DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2022/0143879, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 26 November 2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 26 August 2025 (hereinafter “NFOA”) has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, and 16-27 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the objection thereto previously set forth in the FOA. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Any rejection previously set forth in the FOA and not repeated herein is overcome and hereby withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth herein, necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term phrase “uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer” is not adequately supported in the written description of the specification filed 12 August 2021. Specifically, the written description does not explicitly recite “uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer”, and the fiber and resin matrix material layer is not described as being in a pre-cured, partially-cured, or uncured state.
In particular, the written description recites the terms cure/cured/curing and uncured as follows (references to spec filed 12 August 2021):
“The fiber may comprise a polyamide fiber. The fiber may comprise a glass fiber. The foamable material may expand upon exposure to a predetermined temperature. The structure may be located into a mold and heated so that a foamable material expands and cures.” [0007]
“Such adhesive or sealant layers may be activatable to foam and/or cure.” [00011];
“The sealing material may be an activatable material that expands and/or cures upon exposure to a stimulus.” [00014];
“The cavity may be configured to receive the composite material in an uncured state. For example, the composite material in an uncured stated may be pumpable so that the composite material may be pumped directly into the cavity 24. Alternatively, the composite material in an uncured state may be preformed and inserted into the cavity 24.” [00034]; see also [00035-00036]; and
“Upon expanding and curing, the composite material may bond to the secondary material to form the resultant composite 10.” [00038].
The aforecited sections of the written description do not explicitly state or otherwise imply that the fiber and resin matrix material layer is or may be in an uncured state. Further, [00034-00038], which discuss the composite material in relation to a secondary material, do not indicate or suggest that said secondary material is in an uncured state prior to being bonded to the composite material after expansion and curing of said composite material in a mold inclusive of the secondary material; and further, imply that the “composite material” in the uncured state and which is pumpable into, or preformed and inserted into, the cavity is that of the foamable/expandable material, and not specifically the fiber and resin matrix material layer. Furthermore, [00020], which describes the “fiber/resin matrix material”, does not indicate that said material is in an uncured state prior to “be[ing] contacted with one or more foamable layers to form a hollow composite that can be molded without need for an air bladder.”
For these reasons above, the phrase “uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer” recited in claim 1 constitutes new matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10-11, and 16-27 are rejected under 112(a) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the noncompliant written description issue(s) identified above.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted, in accordance with the amendment filed 26 November 2025, that elements i) and ii) of claim 1 now recite “an uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer” and “a partially expanded foamable material layer”, respectively. As such, the multiple, subsequent recitations of “the fiber and resin matrix material layer” and “the foamable material layer” lack proper and sufficient antecedent basis, as there is no prior recitation/introduction of a fiber and resin matrix material layer and a foamable material layer. In view thereof, and in view of said multiple, subsequent recitations of “the foamable material layer” and “the fiber and resin matrix material layer”, it is unclear whether the structure defined by claim 1 constitutes an intermediate or final product – and specifically, unclear as to the actual state of each layer when the layers are “contacted” as recited in line 11 of the claim, and unclear as to the final state of the layers of the claimed structure (i.e. uncured v. cured, partially expanded v. expanded).
For examination on the merits –and in accordance with the recitation of “uncured” as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as well as Applicant’s statements on pp. 5-6 of the Remarks filed 26 November 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) which reasonably indicate that the claimed “structure” is an intermediate product “adapted for downstream molding applications” – claim 1 is interpreted to read as follows:
“A structure comprising:
i) an uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer at least partially forming a hollow section of the structure; and
ii) a partially expanded foamable material layer in direct planar contact with the uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer, the partially expanded foamable material layer being partially expanded but capable of still further expansion such that it partially fills the hollow section;
wherein the partially expanded foamable material layer has a first expansion upon exposure to a first temperature to form the partially expanded foamable material layer and is adapted to have a second expansion upon exposure to a second temperature; and
wherein the partially expanded foamable material layer is contact with the uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer after the first expansion but prior to the second expansion.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 14, the recitations of “the foamable material layer”, respectively, lack sufficient antecedent basis and thereby render each claim indefinite for the same reasons set forth above in the grounds of rejection of claim 1. For examination on the merits, each of claims 10-11 and 14 are interpreted to read as “wherein the partially expanded foamable material layer…”
Claims 2-4, 6, 10-11, and 16-27 are indefinite and rejected under 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issue(s) identified above.
Appropriate action is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites ‘wherein the [partially expanded] foamable material layer expands upon exposure to a predetermined temperature”, of which fails to further limit claim 1 which recites “wherein the [partially expanded] foamable material layer has a first expansion upon exposure to a first temperature to form the partially expanded foamable material layer and is adapted to have a second expansion upon exposure to a second temperature”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For examination on the merits, claim 10 is interpreted as having it’s limitations met by a structure which reads on the structure defined by claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11, 14, 16-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2006/0000186; “Carlson”), in view of Walker et al. (US 2008/0265516; “Walker”) and Mendiboure et al. (US 2005/0285292; “Mendiboure”) (all references previously cited).
Chun et al. (US 2012/0043013; “Chun”) (newly cited) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Carlson discloses a (composite) structure suitable for use as a material exhibiting reinforcement, baffling, sealing/sealant, and/or sound absorption in the vehicular/automotive, transportation, building/construction, furniture, and household appliance technological fields [Abstract; Figs. 4A-4B, 5; 0002-0004, 0015-0016, 0045-0048, 0050-0054, 0062].
The structure [Figs. 4A-4B, 5; 0040-0041, 0049-0054, 0061] includes superimposed panels which define a hollow section therebetween – a void space (volume) in which other materials/structures are disposed, e.g. (honeycomb) supports which define a plurality of individual volumes each of which may not be filled, or may be partially filled with foamable material (discussed/cited below). The panels are each formed from a thermoplastic and/or thermoset resin matrix, reinforced by fibers, e.g. glass fibers, carbon fibers [0020] – specifically, each panel is suitably a fiber-reinforced prepreg [0020, 0052-0053] (see MPEP 2131.02(II) (an uncured fiber and resin matrix material layer, at least partially forming a hollow section of the structure). A prepreg is an uncured intermediate product formed from pre-impregnated fibers, i.e. fibers pre-impregnated with a thermoplastic or epoxy (thermoset) resin, which is subsequently cured to form a composite material product [Chun, 0004-0007].
The structure further comprises foamable material/layer(s) (hereinafter “foamable material”) which is in direct planar contact with the prepreg panel(s) and interposed between said panels [Figs. 4A-4B, 5; 0040-0041, 0050-0054]. The foamable material is formed from, inter alia one or more epoxy-based, acetate-based, phenoxy-based, and/or polyurethane-based materials, and may include a blowing agent and/or curing agent [0023-0025, 0027, 0034, 0041, 0050-0054]]; (see MPEP 2131.02(II); see MPEP 2144.06; see MPEP 2144.07).
The foamable material is activated thermally (though not limited thereto), with the activation temperature thereof chosen/predetermined based on the temperatures of subsequent and/or auxiliary processes which the composite structure is subject to [0025, 0027, 0031-0032, 0042-0043]. The foamable material may be applied to the prepreg panel(s) and subsequently expanded/cured at a time thereafter [0034, 0038-0042]; or may be pre-activated (e.g. pre-expanded) and subsequently applied to the panels, followed by curing of the pre-expanded foamable material to facilitate adherence between the prepreg panels and the foamable material [0034, 0039] (a partially expanded foamable material layer in direct planar contact with the fiber and resin matrix material layer).
As such, with respect to the difference(s) relative to the structure defined by claim 1, Carlson is silent regarding the foamable material being adapted to have a second expansion corresponding to a second temperature, such second expansion occurring after the prepreg panels are contacted with the partially expanded foamable material. Said alternatively, Carlson is silent regarding additional expansion occurring during or before curing of the foamable material, after the pre-activated foamable material has been applied to the panels.
However, Carlson recognizes that combinations of foamable resins, combinations of additives, and combinations of/other stimuli may be utilized to expand and cure/adhere the foamable material; recognizes the foregoing in step-wise manner (expand, followed by cure to adhere the foamable material to the panels [0034, 0039]); and recognizes that different heat-activatable materials may be utilized in correspondence with predetermined temperatures which the structure is subject to [0027, 0031-0032, 0038-0043, 0059]. Carlson recognizes that the entire structure, inclusive of the prepreg panels and foamable material therebetween, is suitably heat-activated in a panel press [0042], or, inter alia by techniques such as vacuum forming and baking, autoclaving, and pressurization [0043].
Walker teaches expanding the foamable material at a first temperature [Abstract; 0002-0004, 0009-0013], followed by expanding and curing the resultant partially-expanded foamable material at a second (different), relatively higher temperature [0013-0016, 0018-0022, 0034], wherein combinations of different blowing agents (and/or curing agents) which are activated at said first and second temperatures, respectively, may be utilized to achieve the desired level of substrate-wetting and volumetric expansion in either of the first or second stages of expansion/curing [0013-0014, 0018-0022, 0025-0026, 0034; Tables B-D].
Walker teaches that the second expansion/curing step may be conducted after the [partially expanded] foamable material, resultant from the first step, has been applied to the corresponding surface of the article/material [0004, 0009, 0013-0014, 0034-0035], to facilitate adherence of the foamable material to the corresponding walls/substrate of the article and/or impart self-supporting characteristics to the foamable material.
The totality of the aforecited teachings of Walker allow for formation of pre-formed composite articles, wherein the second activation step can beneficially be conducted at a time after the first activation, such as upon application/use of the composite article in building, furniture, frame members, vehicles, and other applications, or upon processes associated with the/further formation thereof [0034-0041].
Mendiboure teaches that the degree and rate of expansion/curing of the foamable material can be readily adjusted for multiple/different temperature ranges – said ranges associated with different auxiliary processes in the automobile manufacturing field (of which overlap with hypothetical temperatures disclosed by Carlson, [0031]) and their corresponding (elevated) process temperatures – through selection/use of different blowing agents and activators thereof, resulting in expansion at the required/desired temperature ranges [0033-0039].
Carlson, Walker, and Mendiboure each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – composite structures including foamable materials and composite fiber/resin matrix layer(s).
In view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite structure of Carlson by having included two different blowing agents in the foamable material, said two blowing agents having different (e.g. higher v. lower) thermally-activated expansion temperatures relative to one another, with one thermally-activated expansion temperature having corresponded to, or having been below, the curing temperature of the foamable material, in order to cause additional expansion of the pre-expanded (i.e. partially expanded) foamable material – after application to the prepreg panels, but prior to or during the subsequent curing step of said pre-expanded foamable material – to have thereby increased the degree of adherence between the curing/cured foamable material and the prepreg panels and/or have increased the overall degree of surface area contact (surface wetting) between the pre-cured/curing/cured foamable material and the prepreg panels, and/or to have imparted self-supporting characteristics to the (final resultant) foamed/cured material of the structure. Additionally/alternatively, see MPEP 2144.06(I); MPEP 2144.07; and/or MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the structure of Carlson (hereinafter interchangeably “modified Carlson”) would have comprised all of the features/elements as set forth above, wherein the foamable material would have comprised two blowing agents, each exhibiting a thermally-activated expansion temperature (hereinafter “thermal-expansion temp.”) different than the other, with one (“the second”) of the two blowing agents (present in the partially expanded foamable material after the foamable material is subject to the initial pre-expansion) having a thermal-expansion temp. corresponding to or below the cure temperature of the (partially expanded) foamable material after having been pre-expanded and subsequently applied to/between the prepreg panels. As such, the partially expanded (pre-expanded) foamable material, in direct planar contact with one or both of the prepreg panels and inclusive of the second of the two blowing agents, would have necessarily exhibited, i.e. necessarily been capable of a second expansion corresponding to the thermal-expansion temp. of the second blowing agent and temperature of or below the curing step, thereby reading on “the [partially expanded] foamable material layer being partially expanded but capable of still further expansion such that it partially fills the hollow section”, and “wherein the [partially expanded] foamable material layer has a first expansion upon exposure to a first temperature to form the partially expanded foamable layer and is adapted to have a second expansion upon exposure to a second temperature, wherein the [partially expanded] foamable material layer is contacted with the [uncured] fiber and resin matrix material layer after the first expansion but prior to the second expansion”. Thus, the structure of modified Carlson set forth hereinabove reads on the structure defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 2. The fiber of the prepreg is suitably, inter alia glass fiber or carbon fiber.
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 2 above, Carlson discloses that the resin of the prepreg is suitably an epoxy [0027, 0032, 0053] (see MPEP 2144.07; MPEP 2131.02(II)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Carlson discloses that the resin of the prepreg is suitably any of the materials disclosed therein as suitable for use as the foamable material, of which include, inter alia polyurethanes [0027-0030, 0053] (see MPEP 2144.07; MPEP 2131.02(II))
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that claim 6 constitutes a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113, MPEP 2113(I)). Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2113(I) and (II) – even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production – if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Further, the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing patentability, in particular where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which it is made or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.
In the instant case, the claimed product, i.e. the “structure” defined by claim 1 constitutes an intermediate product which, as claimed, is not required to be subject to a second expansion step – rather, as claimed, it is only required that the partially expanded foamable material layer be capable of undergoing a second expansion when exposed to a second temperature, of which is explicitly addressed above in the rejection of claim 1 and read on by the structure of modified Carlson. Simply put, the form/state of the invention (“structure”) defined by claim 1 is that of an intermediate product which exists prior to the claimed second expansion step, such that the patentability of the invention defined by claim 1 and those claims dependent thereupon does not depend on any subsequent processing methods/steps which alter or otherwise transform the intermediate product into an otherwise further-finished (i.e. second intermediate) or finished, and thereby different product. Thus, the limitation “wherein the second expansion occurs in a molding device” is not germane to the patentability of the claimed intermediate product and not given patentable weight in relation thereto.
In view of the foregoing, rejection of claim 1 above which establishes the structure of modified Carlson reads on the structure defined by claim 6; additionally, it is noted that Carlson discloses the use of a mold for expansion/curing [0042].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 above, in view of the rejection and corresponding interpretation of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above, reads on the structure defined by claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 11. The partially expanded foamable material layer reads on “a sealing material” and/or “a polymeric foam” and is reasonably interpreted as also reading on “a structural foam” given the absence of any claimed material and/or mechanical properties thereof.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 14 – the partially expanded foamable material layer is suitably formed from, inter alia epoxy resin, phenoxy resin, an acetate, or combination thereof [Carlson, 0027-0030, 0032] (see MPEP 2144.07; MPEP 2131.02(II)).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 reads on the structure defined by claim 16 – see spec [0022]. That is, the resin of the prepreg (i.e. uncured) panels is suitably a thermoset and/or a thermoplastic, wherein either of the foregoing read on the claimed resin which comprises “a reformable resin material”.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 17.
Regarding claims 18-19, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on each structure defined by claims 18-19. As disclosed by Carlson, the foamable material may be thermoplastic, thermoset, or may be initially thermoplastic in state based on ambient/controlled conditions, and thermoset upon cure. Additionally/alternatively, see the rejection of claim 16 above, of which is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 20. Carlson discloses throughout, e.g. [0003-0004, 0015-0016, 0019] that the structure is functional to provide structural reinforcement when employed across a variety of technology fields, wherein said structure exhibits all of the limitations of the structure defined by claim 1, and wherein the frame member as claimed is not defined in terms of physical structure/shape, features, or dimensions such that any structure which reads on the structure defined by claim 1 reads on the frame member (i.e. “frame member” is merely nominal and equivalent to “A structure”, absent further claimed limitations thereof).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the structure defined by claim 21; additionally, see rejection of claim 20 above, which is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated).
Regarding claims 23-27, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on each structure defined by the respective limitations of claims 23-27.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson in view of Walker and Mendiboure, as evidenced by Chun as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pai (US 5,318,819; “Pai”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the structure of “modified Carlson” is disclosed/taught (combined teachings of Carlson and at least Walker) as suitable for forming structural reinforcement members for automotive vehicles and other articles of transportation, such as frame members [Walker 0034-0041].
Carlson is silent regarding the structure forming a portion of a bicycle frame.
Pai discloses a method of joining tubular frame members, e.g. bicycle frame components and structures therefor comprising disposal of an expandable insert (30) within the inner cavity of the tubular member(s) to be joined, followed by expansion of said insert to apply force to the surface of the inner cavity to bond said tubular member(s) [Abstract; Figs. 1-2; col. 1 ln. 25–col. 2 ln. 1-4, col. 2 ln. 58-65]. The insert (30) is generally tubular-shaped (as depicted) and comprises an envelope (31) which defines an inner hollow cavity, and a foamable material (32) disposed within said envelope cavity (and in direct contact with the envelope) [Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 2 ln. 16-37] (the insert reads on the claimed “structure”). The envelope (31) is formed from a plurality of fiber-reinforced resin (matrix) layers; the foamable material (32) is not limited, and may be a common material such as polyurethane or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), etc. [col. 2 ln. 20-27].
The foamable material expands through application of heat, thereby expanding the envelope and applying a force on the tubular members [col. 2 ln. 30-36], of which may also be fiber-reinforced composites suitable for bicycle frames [col. 2 ln. 55-65]. The resultant foamed insert may remain in the tubular member(s), thereby providing absorption for shock/vibrations [col. 2 ln. 66–col. 3 ln. 2].
In view of the totality of the disclosure/teachings, Pai constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention, and reasonably suggests that it was recognized to form bicycle frames from composite tubular members having interior cavities filled with foam material, i.e. expanded foamable material.
In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the structure of modified Carlson (as set forth above in rejection of claim 1) as a structural member of, or to form a structural member of, a bicycle frame, as the aforesaid structure would have been well-recognized as suitable for, and capable of, use/function as- or in forming- said a structural reinforcement frame member exhibiting/requiring lightweight-ness and high strength/structural-rigidity. See MPEP 2144.07.
The article resultant from the aforesaid modification would have been a bicycle frame component comprising or formed from the structure of modified Carlson set forth above in rejection of claim 1, thereby reading on the structure defined by claim 22.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims which have necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented above, Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 5-6 of the Remarks have been considered but are moot.
However, in an effort to facilitate compact and expedient prosecution of the instant application, and in view of said new grounds of rejection, it is respectfully noted that in contrast to Applicant’s position on p. 6 of the Remarks, Carlson does disclose the panels (fiber reinforced matrix material layer) being in the form of prepregs (uncured), wherein the combined teachings of the prior art reasonably teach/suggest contact between the prepreg panels and the partially expanded foamable material layer (foamable material layer after initial expansion step, prior to subsequent step comprising curing and further expansion).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
WO 2019/055710 to Bradley et al. (copy provided herewith) – discloses a reinforcing device including a first layer comprising a first activatable material that is flexible/tacky in a green state, and a second layer comprising a fibrous second activatable material in planar contact with the first layer [Abstract]
US 2004/0143969 to Czaplicki et al. – discloses a reinforcing member comprising a carrier (thermosettable) and an expandable/curable material disposed on a surface of the carrier [Abstract; 0004, 0010, 0016-0020, 0025-0028, 0034-0038, 0042, 0050-0051]
US 2018/0339491 to Hursit et al. – discloses an article including a foamable material layer disposed between nonwoven, pre-impregnated fibrous layers, said article adapted to be used within a wall or hollow cavity [Abstract; Figs. 1-3, 5; 0007, 0015-0020, 0026-0027, 0033-0036, 0040-0041, 0044, 0054-0055]
US 5,902,656 to Hwang – discloses a damper comprising a compressible and resilient shaft and damping sections attached to the exterior of the shaft, said damper for insertion into a hollow cavity in which it expands; the damping sections attached to the shaft are suitably formed from thermoplastic or thermosetting resins in a cured, partially-cured, and/or gelled state [Abstract; cols. 3-4 and 7-8]
US 5,476,618 to Ito et al. – discloses sheet laminate including a skin joined to a foamed bead base by heating [Abstract; Figs. 2-18]
WO 2016/161350 to Walker et al. (copy provided herewith) – discloses an insert akin to that of Hwang [Abstract; Figures; 0001-0002, 0008-0012, 0027-0029, 0034-0040, 0044-0045]
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 Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782