17 are not sufficiently described in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “TPE” which should be changed to – Thermoplastic Elastomer (TPE) -- to clarify the acronym.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the embedding strip" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the embedding strip is the same as the strip recited in claim 1 or a different strip. The examiner is interpreting “the embedding strip” as “the strip” recited in line 1. Claims 3, 5, 7, 9-12 also recite “the embedded strip” or “the embedding strip” which his being interpreted as “the strip” recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the embedded strip is a strip with a light transmittance of 0.1% to 20%”, which is again unclear if the embedded strip is the same as the strip recited in claim 1 line 1 or a different strip. The examiner is interpreting the embedded strip as being the same as the strip recited in claim 1 line 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the framework" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the skin is further provided with an opening for filling the skeleton”, which is indefinite. The term “the skeleton” lacks antecedent basis and additionally, it is unclear as to how an opening can be used to fill the skeleton since an opening does not occupy space and is rather an absence of space. It is unclear what the applicant intends to recite for this claim and therefore is no longer treated upon its merits.
Claim 14 recites “the skeleton is made of a light-transmitting or semi-light-transmitting material and the embedding bar is made of a light-transmitting or semi-light-transmitting material different from the skeleton color”, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitations “the skeleton”, “the embedding bar” and “the skeleton color”. It is unclear as to where these structure come from. As such, it is unclear what the applicant intends to recite for this claim and therefore is no longer treated upon its merits. Claim 15 which is dependent upon claim 14 will be treated as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 16 and 17 recite “the skeleton” and “the insert”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is interpreting “the skeleton” as “the frame” and “the insert” as “the skin”.
Claims 3-5, 7-13 and 15 are rejected since they are dependent upon claim 1.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko (KR 20200049330).
Claim 1: As best understood, Ko discloses a skin structure wherein the skin structure comprises a frame (160, fig. 2)a skin (110, 120, fig. 3) and a strip (130, fig. 2) having a light-emitting (131 emits light) or light-transmitting function (132 transmits light)(translucent, see para [0033])wherein the skin (110, 120) covers the frame (160) and is provided with a groove (groove of 161, fig. 3) the embedding strip (130) is at least partially filled in the groove (133 placed in groove 161).
Ko discloses the claimed invention except for the skin structure is formed by performing three-color injection molding on the frame the skin and the embedding strip. It has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claim 3: Ko discloses a material of at least one of the skin and the embedded strip is TPE (115, 125 is made of Olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer, see para [0031]).
Claim 5: Ko discloses the skin structure (110, 120) further comprises a lamp group module (132, fig. 2) arranged below (132 is below 131) the embedded strip (132, fig. 3) to realize the light-emitting function of the embedded strip.
Claim 8: Ko discloses the top surface of the skin provides at least two different skins (115, 116, 125, 126, fig. 2).
Claim 15: As best understood, Ko discloses the skin is made of an opaque or semi-transparent TPE material (, leather, PVC, TPO (Olefin-based Thermoplastic Elastomer) and TPU (Thermo Plastic Polyurethane), see para [0031]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue (CN 113401070) (refer to IDS filed 11/07/2025).
Claim 16: As best understood, Xue discloses a method for forming a skin structure (2, fig. 3) the skin structure comprising a frame (1, fig. 3), a skin (2, fig. 3) and a strip (11, 12, fig. 3) having a light-emitting or light-transmitting function (light transmitting portion, see para [0040]) wherein the forming method sequentially comprises: an injection molding framework (1, fig. 3); injection molding the skin (2) such that the skin covers over the frame (1, fig. 3) wherein the skin (2) is provided with a groove (groove of 22, fig. 3); and the strip (11, 12, fig. 2) is injection molded (see para [0042]) such that the strip (11, 12) is at least partially filled in the groove (see fig. 3).
Claim 17: As best understood, Xue discloses a method for forming a skin structure (2, fig. 3) the skin structure comprising a frame (1, fig. 3), a skin (2, fig. 3) and a strip (11, 12, fig. 3) having a light-emitting or light-transmitting function (light transmitting portion, see para [0040]) wherein the forming method sequentially comprises: an injection molding framework (1, fig. 3); injection molding a strip (11, 12, fig. 3) on the skeleton (1, fig. 3); and an injection molding skin (2, fig. 3) such that the skin covers above the frame (1) wherein the skin (2) is provided with a groove (groove of 22, fig. 3) and the strip (11, 12, fig. 5) is at least partially filled in the groove (see fig. 3).
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049330).
Claim 2: As best understood, Ko is silent about the strip is a strip with a light transmittance of 0.1% to 20%.
Ko discloses the claimed invention except for the strip is a strip with a light transmittance of 0.1% to 20%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the material of the strip to be a strip with a light transmittance of 0.1% to 20% to provide a different aesthetic effect, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 4: Ko teaches the skin structure (110, 120) further comprises a suture (151, 152, fig. 3).
Ko discloses the claimed invention except for the suture having a light-emitting function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the material of the suture to have a light-emitting function to provide a different aesthetic effect, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Ko discloses the claimed invention except for an injection-molded suture. It has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049330) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Zaviyalov (EP 3724019).
Claim 6: As best understood, Ko fails to teach the lamp group module comprises a mounting frame fixedly connected to the frame a positioning groove is provided on an inner bottom wall of the mounting frame and a light source is provided inside the positioning groove.
Zaviyalov teaches a lamp group module (2, 7, 11, fig. 2) comprises a mounting frame (11, fig. 2) fixedly connected to the frame (4,5, fig. 2) a positioning groove is provided on an inner bottom wall of the mounting frame (see fig. 2) and a light source (2, fig. 2) is provided inside the positioning groove.
Therefore, in view of Zaviyalov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a lamp group module comprises a mounting frame fixedly connected to the frame with a positioning groove is provided on an inner bottom wall of the mounting frame and a light source is provided inside the positioning groove, in order to increase the brightness and illuminance of the skin structure.
Claim 7: Ko fails to teach a light-transmitting plate is mounted at an inner top of the mounting frame and light emitted by the light source illuminates the embedding strip through the light-transmitting plate.
Zaviyalov teaches a light-transmitting plate (7, fig. 2) is mounted at an inner top of the mounting frame and light emitted by the light source illuminates the embedding strip through the light-transmitting plate (see fig. 2).
Therefore, in view of Zaviyalov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light-transmitting plate is mounted at an inner top of the mounting frame and light emitted by the light source illuminates the embedding strip through the light-transmitting plate, in order to increase the brightness and illuminance of the skin structure.
Claim 11: Ko fails to teach the embedded strip is an energized light-emitting block.
Zaviyalov teach the strip (2, 3, fig. 2) is an energized light-emitting block (electrical connections, see para [0031])
Therefore, in view of Zaviyalov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the strip of Ko with an energized light-emitting block, in order to increase the brightness of the skin structure.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049330) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0118102) (hereinafter Cho).
Claim 9: Ko fails to teach the embedded strip is a self-luminous strip.
Cho teaches an embedded strip (113, fig. 5) is a self-luminous strip (EL sheet, see para [0033]).
Therefore, in view of Cho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the strip of Ko with a self-luminous, in order to provide illumination without a power source.
Claim 10: Ko fails to teach the embedded strip is made of a light-transmitting TPE material mixed with a rare-earth light-storing light-emitting material or is made of plastic capable of emitting fluorescent or glow.
Cho teaches the embedded strip is made of a light-transmitting TPE material mixed with a rare-earth light-storing light-emitting material or is made of plastic capable of emitting fluorescent or glow (polarizing pigment or a fluorescent pigment, see para [0069]).
Therefore, in view of Cho, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the strip of Ko with a strip made of a light-transmitting TPE material mixed with a rare-earth light-storing light-emitting material or is made of plastic capable of emitting fluorescent or glow, in order to provide illumination without a power source.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (KR 20200049330) in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0118102) as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of Unger et al. (US 2019/0001877) (hereinafter Unger).
Claim 12: Ko in view of Cho fails to teach the skin structure further comprises a light guide optical fiber inserted in the embedded strip and a light emitting source for providing a light source to the light guide optical fiber.
Unger teaches a skin structure (32, 34, fig. 2) further comprises a light guide optical fiber (36, fig. 2) (light pipe, see para [0029]) inserted in the embedded strip (20, fig. 2) and a light emitting source (light emitting diode, see para [0029]) for providing a light source to the light guide optical fiber (36).
Therefore, in view of Unger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light guide optical fiber inserted in the embedded strip and a light emitting source for providing a light source to the light guide optical fiber, in order to increase the light distribution of the skin structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (CN 120156457), Martin (WO 2023/281064), and Cho (KR 20180046956) disclose a similar skin structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENG B SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-9402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/ZHENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
