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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/27/2025.
Claims 1, 7, and 10-11 are amended.
Claims 20-113 are cancelled.
Claims 114 are newly added.
Claims 1-19 and 114 are pending.
The Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 7 for minor informalities due to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vos does not describe the use of any expandable graphite materials in the wet laid process specified by amended claim 1 (p. 8). Moreover, Applicant argues that there is no material, or method used to produce any such material, where a sound absorption coefficient in an as-produced state of the thermoplastic composite article is higher than a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz and 4400 Hz (p. 8). Applicant notes that sound absorption is not even a consideration in the methods of Vos (p. 8).
The Examiner agrees that Vos does not use any expandable graphite material and that Vos does not consider sound absorption in the methods of Vos. However, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons below.
First, Vos is not relied upon to teach expandable graphite material. “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145(IV). Rather, Panse is relied upon to teach the use of expandable graphite material.
Second, sound absorption is a latent property of the material formed. “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” MPEP 2145(II). Here, the combination of Vos’s porous core with Panse’s expandable graphite material would produce a porous core layer that would inherently have a sound absorption coefficient. Moreover, since modified Vos forms the core using a substantially identical process as instantly claimed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily have the identical physical property of a sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state that is higher than the sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Applicant argues that the particular layering of the materials in Panse is important to their function (p. 8). Applicant notes that discrete dots of material are printed onto a barrier to provide flame retardancy of the material and argues the dispersed dots cannot be considered a uniform distribution in any porous core layer (p. 8). Applicant further argues that the dots are not in a core layer but are printed on a surface of another layer (p. 8). Applicant notes how the EG dots (20) are arranged on a surface of another material in Panse (p. 8).
The Examiner agrees that the dots (20) in Panse are not uniformly distributed in any porous core layer. However, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive because Applicant has misinterpreted the dots in Panse. Particularly, element 20 in Panse are not described as EG dots as Applicant appears to argue. Rather, element 20 is described as a heat reactive material, which comprises a polymer resin-expandable graphite mixture ([0015]). In other words, element 20 is a combination of polymer matrix and expandable graphite. Moreover, Panse teaches that expandable graphite flakes are uniformly dispersed in the resin ([0062]). The combination of these teachings means that each of the heat reactive material dots (20) comprises a polymer matrix with expandable graphite flakes uniformly distributed therein.
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that the location of the EG being critical is unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner points out that the Applicant has failed to provide any objective evidence as to why the specific structure of coating onto an inner surface of a textile is critical. “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” MPEP 2145(I). See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, the Examiner contends that the use of expandable graphite, itself, is critical in providing burn protection rather than any particular arrangement of the burn protective materials as a coating on the inner surface of a textile material. Specifically, Panse teaches that expansion of the expandable graphite of at least 900 µm upon heating to 280 °C is used to reduce the afterflame of the flammable, meltable material ([0004]). Therefore, Panse suggests that the expansion of the expandable graphite when exposed to heat is critical for reducing the afterflame. Panse further teaches that the form of the resin-expandable graphite mixture is not important. Specifically, Panse teaches that the resin-expandable graphite may be applied as a continuous layer, or may be applies discontinuously ([0026]) and that the resin-expandable graphite mixture may be applied in other forms to achieve desired properties upon exposure to heat or flame ([0028]). Thus, the mere addition of EG materials into the composite is critical for reducing the afterflame of a material rather than the specific arrangement of the material as Applicant has argued.
Applicant argues that a skilled person viewing Panse would provide the same arrangement of EG dots when combined with Vos (p. 8). Specifically, Applicant argues that nothing in Panse or Vos indicates that anything but the EG dot arrangement of Panse should be followed if the teachings of Panse are inserted into Vos (p. 8).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that the EG dots of Panse are not being added to a side of into Vos’s porous core layer, as Applicant appears to argue. Rather, EG flakes are being incorporated into Vos’s mixture that eventually forms the porous core layer. Specifically, Panse teaches that expandable graphite is mixed with a polymer resin to ensure a uniform dispersion ([0062]) of the expandable graphite within the polymer resin. Applying this teaching to Vos’s porous core layer, the expandable graphite would similarly be uniformly distributed in Vos’s formed polymer mixture ([0030]) before being formed into the porous core 12.
Applicant argues that the dot arrangement of EG is not present in open cell structures of a substantially uniform distribution of EG material in the porous core layers (p. 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since modified Vos teaches an open cell structure (para. 28, 30) and mixing the mixture of the reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder with expandable graphite to form a uniform dispersion (Panse; Paragraph 62), which is substantially identical to the process as instantly claimed and disclosed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant structure of the porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily contain the expandable graphite in the open cell structure. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Applicant argues that adding Gansen to Vos and Panse does not change the fundamentally different material arrangement of amended claim 1 (p. 8). Applicant further argues that the Gansen materials are foams which are not the same as the specific webs specified in amended claim 1 (p. 8).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because Gansen is merely used to teach that changing the density of the porous core would change the sound absorption coefficient of the porous core (see [0021]). Gansen is not sued to change the material arrangement in Vos and Panse and Applicant appears to argue.
Applicant notes that Cao is cited to allegedly describing an open cell scrim (p. 9-10, 11). Applicant argues that adding a scrim from Cao into [Vos], Panse and Gansen would not result in the same article having a material arrangement as specified in claims 8 and 11 (p. 9-10, 11).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because Cao is not used to modify the material arrangement of the porous core layer. Rather, Vos in view of Panse disclose such a material arrangement of the reinforcing glass fibers, thermoplastic polyolefin material and expandable graphite material (see above).
Applicant notes that Yao and Tamashausky were provided as allegedly describing certain properties for EG material (p. 10). Applicant argues that even if these properties were used, the fundamental difference in the material arrangement and properties of claim 1 are not cured by insertion of the properties (p. 10). Applicant specifically points out that the combined art does not disclose or suggest any article where a sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or a 6 mm thick molded porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz (p. 10).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Particularly, Yao and Tamashausky are not relied upon to teach such an arrangement of materials or the material properties. Rather, Rather, Vos in view of Panse disclose such a material arrangement of the reinforcing glass fibers, thermoplastic polyolefin material and expandable graphite material (see above). Moreover, since modified Vos forms the core using a substantially identical process as instantly claimed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily have the identical physical property of a sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state that is higher than the sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Applicant notes that the addition of Yang fails to result in the particular arrangement of materials in any one layer (p. 11).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because Yang is not used to modify the material arrangement of the porous core layer. Rather, Vos in view of Panse disclose such a material arrangement of the reinforcing glass fibers, thermoplastic polyolefin material and expandable graphite material (see above).
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 1-19 and 114 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 claims 1 and 11, the claim limitation “wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a 2 mm thick, 4mm thick or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz” is indefinite because it is unclear what property of the 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick or 6 mm thick is being compared to the sound absorption coefficient. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz.” Claims 2-10, 12-19 and 114 are rejected for their dependencies.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “further comprising applying an additional scrim on the second surface of the thermoplastic composite article, in which at least one of the scrim and the additional scrim comprises an open cell structure” is indefinite because there is already a second scrim applied on the second surface of the thermoplastic composite article (claim 7). It is unclear how an additional scrim could be applied to the second surface of the thermoplastic composite article when there is already a second scrim covering such a surface. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein at least one of the scrim and the second scrim comprises an open cell structure.” In other words, the “additional scrim” is being interpreted as the same structure as the “second scrim” recited in claim 7.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos et al. (US 2010/0021718) in view of Panse (US 2009/0110919; of record) and alternatively in further view of Gansen (US 2014/017849; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Vos discloses a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composite material (abstract) and a method of preparing the thermoplastic composite core material (para. 6) comprising a core (12; Figs. 1-2) being porous (para. 17; “porous core layer”) comprising fibers including glass fibers (para. 19; “plurality of reinforcing glass fibers”) and a thermoplastic resin including polyolefins (para. 18; “thermoplastic polyolefin material”) and a skin (18; “scrim”) applied first surface (14) of the porous core (see Fig. 1-2) wherein the first skin may be a non-woven scrim or decorative scrim (para. 22), the method comprising:
heating a mixture of fibers and thermoplastic powder particles to above the softening temperature of the thermoplastic powder (“first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material”) to form a web (para. 30), wherein the web is made up of open cell structures formed by random crossing over of fibers held together, at least in part, by one or more thermoplastic resins (para. 28), and
pressing (“compressing”) to a predetermined thickness (“first thickness”) to produce the core (para. 30) having the open cell structure having a porosity of 20-80% volume (paras. 28, 30); and
attaching (“applying”) the first skin (18; “scrim”) to the first surface (14) of the core to form the thermoplastic composite (10) ([0027]).
Moreover, Vos discloses that the fiber-reinforced composite has an improved combination of smoke generation, heat release, and mechanical property characteristics (para. 5, 15).
However, Vos is silent as to the porous core layer comprises expandable graphite material, heating the expandable graphite to a first temperature above the melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material without any lofting of the expandable graphite material, the expandable graphite material is present in the open cell structures of the web, compressing the web to a first thickness of no more than 4 mm, wherein the expandable graphite is present in the provided porous core layer in a substantially uniform distribution from a first surface of the provided porous core layer to a second surface of the provided core layer. Specifically, Vos does not use any expandable graphite material when forming the core.
Moreover, Vos is silent as to the pre-lofted thermoplastic composite article providing a sound absorption coefficient at the first thickness and in an as-produced state of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the provided porous core layer is in the as-produced state, wherein the as-produced state of the porous core layer has an increased sound absorption coefficient compared to a sound absorption coefficient of a molded, porous core layer having the first thickness, and wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz.
Panse teaches a method for producing burn protective materials (title, abstract) comprising a polymer resin-expandable graphite mixture produced without causing substantial expansion of the expandable graphite (Paragraph 24), the expandable graphite particles (“expandable graphite material”) may be blended with a dissolved polymer, wherein the solvent is removed after mixing (Paragraph 24), wherein the expandable graphite is blended with a hot melt polymer at a temperature below the expansion temperature of the graphite and above the melting temperature of the polymer (Paragraph 24; “first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material without any lofting of the expandable graphite”), wherein the polymer resin may a thermoplastic having a melt temperature between 50-250 °C (Paragraph 22), and the expandable graphite expands upon heating to 280 °C (Paragraph 4), wherein the expandable graphite flakes are uniformly dispersed in the resin (Paragraph 62; “substantially uniform distribution”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known method of mixing expandable graphite particles with a dissolved polymer as in Panse to the step of forming a dispersed mixture of reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder in Vos adding the expandable graphite particles would make the core material flame resistant and reduces the afterflame of the material (Panse; Paragraph 4). Additionally, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified the temperature the heating occurs in Vos to be above the softening temperature but not cause substantial expansion of the expandable graphite as in Panse in order to form achieve the predictable result of expanding the core material when exposed to a flame (Panse; Paragraph 33) thereby increasing the flame resistance and reducing the afterflame (Panse; Paragraph 4).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the expandable graphite material is present in the open cell structures of the web,” the instant specification describes “expandable graphite material dispersion can be substantially homogeneous or substantially uniform from a first surface to a second surface of the prepreg [by]…mixing…until the dispersion comprises substantially homogeneous or substantially uniform mixture of the expandable graphite materials, the thermoplastic materials, and the fibers in the dispersion (see Paragraph 59). Since modified Vos teaches an open cell structure (para. 28, 30) and mixing the mixture of the reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder with expandable graphite to form a uniform dispersion (Panse; Paragraph 62), which is substantially identical to the process as instantly claimed and disclosed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant structure of the porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily contain the expandable graphite in the open cell structure. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding the claim limitation “compressing the formed web to a first thickness of no more than 4 mm,” it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have formed the core layers to no more than 4 mm thick because (a) Vos suggests pressing the web to a predetermined thickness (para. 30) and (b) a change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding the claim limitation “the pre-lofted thermoplastic composite article providing a sound absorption coefficient at the first thickness and in an as-produced state of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the provided porous core layer is in the as-produced state, wherein the as-produced state of the porous core layer has an increased sound absorption coefficient compared to a sound absorption coefficient of a molded, porous core layer having the first thickness, and wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz,” since modified Vos forms the core using a substantially identical process as instantly claimed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily have the identical physical property of having a sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the porous core layer is no more than 4 mm thick and have a sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state that is higher than a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
If modified Vos is not considered to teach “the thermoplastic composite article providing a sound absorption coefficient in a pre-lofted state of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the core layer is no more than 4 mm thick,” “wherein the as-produced state of the porous core layer has an increased sound absorption coefficient compared to a sound absorption coefficient of a molded, porous core layer having the first thickness,” or “the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than a sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz,” then Gansen teaches a method of using expandable graphite for increasing sound absorption within a sound absorption foam material foamed with the expandable graphite (abstract), wherein the expandable graphite when used as an additive improves sound absorption across a wide spectrum of frequencies (Paragraph 10), wherein the expandable graphite is capable of efficiently absorbing sound energy without an expansion occurring, which would be undesirable on account of the great volume expansion (Paragraph 14), the expandable graphite having an initiation temperature of preferably more than 250 °C so that the foam must not expand either during production or in use (Paragraph 17) and is mixed into the foam before the mass is foamed up (Paragraph 27), wherein foam is open-cell in the core region at least having a density of not less than 120 g/l and an inclusion of not less than 5 parts by weight of expandable graphite (Paragraph 36), the expandable graphite content is aligned with the density of the foam and adjusted such that the sound-absorbing foam evinces an improvement in the sound absorption degree measured at 2000 Hz (Paragraph 39). Furthermore, Gansen teaches that the foams containing the expandable graphite (Examples 2-6, 8-12, and 14; Table 1) have increased sound absorption at a frequency of 2000 Hz (Table 1) and that density has a profound influence on sound insulation properties (Paragraph 21).
Alternatively, if the web of modified Vos is not considered to have the claimed sound absorption coefficient, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to change the density of the foam to obtain various amounts of sound absorption because (a) Gansen teaches that density has a profound influence on sound insulation properties (Paragraph 21) and (b) it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Vos discloses that the composite material may be used to form intermediate and final form articles such as construction article including ceiling and flooring panels (para. 23).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, modified Vos discloses that the web is pressed to a predetermined thickness (para. 30).
However, modified Vos does not explicitly teach configuring a thickness of the thermoplastic to be no thicker than 3.5 mm or no thicker than 2 mm while providing the sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010.
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have formed the core layers to no more than 2 mm thick because (a) modified Vos suggests pressing the web to a predetermined thickness (para. 30), and (b) a change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)). Since modified Wang discloses the method steps as recited, the web produced will provide a sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the core layer is no more than 2 mm thick. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 5, modified Vos discloses that the web is pressed to a predetermined thickness (para. 30) and passed through one or more consolidation device, for example calendaring rolls (“set of rollers”), such that the gap between the consolidating elements in the consolidation devices may be set to a dimension less than that of the unconsolidated web and greater than that of the web if it were to be fully consolidated (para. 31).
Regarding the claim limitation “provide the first thickness of no more than 4 mm,” it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have changed the shape of the web to be less than 4 mm because (a) modified Vos discloses that the web is pressed to a predetermined thickness (para. 30), and (b) a change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Vos discloses a second skin (20) attached to a second surface (16) of the core (12) (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the second skin may be a non-woven scrim or decorative scrim (para. 22).
Regarding claim 9, modified Vos discloses the core (12) may include about 20% to about 65% weight of fibers including glass fibers (para. 29), and that the expandable graphite is present from 5 to 50 weight percent (Panse; Paragraph 25), and the balance being particulate thermoplastic materials (see para. 29).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos et al in view of Panse and alternatively in view of Gansen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2011/0147119; of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified Vos discloses the discloses the method as discussed above with respect to claim 7, comprising the first skin (18; “scrim”) applied to the first surface (14) of the core (12) and the second skin (20; “second scrim”) attached to the second surface (16) of the core (12) (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the first and second skin may be a non-woven scrim or decorative scrim (para. 22).
However, modified Vos does not explicitly teach that at least one of the scrim and the a second scrim comprises an open cell structure.
Cao teaches an acoustical building panel including a porous nonwoven scrim (abstract) wherein scrims of low air flow resistance and high porosity are used to make laminated acoustical panels to improve the humidity sag performance of the panel and to reduce the loss in sound absorption caused by adhesives and coated scrim (Paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a scrim of low airflow resistance and high porosity as in Cao for the additional layer or frim layer of modified Vos because (a) the addition of the scrim to laminated acoustical panels improve the humidity sag performance (Cao; Paragraph 21), and (b) the addition of the scrim reduces the loss in sound absorption caused by adhesives (Cao; Paragraph 21).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the expandable graphite material forms a layered sheet structure within the open cell structures of the formed porous core layer to maintain the sound absorption coefficient in the pre-lofted state of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the core layer is in the as-produced state,” since modified Vos discloses the method steps as recited, and the structure of the article as claimed (core layer with an open cell structure scrim) the laminate produced will provide a sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the core layer is no more than 4 mm thick. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos et al in view of Panse and alternatively in view of Gansen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2019/0061313; of record) and Tamashausky (“Heat aging of 3393 expandable flake graphite”; of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Vos discloses the method as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
However, modified Vos does not explicitly teach the expandable graphite material having a carbon content of at least 85%, a moisture content of less than 1% by weight, a sulfur content of less than 4% by weight, an expansion ratio of less than or equal to 270:1 cc/g, and a pH range of 5-10.
Yao teaches a construction board comprising a foam layer (abstract), wherein expandable graphite is included within the matrix of the foam core of the construction boards (Paragraph 10, 12) having a carbon content of at least 85% (Paragraph 36), a sulfur content in the range of 2.6% to 5% (Paragraph 37), an expansion ratio of 20:1 to about 450:1 (Paragraph 38), a pH of about 5 to 10 (Paragraph 39). Yao further teaches commercially available examples of expandable graphite (Paragraph 33).
Ramashausky teaches different grades of expandable graphite (Table 2, Page 8-10) wherein grade 3335 has a carbon content of greater than 85%, moisture content of 0.9%, sulfur content of 3.2%, expansion ratio of 270:1 cc/g, and pH range of 5-10. It is noted that grades 3570, 3558, and 3626, also meet the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the expandable graphite with the claimed composition as in Yao or Ramashausky as the expandable graphite in modified Wang because (a) the expandable graphite used by Yao imparts improve properties such as improved fire resistance (Ramashausky; Paragraph 10), and (b) “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” and “reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle” (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vos et al. (US 2010/0021718) in view of Panse (US 2009/0110919; of record), Cao et al. (US 2011/0147119; of record), and Wang (US 2014/0134904; of record), and alternatively in further view of Gansen (US 2014/017849; of record).
Regarding claim 11, Vos discloses a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composite material (abstract) and a method of preparing the thermoplastic composite core material (para. 6) comprising a core (12; Figs. 1-2) being porous (para. 17; “porous core layer”) comprising fibers including glass fibers (para. 19; “plurality of reinforcing glass fibers”) and a thermoplastic resin including polyolefins (para. 18; “thermoplastic polyolefin material”), the method comprising:
adding (“combining”) the fibers with the thermoplastic powder particles and agitating to form a dispersed mixture of reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder in an aqueous foam (“agitated aqueous foam”) (para. 30);
laying down (“disposing”) the dispersed mixture on any suitable support structure, for example, a wire mesh (“wire support”) (para. 30);
evacuating water through the support structure to form a web (para. 30);
heating a mixture of fibers and thermoplastic powder particles to above the softening temperature of the thermoplastic powder (“first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material”) to form a web (para. 30), wherein the web is made up of open cell structures formed by random crossing over of fibers held together, at least in part, by one or more thermoplastic resins (para. 28), and
pressing (“compressing”) to a predetermined thickness (“first thickness”) to produce the core (para. 30) having the open cell structure having a porosity of 20-80% volume (paras. 28, 30; “open cell structures formed from the reinforcing glass fibers and the thermoplastic polyolefin material after compression of the formed web”);
applying a skin (18) on a first surface (14) of the porous core (see Fig. 1-2), wherein the first skin may be a non-woven scrim or decorative scrim (para. 22);
applying a skin (20) on a second surface (16) of the porous core (see Fig. 1-2), wherein the first skin may be a non-woven scrim or decorative scrim (para. 22);
using the composite material in intermediate form or final form articles such as construction article including ceiling and flooring panels (para. 23).
Moreover, Vos discloses that the fiber-reinforced composite has an improved combination of smoke generation, heat release, and mechanical property characteristics (para. 5, 15).
However, Vos is silent as to the porous core layer comprises expandable graphite material, heating the expandable graphite to a first temperature above the melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material without any lofting of the expandable graphite material, the expandable graphite material is present in open cell structures and in a substantially uniform distribution from a first surface of the provided porous core layer to a second surface of the provided core layer. Specifically, Vos does not use any expandable graphite material when forming the core.
Panse teaches a method for producing burn protective materials (title, abstract) comprising a polymer resin-expandable graphite mixture produced without causing substantial expansion of the expandable graphite (Paragraph 24), the expandable graphite particles (“expandable graphite material”) may be blended with a dissolved polymer, wherein the solvent is removed after mixing (Paragraph 24), wherein the expandable graphite is blended with a hot melt polymer at a temperature below the expansion temperature of the graphite and above the melting temperature of the polymer (Paragraph 24; “first temperature above a melting point of the thermoplastic polyolefin material without any lofting of the expandable graphite”), wherein the polymer resin may a thermoplastic having a melt temperature between 50-250 °C (Paragraph 22), and the expandable graphite expands upon heating to 280 °C (Paragraph 4), wherein the expandable graphite flakes are uniformly dispersed in the resin (Paragraph 62; “substantially uniform distribution”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the known method of mixing expandable graphite particles with a dissolved polymer as in Panse to the step of forming a dispersed mixture of reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder in Vos adding the expandable graphite particles would make the core material flame resistant and reduces the afterflame of the material (Panse; Paragraph 4). Additionally, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have modified the temperature the heating occurs in Vos to be above the softening temperature but not cause substantial expansion of the expandable graphite as in Panse in order to form achieve the predictable result of expanding the core material when exposed to a flame (Panse; Paragraph 33) thereby increasing the flame resistance and reducing the afterflame (Panse; Paragraph 4).
Regarding the claim limitation “compressing the formed web to a first thickness of no more than 4 mm,” it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have formed the core layers to no more than 4 mm thick because (a) Vos suggests pressing the web to a predetermined thickness (para. 30) and (b) a change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding the claim limitations “wherein the thermoplastic composite article comprises open cell structures, and wherein the expandable graphite material is present in the open cell structures” and “wherein the expandable graphite material is present\ in a substantially uniform distribution from a first surface to a second surface of the thermoplastic article,” the instant specification describes “expandable graphite material dispersion can be substantially homogeneous or substantially uniform from a first surface to a second surface of the prepreg [by]…mixing…until the dispersion comprises substantially homogeneous or substantially uniform mixture of the expandable graphite materials, the thermoplastic materials, and the fibers in the dispersion (see Paragraph 59). Since modified Vos teaches an open cell structure (para. 28, 30) and mixing the mixture of the reinforcing fibers and thermoplastic powder with expandable graphite to form a uniform dispersion (Panse; Paragraph 62), which is substantially identical to the process as instantly claimed and disclosed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant structure of the porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily contain the expandable graphite in the open cell structure. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Moreover, modified Vos is silent as to applying an open cell scrim to the first surface, Specifically, modified Vos does not explicitly disclose that the scrim is open-celled.
Cao teaches an acoustical building panel including a porous nonwoven scrim (abstract) wherein scrims of low air flow resistance and high porosity are used to make laminated acoustical panels to improve the humidity sag performance of the panel and to reduce the loss in sound absorption caused by adhesives and coated scrim (Paragraph 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a scrim of low airflow resistance and high porosity as in Cao for the additional layer or frim layer of modified Vos because (a) the addition of the scrim to laminated acoustical panels improve the humidity sag performance (Cao; Paragraph 21), and (b) the addition of the scrim reduces the loss in sound absorption caused by adhesives (Cao; Paragraph 21).
Furthermore, modified Vos is silent as applying a closed cell scrim to the second surface of the thermoplastic composite article. Specifically, Vos does not explicitly disclose that the scrim is closed-cell.
Wang teaches applying an additional layer (430) in the form of a film, scrim, or fabric (para. 67) to a second surface of the core (420; see Fig. 4), wherein the film or frim may non-porous (para. 48). Regarding the claim limitation a “closed cell scrim,” he Examiner notes that the limitations “open-cell” and “closed-cell” usually refer to foams rather than scrims (woven fabrics). The instant specification describes that the skin (270) may be substantially closed or non-porous (see para. 60). Moreover, the instant application refers to “open cell structures” as porous or permeable materials with open space (para. 55); see also Remarks filed 12/17/2018 on page 6. Therefore, instant application appears to interpret a “closed-cell scrim” as a fabric that is non-porous. Accordingly, Wang’s non-porous scrim (430) is considered to be a closed-cell structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vos’s second skin that is a non-woven or decorative scrim to be a nonporous film or frim as in Wang to impart desired properties to the final article (Wang; para. 48, 51) such as being formed without substantial sagging (Wang; para. 55).
Regarding the claim limitations “the thermoplastic composite article with the added open cell scrim providing a sound absorption coefficient at the first thickness (of no more than 4 mm) in an as-produced state 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the porous core layer is in the as-produced state,” “wherein the as-produced state of the thermoplastic composite article with the added open cell scrim has an increased sound absorption coefficient compared to a sound absorption coefficient of a molded, thermoplastic composite article with the added open cell scrim having the first thickness,” and “wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than the sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz,” since modified Vos forms the core using a substantially identical process as instantly claimed, and uses substantially the same composition as instantly claimed, the resultant porous thermoplastic polymer core will necessarily have the physical property of having a sound absorption coefficient of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the porous core layer is no more than 4 mm thick and have a sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state that is higher than a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identically or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (see MPEP 2112.01(I)).
If modified Vos is not considered to teach “the thermoplastic composite article providing a sound absorption coefficient in a pre-lofted state of at least 0.2 at 2400 Hz as tested by ASTM E1050 dated 2010 when the core layer is no more than 4 mm thick,” “wherein the as-produced state of the porous core layer has an increased sound absorption coefficient compared to a sound absorption coefficient of a molded, porous core layer having the first thickness,” or “wherein the sound absorption coefficient in the as-produced state is higher than the sound absorption coefficient of a 2 mm thick, 4 mm thick, or 6 mm thick molded, porous core layer over a frequency of 400 Hz to 4400 Hz,” then Gansen teaches a method of using expandable graphite for increasing sound absorption within a sound absorption foam material foamed with the expandable graphite (abstract), wherein the expandable graphite when used as an additive improves sound absorption across a wide spectrum of frequencies (Paragraph 10), wherein the expandable graphite is capable of efficiently absorbing sound energy without an expansion occurring, which would be undesirable on account of the great volume expansion (Paragraph 14), the expandable graphite having an initiation temperature of preferably more than 250 °C so that the foam must not expand either during production or in use (Paragraph 17) and is mixed into the foam before the mass is foamed up (Paragraph 27), wherein foam is open-cell in the core region at least having a density of not less than 120 g/l and an inclusion of not less than 5 parts by weight of expandable graphite (Paragraph 36), the expandable graphite content is aligned with the density of the foam and adjusted such that the sound-absorbing foam evinces an improvement in the sound absorption degree measured at 2000 Hz (Paragraph 39). Furthermore, Gansen teaches that the foams containing the expandable graphite (Examples 2-6, 8-12, and 14; Table 1) have increased sound absorption at a frequency of 2000 Hz (Table 1) and that density has a profound influence on sound insulation properties (Paragraph 21).
Alternatively, if the web of modified Vos is not considered to have the claimed sound absorption coefficient, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to change the density of the foam to obtain various amounts of sound absorption because (a) Gansen teaches that density has a profound influence on sound insulation properties (Paragraph 21) and (b) it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)).
Regarding claim 12, modified Vos discloses that the web is pressed to a predetermined thickness (para. 30) and passed through one or more consolidation device, for example calendaring rolls (“set of rollers”), such that the gap between the consolidating elements in the consolidation devices may be set to a dimension less than that of the unconsolidated web and greater than that of the web if it were to be fully consolidated (para. 31).
Regarding the claim limitation “provide the first thickness of no more than 4 mm,” it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have changed the shape of the web to be less than 4 mm because (a) modified Vos discloses that the web is pressed to a predetermined thickness (para. 30), and (b) a change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 13, modified Vos discloses that the foam is agitated for a sufficient time to form a dispersed mixture (para. 30) wherein the expandable graphite flakes are uniformly dispersed in the resin (Panse; Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 14, modified Vos discloses that the of skins (18) that are open celled (Cao; para. 21) may be attached to the core during the manufacturing process of the c