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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19, 22 – 23, & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booher (U.S. Patent No. 4,534,589), in view of Tong et al. (WO 2017/081234 A1), *Hideki et al. (JP 2012/0126058 A), and Takebe et al. (US 2016/0303824 A1).
*submitted by Applicant with IDS filed 12/23/2021
With regard to claim 19, Booher teaches a trailer assembly comprising a floor plate (i.e., “single continuous sheet material”) (19), side rails (20) and end cross frame members (16) (i.e. “frame”) surrounds an outer periphery of the floor plate (“sheet material”), central cross frame members (i.e. “ribs”) (16), & horizontally disposed flanges (10) (i.e., “bypass ribs”) that bridges the frame portion and the rib (Fig. 2 shown below). As shown in Fig. 2, the plate (19) is substantially coextensive with the length and width of the ribs (16) and bypass ribs (10). The central cross frame members (“ribs”) are molded on an inner peripheral side of the frame portion so as to divide a space on the inner peripheral side (Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
228
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
284
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Booher does not teach the frame and ribs are integral, formed by solidifying an injection molding material. Furthermore, Booher does not teach the frame & ribs are composed of fiber reinforced molded material.
Tong et al. teach an electrical component load-bearing thermoplastic carrier comprising a first support structure (102) and a second support structure (104) are formed of solidifying an injection molding material composed of fiber-filled thermoplastic material, such as polypropylene (abstract, paragraphs [0013] – [0014]) for mechanical performance requirements on stiffness and strength needed for a vehicle (paragraph [0011]). The first and second support structures include one or more reinforcing rib portions (132) (paragraph [0016]). The disclose component carrier can be integrated as one part (i.e. “integral”) and can be made using injection molding, which is preferably over traditional solution of mechanically assembling the parts with welding (paragraph [0012]). The system cost by using an injection molding method is lower than traditional steel stamping methods (paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image3.png
580
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Tong et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the side rails (20) and end cross frame members (16) (i.e. “frame”) surrounds an outer periphery of the floor plate (“sheet material”), central cross frame members (i.e. “ribs”) (16), & horizontally disposed flanges (10) (i.e., “bypass ribs”) that bridges the frame portion and the rib taught by Booher et al. as one part (“integral”) using an injection molding apparatus in order to save cost. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the side rails, cross frame members, and flanges composed of fiber-filled thermoplastic material, such as polypropylene for mechanical performance requirements on stiffness and strength needed for a vehicle.
Booher does not teach a weld portion where the injection molding material meets is formed in a region of the frame portion that does not overlap the sheet material.
Hideki et al. teach a composite material comprising a support member (30) and a tray member (10) (Fig. 2, shown below). The support member comprises a plurality of support portions (31).\The tray member (10) comprises a front wall (11a), a rear wall (11b), side walls (11c & 11d), which correspond to Applicant’s “frame portion” (paragraph [0023]). As shown in Figure 2, the frame (11a – 11e) surrounds an outer periphery of a single support portion (31). The frame is formed by injection molding material containing reinforcing fibers (paragraphs [0013], [0022], [0026], & [0041]).
The weld part (portion) is where the injection molding material joins and is formed in the peripheral walls (frame) (11a – 11e) (paragraphs [0016], [0026], & [0040]), except in regions 40a to 40d where peripheral walls 13F, 13C, 13R (Applicant’s “ribs”) and the peripheral wall (11) intersect (paragraphs [0038] – [0039] & Fig. 1). In a welded part, a sufficient fiber strengthening effect cannot be obtained, but since the welded part is formed in the part excluding the part where the rigidity and strength are most desired to be secured, the influence of the decrease in rigidity and strength due to the welded part is avoided and the durability of the tray is ensured (paragraph [0016]).
PNG
media_image4.png
627
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hideki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the weld part in the side rails (20) (“frame”) of the trailer assembly taught by Booher where rigidity and strength is not needed, such as where the floor plate bearing the load does not overlap with the frame, in order to ensure the durability of the trailer assembly.
Booher does not teach the floor plate is a laminated sheet formed of a plurality of base materials made of a thermoplastic resin composite material containing reinforcing fibers.
Takebe et al. teach a sandwich laminate composed of reinforcement fibers and a thermoplastic resin (“fiber reinforced plastics,” “FRPs”). FRPs have excellent light-weight properties (paragraphs [0001] – [0002], [0004], [0080], & [0097]. Furthermore, the carbon reinforcing fibers have excellent specific strength and specific rigidity (paragraph [0079]). The sandwich laminate may be used as a mounting member in automobile members (paragraph [0109]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Takebe et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the metal support (“sheet material”) in the trailer assembly taught by Booher with a sandwich laminate composed of a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic (FRP) resin support because FRPs have excellent rigidity and light-weight properties. It is well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a component comprising thermoplastic layer, such as a sheet material, can be bonded by heat fusion (“welding”) to another thermoplastic material, such as the rib or frame taught by Booher.
With regard to claim 22, Booher and Tong et al. fail to teach a plurality of gate marks through which injection molding material is injected are formed in the frame portion, the rib, or both therefore. Hideki et al. teach a plurality of gate (marks) through which the injection molding material is injected, but do not teach the gates are formed in the frame portion, the rib, or both.
However, Hideki et al. teach by [computer] simulation, it is possible to determine the optimum gate position where the weld portion can be removed from the regions of both side portions of 40a to 40d (paragraphs [0038] – [0039] & Fig. 1). In other words, the optimum gate positions are determined based on avoiding weld portions where the peripheral walls 13F, 13C, 13R (Applicant’s “ribs”) intersect with the peripheral side walls intersect (11c & 11d) or the partition walls (13).
PNG
media_image5.png
561
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hideki et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the position of the plurality of gate markings through routine experimentation in order to avoid a weld portion where the fastening portions (ribs) intersect with other walls (e.g. partition walls or peripheral walls (frame)). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claims 23 & 26, as shown in Fig. 2 above, Booher teaches a rib is molded so as to traverse a center portion of one surface o the sheet material.
Furthermore, as shown as the dots traversing the support portions (31) in Figure 2 above and the circles traversing rib (14) of Figure 1, Hideki et al. teach the peripheral walls 13F, 13C, 13R (Applicant’s “ribs”) is molded so as to traverse a center portion of one surface of the sheet material (31).
Hideki et al. do not teach a gate (mark) is formed at a position corresponding to the center portion of the rib.
However, as discussed for claim 22 above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the position of the plurality of gate markings through routine experimentation in order to avoid a weld portion where the fastening portions (ribs) intersect with other walls (e.g. partition walls or peripheral walls (frame)). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “No motivation to modify the metal frame material of Booher with an injection-molded resin composite material containing reinforcing fibers” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
Applicant argues, “One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would recognize that the levels of rigidity and strength required for a component carrier for electrical vehicles as described in Tong are fundamentally different from those required for the frame members of a unitized trailer structure as described in Booher.
“In this respect, the Office appears to have misunderstood the levels of required strength and rigidity in the different fields of art as seen from the states that ‘the side rails (2)(‘frame’) of the trailer assembly taught by Booher where rigidity and strength is not needed’ (see Office Action, pg. 7, lines 3 – 4) and ‘…to form the side rails, cross frame, members, and flanges composed of fiber-filled thermoplastic material, such as polypropylene for mechanical performance requirements on stiffness and strength needed for a vehicle’ (see Office Action, pg. 5, lines 8 – 10).
“To aid the Examiner’s understanding, the following explains the real-world differences between the structures described in Tong and Booher.
“A component carrier for electrical vehicles such as a battery tray as in Tong is designed to hold and protect an electric vehicle battery or related electronic components. The loads are localized and relatively modest – measured in kilograms to perhaps a few hundred kilograms.
“By contrast, the frame members of a unitized trailer structure as in Booher must support and resist multi-ton cargo loads distributed over large spans of the trailer bed. Booher also describes that ‘novel structural members welded in an assembly that produces an exceedingly strong distortion resistant trailer’ (column 2, lines 43 – 44), it requires the entire trailer structure to have high strength. In fact, since the side rails 20 are exposed to the outside air, they must withstand dynamic loads and external impacts during travel (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner agrees the floorplate of a trailer is not the same type of vehicle component and does not carry the same load as a plate for carrying an electric vehicle battery.
However, the reference of Tong et al. was cited for teaching the claim limitation “frame and ribs that are integral (i.e., fused), formed by solidifying an injection molding material.” Tong et al. cited for forming integral injection molding material (the molding material being fiber-reinforced thermoplastic) for saving cost. In theory, metal can be formed by injection molding (i.e., integral). Tong et al. also teach fiber-filled thermoplastics are desirable for stiff and strength needs (including heavy cargo). This does not teach against Booher et al.
Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the rejection did not suggest using the battery trey of Tong et al. as the frame and ribs of the flatbed trailer taught by Booher et al. The rejection asserts substituting the material taught by Booher et al. with fiber-reinforced thermoplastic. Therefore, it is not a question of whether a battery tray is capable of carrying the load of a flat-bed tractor trailer, but rather whether substitution of the metal material with fiber-reinforced thermoplastic material would have a reasonable expectation of success or render the structure of the primary reference unuseable for its intended use.
First, looking at the tertiary reference of Takebe et al., Takebe et al. teach Applicant’s claim limitation regarding a floor plate (support) and frames/ribs composed of thermoplastic and fiber-reinforce resin was rejected over the teachings of Takebe et al. who teaches molded fiber-reinforced thermoplastic support articles for “[s]tructural components for automobiles…” and “…outside plates and body components for goods, roofs, doors, fenders, trunk lids, side panels, rear end panels, front bodies, under bodies, various members, various frames, various beams, various supports…” Takebe et al. do not limit the type payload capacity of the automobile. In other words, Takebe et al. do not limit the automobiles to only lightweight sedans. The genus of “automobile” includes all types of vehicles, including heavy-duty automobiles capable of carrying heavy cargo loads, such as heavy-duty firetrucks.
Therefore, Takebe et al. provides sufficient evidence that substituting the material of the frame taught by Booher et al. with fiber-reinforced thermoplastic as underbodies and frames for automobiles (e.g., floorplates of trailers), as suggested by the combination of Booher et al. and Tong et al., would have a reasonable expectation of success and that the suggested modification would not render the flatbed structure taught by Booher et al. as incapable for its intended use. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the cited primary reference of Booher et al. do not teach the trailer must meet the maximum cargo pay weight capacity argued by Applicant. Booher et al. uses the term “commercial trailer,” which includes flatbed trailers of a wide range of payload capabilities and thus is not limited to only the largest and heaviest payload trailers on the market.
Applicant argues, “Hideki describes a battery tray in which weld lines are deliberately positioned away from high stress regions such as ribs. Hideki further describes that when a resin containing short fibers is used as an injection molding material a defect called a weld portion is generated, which leads to a decrease in strength and variation in the molded product. (see Hideki, paragraphs [0006] – [0008]).
“In contrast, claim 19 requires the weld portion to be deliberately located ‘in a region of the frame portion that does not overlap the sheet material’ as recited. Hideki does not disclose or suggest coordinating weld positioning relative to a laminated sheet material, nor does it disclose using weld location to reduce deformation of such sheet. Moreoever, Hideki teaches that weld lines near ribs reduce structural reliability, which actually teaches away from combining Hideki’s approach with Booher’s trailer structure, where the ribs are key load-bearing elements as discussed above” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant admits Hideki et al. teach “weld lines are deliberately positioned away from high stress regions such as ribs.” The sheet taught by Booher et al. overlaps with the high stress region of the frames and ribs beneath said sheet (see Fig. 2 of Booher et al.). As can be seen from Fig. 2 of Booher et al., the outer periphery of the frame (20) does not overlap with said sheet (19). Therefore, based on the teachings of Hideki et al., a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the weld lines should be deliberately positioned away from the region of the frame and ribs which overlaps with the area of the sheet taught by the cited prior art. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Applicant’s claim recites “a weld portion where the injection molding material meets is formed in a region of the frame portion that does not overlap the sheet material.” Ribs overlap the sheet and thus are not in the frame portion. This does not contradict Booher’s teaching that the ribs are key load-bearing (i.e., “high stress” elements”). Booher et al. do not teach or suggest placement of weld lines. Therefore, Hideki’s teaching that the weld lines near the ribs reduce structural stability does not teach away from Booher’s disclosure and is in agreement with Applicant’s claim recitation of a weld portion in a region of the frame portion that does not overlap the sheet.
Applicant argues, “Takabe discloses sandwich laminates of reinforcement fibers and thermoplastic resin for lightweight automotive parts. However, Takebe’s laminates are intended as standalone structural members, not as the single continuous sheet coextensive with ribs and bypass ribs recited in claim 19. Claim 19 requires that the sheet material be integrally joined by solidification molding to the frame and ribs structures, whereas Takebe only teaches laminated sheets in general without teaching or suggesting integration with an overmolded rib and frame system. Substituting Takebe’s laminate into Booher’s metallic trailer floor would not yield the recited composite structure, because Takebe does not address weld location, bypass ribs, or integral molding around a sheet. Thus, Takebe does not cure Booher’s deficiency” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, primary reference Booher et al. teach a single continuous sheet coextensive with ribs and bypass ribs. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Takebe et al. teach molded fiber-reinforced thermoplastic support articles for “[s]tructural components for automobiles…” and “…outside plates and body components for goods, roofs, doors, fenders, trunk lids, side panels, rear end panels, front bodies, under bodies, various members, various frames, various beams, various supports…” This would suggest that Takebe et al. envisions the fiber-reinforced thermoplastics are intended for various support structures, including frames and plates (sheets). Takebe et al. is cited for motivation to substitute metal material with fiber-reinforced materials, regardless of the coextensive structure taught by the cited primary reference.
Furthermore, Tong et al. teach integrally molding frames and rib structures composed of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic materials, as recited in Applicant’s claim 19. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, Applicant’s has misread claim 19. Claim 19 does not require the sheet material be integrally joined by solidification to the frame and ribs structures. The claims and specification only teach integral molding of the frame portion, ribs, and bypass ribs (spec, paragraphs [0036] & [0053]).
Third, as previously discussed, the primary reference of Booher et al. teach a trailer structure comprising a portion of the frame around a sheet. As discussed above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Fourth, the welding line location during the integral molding manufacturing method for forming ribs and a frame of an automobiles (including flatbed trailers) is not pertinent to the suggested modification of forming a sheet as a laminate made of a thermoplastic resin composite containing reinforcing fibers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781