Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-20 and 99 are currently pending with claims 7, 11 and 21-98 being canceled. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 15-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 99 are under consideration.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Slaven in view of Hayashi (JP 2009173771) has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Neither Slaven nor Hayashi discloses or suggests that a multilayer assembly forms a vehicle load floor that deflects less than 25 mm at a weight of 220 kg on the vehicle load floor.
Hayashi discloses a foam layer having a dimension of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm and a compressive strength of 20 N/cm2 (example 1; and paragraph 27).
The maximum weight associated with that compressive strength would be 12.7 kg.
20 N/cm2 x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm /9.81 m/s2 = 12.7 kg
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Maurer et al. (US 2006/0148919).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 11/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,900,300 to Slaven (hereinafter “Slaven”) in view of US 2006/0148919 to Maurer et al. (hereinafter “Maurer”).
As to claims 1 and 2, Slaven discloses a composite structure for a load bearing floor structure, comprising a foam core being fully encapsulated by a glass mat reinforced thermoplastic (GMT) skin material which is made without full consolidation (column 5, lines 35-50). The partially consolidated GMT skin material contains numerous voids corresponding to the claimed web of open celled structure formed by a plurality of reinforcing fibers bonded together with a thermoplastic polypropylene material (figure 1 and column 6, lines 45-50). The partially consolidated GMT skin material reads on the claimed porous reinforced thermoplastic layer. The partially consolidated GMT skin material is constructed of four or more plies of GMT material which have been partially consolidated. That is a clear indication that the partially consolidated GMT skin material is a non-extruded, porous reinforced thermoplastic layer. The GMT skin material comprises glass fibers reinforced with a thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene or polypropylene (column 3, lines 50-55).
Further, the GMT skin layer on the first and second faces of the foam core are made of the same composition, each having a thickness of 2.5 mm and thus the same basis weight (column 7, lines 10-15).
The foam core comprises an extruded polystyrene foam (column 4, lines 25-30).
Slaven does not explicitly disclose the foam core comprising a directionally compressive expanded polystyrene foam having a closed cell structure wherein the foam core has compressive strength that is different in orthogonal directions.
Maurer, however, discloses a cushion for dynamic impact applications, comprising an extruded polystyrene foam having highest compressive strength in a thickness V direction (examples 4-19). The extruded polystyrene foam is a closed cell foam material having less than 5% open cells (examples 4-9). The extruded polystyrene foam is commercially available as Styrofoam®, freezermate ® or Floormate® and each of which is free of cellulose (paragraph 57). The extruded polystyrene foam comprises an expandable graphite material as a flame retardant synergist (paragraph 56).
The foam sample has maximum compressive strength in the vertical direction of 792 kPa and a 7.5 x 41 cm2 surface area (example 17; paragraph 62; and figures 1 and 2).
792 kPa = 79.2 N/cm2
The weight of the material that the vehicle load floor can sustain while deflecting of less than 25 mm:
79.2 N/cm2 x (7.5 x 41) cm2 / 9.81 g/m2 = 2483 kg.
Therefore, the vehicle load floor would deflect less than 25 mm at a weight of 220 kg thereon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an extruded polystyrene foam disclosed in Maurer for the foam core disclosed in Slaven motivated by the desire to provide the composite structure having high compressive strength, excellent heat insulating performance, dimensional stability, and flame-retardant property.
As to claims 4, 9 and 10, Slaven discloses a composite structure for a load bearing floor structure, comprising a foam core being fully encapsulated by a GMT skin material which is made without full consolidation (column 5, lines 35-50). The first and second GMT skin material would be compositionally and structurally the same including identical basis weight, thermoplastic material and reinforcing material because they are derived from one GMT skin material.
Further, the GMT skin layers on the first and second faces of the foam core are made of the same composition, each having a thickness of 2.5 mm and thus the same basis weight (column 7, lines 10-15).
As to claim 99, Slaven discloses the GMT skin material is comprised of polypropylene and glass fibers (column 3, lines 45-65).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slaven in view of Maurer as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of CN 106427163 to Ding et al. (hereinafter “Ding”).
Neither Slaven nor Maurer discloses or suggests the GMT material containing a lofting agent comprising expandable microspheres.
Ding, however, discloses a GMT material comprising fibers and thermally expandable microspheres (abstract). The fibers include polypropylene fibers as a bonding matrix and glass fibers as a reinforcing material (paragraph 50). The thermally expandable microspheres are connected to one another and each of which acts as a connecting bridge to bind the reinforcing fibers together to increase mechanical strength, stiffness and great sound absorbing properties of the GMT material while providing an ultra-light weight material (paragraph 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the thermally expandable microspheres disclosed in Ding in the GMT material of Slaven motivated by the desire to further reduce the density of the GMT material while improving its mechanical strength, stiffness and great sound absorbing properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that the claim is not rendered obvious because Slaven fails to disclose a web of the porous surface layer set forth in the claim.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Slaven discloses a composite structure for a load bearing floor structure, comprising a foam core being fully encapsulated by a glass mat reinforced thermoplastic (GMT) skin material which is made without full consolidation (column 5, lines 35-50). The partially consolidated GMT skin material contains numerous voids corresponding to the claimed web of open celled structure formed by a plurality of reinforcing fibers bonded together with a thermoplastic polypropylene material (figure 1; and column 6, lines 45-50). The partially consolidated GMT skin material reads on the claimed porous reinforced thermoplastic layer. The partially consolidated GMT skin material is constructed of four or more plies of GMT material which have been partially consolidated. That is a clear indication that the partially consolidated GMT skin material is a non-extruded, porous reinforced thermoplastic layer. The GMT skin material comprises glass fibers reinforced with a thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene or polypropylene (column 3, lines 50-55).
Slaven does not teach the polystyrene foam core comprising a compressive strength that is different in orthogonal directions, nor does the composite structure deflect less than 25 mm at a weight of 220 kg thereon.
New combination of Slaven and Maurer suggests the claimed invention.
As previously discussed, Maurer discloses a cushion for dynamic impact applications, comprising an extruded polystyrene foam having highest compressive strength in a thickness V direction (examples 4-19). The extruded polystyrene foam is a closed cell foam material having less than 5% open cells (examples 4-9). The extruded polystyrene foam is commercially available as Styrofoam®, freezermate ® or Floormate® and each of which is free of cellulose (paragraph 57).
The foam sample has a 7.5 x 41 cm2 surface area with a maximum compressive strength in the vertical direction of 792 kPa (example 17; paragraph 62; and figures 1 and 2).
792 kPa = 79.2 N/cm2
The maximum weight that the vehicle load floor can sustain while deflecting of less than 25 mm:
79.2 N/cm2 x (7.5 x 41) cm2 / 9.81 g/m2 = 2483 kg.
Therefore, the vehicle load floor would deflect less than 25 mm at a weight of 220 kg thereon.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Slaven and Maurer, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Applicant further states that addition of the thermally expandable microspheres into the core of the combined art would not result in any article that includes the specified core layer having the specific directionally compressive foam material in combination with non-extruded porous reinforced thermoplastic layers disposed on surface of the core layer. Applicant also asserts that the entire purpose of Ding is to create a foam with significant airspace and that would not properly be considered a closed cell material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s statement is not in line with the description set forth in the claim wherein a lofting agent such as the thermally expandable microspheres is added to at least one of first and second the porous fiber reinforced thermoplastic layers.
Ding discloses a GMT material comprising fibers and thermally expandable microspheres (abstract). The fibers include polypropylene fibers as a bonding matrix and glass fibers as a reinforcing material (paragraph 50). The thermally expandable microspheres are connected to one another and each of which acts as a connecting bridge to bind the reinforcing fibers together to increase mechanical strength, stiffness and great sound absorbing properties of the GMT material while providing an ultra-light weight material (paragraph 17). That is a motivation to combine the references.
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Ding and Slaven, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist. Accordingly, the rejections over Slaven in view of Maurer and further in view of Ding are maintained.
The examiner does not agree with the Applicant regarding the calculation of the maximum weight to be supported by the foam sample of Hayashi. The surface area of the foam sample is 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm = 6.25 cm2 (paragraph 27), which is not 1 cm2 as assumed by the Applicant. Therefore, the accurate maximum weight associated with that compressive strength of 20 N/cm2 is 12.7 kg.
20 N/cm2 x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm /9.81 m/s2 = 12.7 kg
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788