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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 10-13, and 16 are allowed.
The prior art of record does not teach the claimed iodine number.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2011/0200816 to Mizrahi et al. cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 29 June 2023 (herein Mizrahi ‘816) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2010/0040902 to Mizrahi cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 29 June 2023 (herein Mizrahi ‘902), U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2012/0214018 to Mizrahi et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Mizrahi ‘018), and U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0203708 to Jaradi et al. (herein Jaradi).
Regarding claim 1, Mizrahi ‘816 teaches a lightweight composite material comprising a polymeric layer interposed between a pair of metallic layers (abstract) wherein the composite material, polymeric layer, and pair of metallic layers of Mizrahi ‘816 correspond to the multi-layered composite material, core layer, first metal layer, and second metal layer, respectively, recited in the instant claims. Mizrahi ‘816 teaches an automotive bumper comprising a fascia made from the composite material (paragraph 0125). Mizrahi ‘816 also teaches that the polymeric layer has a volume that is more than 20% of the total volume of the composite material (paragraph 0096). Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the polymeric layer contains more or more fiber fillers which can be metallic fibers (paragraph 0066), i.e. the fillers can be metallic fibers, but not necessarily are metallic fibers. Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the fibers are present at a volumetric concentration of less than 30% (paragraph 0087). Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the polymeric layer contains one or more polyolefins (paragraph 0045) that can consist of one or more olefin monomers (paragraph 0046). Mizrahi ‘816 also teaches that the metal layers may have one or more surfaces plated with chrome plating (paragraph 0092).
Mizrahi ‘816 is silent as to one of the fillers being a non-metallic conductive filler, the ratio of any metallic filler to non-metallic conductive filler, the specific gravity of the polymeric layer, and there being tab flanges present.
Regarding the specific gravity of the polymeric layer, Mizrahi ‘018 teaches a composite material comprising a first metallic sheet, a second metallic sheet, and a polymeric layer disposed therebetween (abstract) that can be used as part of an automotive bumper as a fascia (paragraph 0082). Mizrahi ‘018 teaches that the polymeric layer includes fillers (paragraph 0062) and has a density of 1.0 g/cm3 or less (paragraph 0051), i.e. a specific gravity of 1.0 or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymeric layer of Mizrahi ‘816 to have the density of Mizrahi ‘018 because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the non-metallic conductive filler, Mizrahi ‘902 teaches a lightweight composite material (abstract) comprising a first metallic layer, a second metallic layer, and a polymeric layer (paragraph 0015) that can be used as part of an automotive bumper as a fascia (paragraph 0126). Mizrahi ‘902 teaches that the polymeric layer contains fillers such as carbon black particles at a content of 5 to 33 vol% (paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymeric layer of Mizrahi ‘816 to include the carbon black of Mizrahi ‘902 at the concentrations taught by Mizrahi ‘902 because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the ratio of any metallic filler to non-metallic conductive filler, in embodiments of Mizrahi ‘816 containing metallic fibers, Mizrahi ‘816 as modified according to the teachings of Mizrahi ‘902 would contain metallic fibers and carbon black in amounts that would result in a ratio that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the presence of tab flanges, Jaradi teaches a vehicle fascia (abstract) including a front portion and two side portions (paragraph 0017). Jaradi teaches that the fascia can include one or more flanges on the front and side portions having holes or apertures therein (paragraph 0017 and Fig 3) wherein the flanges on the front and side portions correspond to the tab flanges on the side and top of the bumper recited in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fascia of Mizrahi ‘816 to include the one or more flanges on the front and side portions as taught by Jaradi because it would provide attachment points for attaching the fascia to a frame of the vehicle (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 2, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the fibers are present at a volumetric concentration of less than 30% (paragraph 0087) which overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, as discussed above, Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the fibers are preferably metallic fibers, i.e. the fibers need not be metallic fibers. Therefore, Mizrahi ‘816 teaches an embodiment having no metallic fibers.
Regarding claim 3, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Mizrahi ‘816 as modified according to Mizrahi ‘902 includes carbon black in the polymeric layer.
Regarding claim 14, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the composite material can be used in applications which traditionally utilize a monolithic metal sheet (paragraph 0023). Therefore, the fascia used in the bumper of Mizrahi ‘816 would be reasonably considered to be made of a single blank of the composite material.
Regarding claim 17, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the ratio of the thickness of the first metal layer to the thickness of the second metal layer is 0.75 to 1.33 (paragraph 0093) which is close to the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 18, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mizrahi ‘816 teaches that the polymeric layer can have a bulk resistivity of less than 100,000 Ohm-cm (paragraph 0121). Mizrahi ‘816 also teaches that the composite material has a thickness of less than 30 mm (paragraph 0095) and the polymeric layer has a volume that is more than 20% of the total volume of the composite material (paragraph 0096). Surface resistivity is defined as the bulk resistivity divided by thickness; therefore combining the teachings of Mizrahi ‘816 results in a surface resistivity that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 21, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jaradi is silent as to the diameter of the mounting holes in the flange portion and their distance from an edge of the flange portion. However, adjusting the diameter of the mounting hole and its distance from the edge of the flange portion amounts to a change in the size/proportion of the mounting hole and its distance from the edge of the flange portion. Such changes in size/proportion have been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizrahi ‘816 in view of Mizrahi ‘902, Mizrahi ‘018, and Jaradi as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0233010 to Sytsma et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Sytsma).
Regarding claim 15, Mizrahi ‘816, Mizrahi ‘018, Mizrahi ‘902, and Jaradi teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mizrahi ‘816 is silent as to the bumper having holes or openings.
Sytsma teaches a bumper and baffle assembly (abstract). Figs 1 and 2 of Sytsma show that the assembly has openings through which gaseous fluid 32 flows (paragraphs 0015-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bumper of Mizrahi ‘816 to have the openings of Sytsma because it has been held to be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Amendment
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 16 March 2026, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth above.
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 16 March 2026, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teaches on Mizrahi ‘018 cannot be applied to the polymeric layer of Mizrahi ‘816 because the composite material of Mizrahi ‘018 is a heterogenous material whereas the composite material of Mizrahi ‘816 has a cross section that is generally homogenous (Remarks, page 7). While Mizrahi ‘018 teaches a heterogenous structure, Mizrahi ‘018 teaches that this heterogeneity is achieved by the use of inserts interposed between the metallic layers (paragraph 0024). Mizrahi ‘018 specifically teaches the density of the polymeric layer excluding these inserts (paragraph 0051). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the teachings of Mizrahi ‘018 regarding the polymeric layer which is substantially similar to the polymeric layer of Mizrahi ‘816.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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 V Ewald can be reached at 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783