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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “at least fifteen degrees higher” but does not specify the scale of the degrees. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “at least fifteen degrees Celsius higher.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 18, 19, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al. (US 2018/0162107 A1) (“Xu”).
With respect to claim 1, Xu discloses a molded porous composite article comprising a lofted core layer (abstr., 0008) comprising a web formed from inorganic reinforcing fibers – e.g. glass fibers, organic bicomponent fibers, a lofting agent comprising expandable microspheres – microsphere-based lofting agent is listed as an alternative to an expandable graphite materials and chemical foaming agents (0008, 0052), and a thermoplastic material – the prepreg may comprise organic bicomponent fibers and a second type of fibers such as glass fibers (0008, 0045, 0046, 0047), wherein the web comprises open cell structures formed from the thermoplastic material, the inorganic reinforcing fibers, the organic bicomponent fibers, and the lofting agent (0045, 0046, 0075), wherein the lofting agent is trapped in the open cell structures of the formed web – the lofting agent comprises microspheres (0008), and since it is dispersed through the core (0045) comprising open cell structures such that void space is present in the core (0046), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lofting agent is within the open cell structures, wherein the formed web comprises porosity of from 20% to 80% (0046), which overlaps the recited range of from about 20% to about 80%; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05), and wherein the organic bicomponent fibers comprise a core-shell arrangement (0050), wherein a core material of the core-shell arrangement comprises polyethylene terephthalate or nylon (0006), the shell material of the organic biocomponent fibers comprises polyolefin such as polyethylene, polypropylene (0050), thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the core comprises a melting point that is within the range of “at least fifteen degrees Celsius higher” than a melting point of the shell material, the ranges of melting points of polyethylene terephthalate, nylon and polypropylene being known in the art.
Regarding the recitation “wherein the molded porous composite article comprises a peak load of 10 N to about 40 N in the machine direction and a peak load of about 6 N to about 30 N in the cross direction at a molded thickness of about 2 mm to about 4 mm in both the machine and cross directions as tested by SAE J949_200904”, since the reference discloses the article’s composition as recited in the instant Specification it would be expected that the article according to Xu has the peak load characteristics as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the core material of the core-shell arrangement comprises a polyamide (0006).
As to claim 3, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the core material of the core-shell arrangement comprises a polyester (0006).
As to claim 6, Xu teaches the article of claim 3, wherein the polyester comprises polyethylene terephthalate (0006, 0050).
With respect to claim 7, Xu teaches the article of claim 2, wherein the polyamide comprises nylon (0006, 0050).
Regarding claim 18, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the article is an automotive headliner (0081).
As to claim 19, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the article is an automotive interior component (0081).
With respect to claim 51, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein total fiber content in the lofted core layer is from about 30 wt. % to about 70 wt. % based on a weight of the lofted core layer (0051).
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 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Nguyen (US 2007/0160799 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches the article of claim 2, wherein the thermoplastic is polypropylene (0047), and the polyester of the core material comprises polyethylene terephthalate (0006, 0050). Xu teaches the polyolefin of the shell material is low density polyethylene (0050), but Xu is silent with respect to polyethylene being LLDPE. Nguyen discloses a molded article suitable for headliners (abstr.), comprising bicomponent fibers wherein for fibers comprising polyester core LLDPE is used for a shell (0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use linear low density polyethylene as the polyethylene in Xu as it is known in the art of molded articles comprising bicomponent fibers to use LLDPE as a shell; it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches the article of claim 2, wherein the thermoplastic is polypropylene (0047), and the polyamide of the core material comprises nylon (0006, 0050). Xu teaches the polyolefin of the shell material is low density polyethylene (0050), but Xu is silent with respect to polyethylene being LLDPE. Nguyen discloses a molded article suitable for headliners (abstr.), comprising bicomponent fibers wherein for fibers comprising polyester core LLDPE is used for a shell (0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use linear low density polyethylene as the polyethylene in Xu as it is known in the art of molded articles comprising bicomponent fibers to use LLDPE as a shell; it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic material comprises polypropylene (0047), the inorganic reinforcing fibers comprise glass fibers (0048), the organic bicomponent fibers comprise polyester or polyamide as the core material (0006, 0050). Regarding a melting point of the polyester or polyamide in the core material being at least twenty degrees Celsius higher than a melting point of the thermoplastic material, the core material comprises polyethylene terephthalate or nylon (0006), the thermoplastic material being polypropylene (0007, 0045, 0047) as disclosed in the instant Specification, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a melting point of the polyester or polyamide in the core is at least twenty degrees Celsius higher than a melting point of the thermoplastic material.
Xu teaches bicomponent fibers comprise low density polyethylene in the shell (0006, 0050), but Xu is silent with respect to polyethylene being LLDPE. Nguyen discloses a molded article suitable for headliners (abstr.), comprising bicomponent fibers wherein for fibers comprising polyester core LLDPE is used for a shell (0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use linear low density polyethylene as the polyethylene in Xu as it is known in the art of molded articles comprising bicomponent fibers to use LLDPE as a shell; it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has stiffness overlapping the stiffness of claim 11 (Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having stiffness as the article of Nguyen.
As to claim 12, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has flexural strength overlapping the strength of claim 12 (0031, Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having flexural strength as the article of Nguyen.
As to claim 13, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. The references are silent with respect to flexural modulus of the article as recited in the claim, however, since the references teach all of the elements of the article of claim 13, it would be expected that the article according to the references has a flexural modulus in the machine direction and a flexural modulus in the cross direction satisfying the ranges of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has stiffness overlapping the stiffness of claim 14 (0031, Table 1). Nguyen discloses the article has flexural strength overlapping the strength of claim 14 (0031, Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having flexural strength and stiffness as the article of Nguyen.
With respect to claim 15, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has stiffness overlapping the stiffness of claim 11 (Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having stiffness as the article of Nguyen. The references are silent with respect to flexural modulus of the article as recited in the claim, however, since the references teach all of the elements of the article of claim 15, it would be expected that the article according to the references has a flexural modulus in the machine direction and a flexural modulus in the cross direction satisfying the ranges of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has flexural strength overlapping the strength of claim 16 (0031, Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having flexural strength as the article of Nguyen. The references are silent with respect to flexural modulus of the article as recited in the claim, however, since the references teach all of the elements of the article of claim 16, it would be expected that the article according to the references has a flexural modulus in the machine direction and a flexural modulus in the cross direction satisfying the ranges of claim 16.
As to claim 17, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 10. Nguyen discloses the article has stiffness overlapping the stiffness of claim 17 (Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xi’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having stiffness as the article of Nguyen. Nguyen discloses the article has flexural strength overlapping the strength of claim 17 (0031, Table 1); overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Since Nguyen’s article can be used as a headliner (abstr.) and Xu’s article can be used as a headliner (0081, 0082), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the article of Xu having flexural strength as the article of Nguyen. The references are silent with respect to flexural modulus of the article as recited in the claim, however, since the references teach all of the elements of the article of claim 17, it would be expected that the article according to the references has a flexural modulus in the machine direction and a flexural modulus in the cross direction satisfying the ranges of claim 17.
Claims 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in view of Nguyen (US 2007/0160799 A1) and Tabor et al. (US 4950541) (“Tabor”).
With respect to claim 52, Xu and Nguyen teach the article of claim 8, but are silent regarding a density of the linear low density polyethylene in the range recited in the claim. Tabor discloses bicomponent fibers wherein the sheath comprises linear low density polyethylene (abstr., col. 10, lines 8-26), the density of linear low density polyethylene being within a range of from below 0.87 g/cm3 to over 0.965 g/cm3 (col. 2, lines 20-30), the range of the density overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the linear low density polyethylene of bicomponent fibers of Xu and Nguyen having density within the range as disclosed in Tabor as such density is known in the art of bicomponent fibers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 9, 2026Q have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued Xu does not teach a web having components and porosity as recited in the amended claim 1. The Examiner notes Xu discloses a web formed from inorganic reinforcing fibers – e.g. glass fibers, organic bicomponent fibers, a lofting agent comprising expandable microspheres – microsphere-based lofting agent is listed as an alternative to an expandable graphite materials and chemical foaming agents (0008, 0052) and a thermoplastic material – the prepreg may comprise organic bicomponent fibers and a second type of fibers such as glass fibers (0008, 0045, 0046, 0047), wherein the web comprises open cell structures formed from the thermoplastic material, the inorganic reinforcing fibers, the organic bicomponent fibers, and the lofting agent (0045, 0046, 0075), wherein the lofting agent is trapped in the open cell structures of the formed web – the lofting agent comprises microspheres (0008), and since it is dispersed through the core (0045) comprising open cell structures such that void space is present in the core (0046), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lofting agent is within the open cell structures, wherein the formed web comprises porosity of from 20% to 80% (0046), which overlaps the recited range of from about 20% to about 80%; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05), and wherein the organic bicomponent fibers comprise a core-shell arrangement (0050), wherein a core material of the core-shell arrangement comprises polyethylene terephthalate or nylon (0006), the shell material of the organic biocomponent fibers comprises polyolefin such as polyethylene, polypropylene (0050), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the core comprises a melting point that is within the range of “at least fifteen degrees Celsius higher” than a melting point of the shell material, the ranges of melting points of polyethylene terephthalate, nylon and polypropylene being known in the art, as discussed above.
The Applicant has argued Xu does not describe a molded porous composite article that comprises peak load values as recited in claim 1, the teachings of Xu providing a general description of bicomponent fibers in certain layers, while claim 1 is specific as to the combination of materials and properties not discussed in Xu, and thus a person skilled in the art would not have arrived at the article of claim 1. The Applicant underscores that Xu’s disclosure is generic and a person of skill in the art would not be able to “at once envisaged” the materials, the arrangement of the article of claim 1, or the claimed properties. The Applicant argued Xu provides a large number of generic materials, the materials encompassing a large number of materials with melting temperatures of widely varying degrees and numerous possible arrangements. The Examiner notes, regarding bicomponent fibers Xu is very specific as to the materials of the sheath and the core, as discussed above. The ranges of melting temperatures of materials of the core such as nylon or PET, and the sheath such as polyethylene are widely known in the art. The Examiner notes claim 1 recites very broadly the shell material as comprising “a polyolefin comprising polyethylene, polypropylene or other olefinic polymers or co-polymers.” Xu discloses polyethylene and polypropylene as discussed above. It is the Examiner’s position that the materials recited in claim 1 and their arrangement have been disclosed clearly in Xu at cited paragraphs.
Regarding the peak load property recited in the claim, since the reference discloses the article’s composition as disclosed in the instant Specification it would be expected that the article according to Xu has the peak load characteristics as recited in the claim.
The Applicant has argued the nonwoven batt of Nguyen is more analogous to the skin layers of Xu and it is not analogous to the core layer of claim 1, and there is no motivation to use the batts of Nguyen as skin layers in Xu. The Examiner notes in the rejection Nguyen was not cited to combine batt of Nguyen with skins of Xu, but for the teaching of bicomponent fibers which comprise polyester core and a shell formed of LLDPE to show that it is known in the art of molded articles comprising bicomponent fibers to use LLDPE as a shell material, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783