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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendran (US 2009/0155522 A1) in view of Rekret (US 2007/0013096 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Raghavendran discloses a thermoplastic composite for automotive interior body panel (i.e., a floor panel) comprising a second skin layer 18 (i.e., tape) including one or more first unidirectional tapes having a plurality of continuous glass fibers arranged in a first principal direction (i.e., a first glass fibrous layer comprising a unidirectional orientation of glass fibers) and one or more second unidirectional tapes having a plurality of continuous glass fibers arranged in a second principal direction (i.e., a second fibrous layer comprising a unidirectional orientation of glass fibers oriented in a direction, such that there are at least two glass fibrous layers with different unidirectional fiber orientations, such that a bi-directional glass tape is formed) (Raghavendran: para. [0003], [0014]-[0016], [0020], [0027], and [0036]; Fig. 2). Raghavendran further discloses that any of its layers of fibrous material may have adhesives applied to sides thereof (i.e., it would have been obvious to have applied an additional adhesive layer between the two glass fibrous layers) (Raghavendran: para. [0022]). The composite of Raghavendran further comprises a glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic core layer 12 (i.e., a reinforced thermoplastic layer) comprising a first surface applied to a first surface of the second skin layer 18, the glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic core layer being formed from a web made of open cell structures formed by fibers (i.e., reinforcing materials) held in place by a thermoplastic material (Raghavendran: para. [0004], [0020], and [0027]-[0028]; Fig. 2). Raghavendran further discloses the formation of second reinforcing skin layers 20 (one of which is considered a spacer layer, and the other considered a support layer coupled to the spacer layer) on a second surface of the glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic core layer 12 (Raghavendran: para. [0027]; Fig. 2). The second skin layers are considered a spacer layer and a support layer, respectively, in that both space the fiber reinforced core layer at the second surface, and both are capable of providing support (all layers are capable of providing support to an object to at least some extent). Furthermore, the spacer layer is considered an open structure in that it comprises fibers which form an air permeable, spread structure (i.e., the spacer layer includes openings between adjacent spread fibers to impart air permeability, and therefore, it has an open structure) (Raghavendran: para. [0022]). As best understood from the present specification, the skin layer of Raghavendran which constitutes the claimed support layer is a tape layer, as it is a layer of the overall tape disclosed by Raghavendran. Regarding the claimed at least four individual glass fibrous layers, Raghavendran teaches the inclusion of two or more tapes (i.e., an unbounded number of individual glass fibrous layers), and it is noted that this range overlaps the claimed range (i.e., of at least four glass fibrous layers) (Raghavendran: para. [0036]). Regarding the claimed second fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer coupled to a second surface of the first fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer at a first surface of the second fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer, Raghavendran notes that its core 12 may be formed of multiple separate processes, such as a wet laid process followed by a dry laid process (i.e., implying a core made of two separate fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layers, one of which constitutes a first fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer, and the other constituting a second fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer coupled to a second surface of the first fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer at a first surface of the second fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer) (Raghavendran: para. [0028]).
Raghavendran does not appear to teach the reinforced thermoplastic layer as porous, and the open structure spacer layer as comprising a foam layer.
Rekret is directed to a composite article for use in flooring comprising a core layer flanked by a foamed skin (i.e., including a porous layer and a foam layer on opposite sides of the core layer, respectively) (Rekret: abstract; para. [0001], [0009]-[0013], [0062], and [0066]). Rekret teaches that, compared to unfoamed plastic, microcellular thermoplastic foam (i.e., the foamed skins of Rekret) exhibits a five-fold increase in Chirpy impact strength, toughness, stiffness-to-weight ratio, and fatigue life (Rekret: para. [0055]). Raghavendran and Rekret are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of flooring panels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have microcellularly-foamed the skin layers of Raghavendran (i.e., resulting in a reinforced thermoplastic layer which is porous and an open structure spacer layer in the form of a foam layer) in order to improve the Chirpy impact strength, toughness, stiffness-to-weight ratio, and fatigue life of the panel of Raghavendran (Rekret: para. [0055]).
Regarding the claimed impact resistance, it is noted that the structure of Raghavendran and Rekret is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention (i.e., formed of glass fiber layers with an adhesive layer located therebetween, a reinforced thermoplastic layer coupled to a first surface of a tape, and an open structure spacer layer coupled to a second surface of the reinforced thermoplastic layer). A structure and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. Therefore, the floor panel of Raghavendran Raghavendran and Rekret is expected to possess the claimed impact resistance. Alternatively, Raghavendran discloses a peak impact force (i.e., impact resistance) of, for example, 1883 N (Raghavendran: Table 2c).
With regards to claim 5, Raghavendran further discloses the presence of additional layers on both sides of the formed composite (i.e., disposed on the tape layer) (Raghavendran: para. [0022]). It is submitted that an additional layer is considered a cover layer since it would at least partially cover the tape layer.
With regards to claim 6, the additional layer (i.e., cover layer) is, for example, a scrim (Raghavendran: para. [0022]).
With regards to claim 7, the tape is a two layer tape with two individual glass fibrous layers coupled to each other (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, Raghavendran discloses forming a tape comprising two glass fibrous layers coupled to each other, wherein a unidirectional glass fiber orientation of the first glass fiber layer relative to the second glass fibrous layer is, for example, 90 degrees (i.e., orthogonal to each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]).
With regards to claim 9, Raghavendran discloses a composite panel as applied to claim 1 above, the tape having two or more layers (see above discussion). Based on the disclosure of Raghavendran of two or more tape layers, it would have been obvious to try a four layer tape with four individual glass fibrous layers coupled to each other, or alternatively, the number of layers claimed and the number of layers in the structure of Raghavendran overlap each other. See MPEP 2144.05. It is additionally noted that, technically, the overall tape of Raghavendran could be subdivided into multiple tapes of differing numbers of layers. Any tape with four or more layers could be arbitrarily subdivided into one tape with four layers and the remaining layers considered a separate tape.
With regards to claim 10, Raghavendran discloses forming a tape comprising two glass fibrous layers coupled to each other, wherein a unidirectional fiber orientation of the first fiber layer relative to the second glass fibrous layer is, for example, 90 degrees (i.e., orthogonal to each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]).
With regards to claim 11, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 90 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the second and third sets of unidirectional glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 12, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 90 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the third and fourth sets of unidirectional glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 13, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 0 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the third and fourth sets of parallel glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 14, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 0 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the second and third sets of parallel glass fibers parallel to each other.
With regards to claim 15, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 90 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the third and fourth sets of parallel glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 16, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 90 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the third and fourth sets of parallel glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 17, based on the disclosure of Raghavendran of there being two or more tape layers present, it would have been obvious to try a six layer tape with six individual glass fibrous layers coupled to each other, or alternatively, the number of layers claimed and the number of layers in the structure of Raghavendran overlap each other. See MPEP 2144.05. It is additionally noted that, technically, the overall tape of Raghavendran could be subdivided into multiple tapes of differing numbers of layers. Any tape with six or more layers could be arbitrarily subdivided into one tape with six layers and the remaining layers considered a separate tape.
With regards to claim 18, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 90 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the first and second sets of unidirectional glass fibers orthogonal to each other.
With regards to claim 19, Raghavendran teaches orienting each of its coupled glass fibrous layers in a direction ranging from about 0 to about 90 degrees with each other (Raghavendran: para. [0035]). As Raghavendran expressly discloses the value of 0 degrees, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the first and second sets of unidirectional glass fibers parallel to each other.
Claim 2 and 3 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendran in view of Rekret applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gross et al (US 2008/0121461 A1)
With regards to claim 2, Raghavendran Rekret teach a composite panel as applied to claim 1 above. Although Raghavendran discloses the glass fibrous layers of the tape as comprising a binder to hold the fibers in a unidirectional orientation, Raghavendran does not appear to disclose a scrim on the first surface of the tape and on a second surface of the tape (see above discussion).
Gross is directed to a lightweight scrim material for use in flooring (Gross: abstract; para. [0007]-[0008], [0067], and [0197]). Gross broadly discloses that its scrim material may be integrally attached to the interior surface of another layer of material (Gross: para. [0170]). Gross notes that polyethylene terephthalate may be used to form a scrim (Gross: para. [0173]). Gross teaches that its scrim exhibits improved flame-retardant, acoustic insulation, and thermal insulation characteristics (Gross: para. [0007]). Raghavendran, Rekret, and Gross are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of floor panels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added the scrim of Gross to any particular surface of any of the layers of Raghavendran and Rekret (i.e., including scrims on a first surface of the tape and a second surface of the tape of Raghavendran Rekret) in order to provide improved flame-retardant, acoustic insulation, and thermal insulation characteristics (Gross: para. [0007]).
With regards to claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected polyethylene terephthalate for the scrim of Raghavendran, Rekret, and Gross, in order to provide improved flame-retardant, acoustic insulation, and thermal insulation characteristics (Gross: para. [0007]).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendran in view of Rekret applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wodzinski et al (US 2018/0311931 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Raghavendran and Rekret teach a composite panel as applied to claim 1 above. However, Raghavendran and Rekret do not appear to teach a support layer comprising polyurethane foam or an expandable polystyrene foam.
Wodzinski is directed to an automotive load floor comprising a first reinforced thermoplastic layer on an expandable polystyrene foam, which is further applied on top of a second reinforced thermoplastic layer comprising a web of open cell structures (Wodzinski: para. [0011]-[0012] and [0022]). The materials selected by Wodzinski lead to an improvement in directional compressive strength, thereby increasing the stiffness of the overall article (Wodzinski: para. [0007] and [0046]). Such stiffness leads to a floor which provides greater load deflection at reduced thickness (Wodzinski: para. [0009]-[0010]). Raghavendran, Rekret, and Wodzinski are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fiber composite panels for automotive applications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the expandable polystyrene of Wodzinski in the foam layer of Raghavendran and Rekret, in order to provide a panel with improved compressive strength and increased load deflection relative to thickness (Wodzinski: para. [0007]-[0010] and [0046]).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghavendran in view of Rekret as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wodzinski et al and Clifford (US 2004/0175554 A1).
With regards to claim 20, Raghavendran and Rekret teach a composite panel as applied to claim 1 above, the composite panel comprising a tape with, for example, two layers of unidirectionally oriented fibers arranged at adjacent angles, the composite panel including a thermoplastic layer comprising polypropylene (i.e., polyolefin) and glass fibers (i.e., reinforcing fibers) (see above discussion, in addition to Raghavendran: para. [0020] and [0026]). However, Raghavendran does not appear to disclose a spacer layer in the form of a foam layer of expandable polystyrene and a support layer formed from galvanized steel.
Wodzinski is directed to an automotive load floor comprising a first reinforced thermoplastic layer on an expanded polystyrene foam, which is further applied on top of a second reinforced thermoplastic layer comprising a web of open cell structures (Wodzinski: para. [0011]-[0012] and [0022]). The materials selected by Wodzinski lead to an improvement in directional compressive strength, thereby increasing the stiffness of the overall article (Wodzinski: para. [0007] and [0046]). Such stiffness leads to a floor which provides greater load deflection at reduced thickness (Wodzinski: para. [0009]-[0010]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a spacer layer formed of expandable polystyrene foam in the panel of Raghavendran and Rekret, in order to provide a panel with improved compressive strength and increased load deflection relative to thickness (Wodzinski: para. [0007]-[0010] and [0046]).
Raghavendran, Rekret, and Wodzinski do not appear to disclose or teach a support layer formed from galvanized steel.
Clifford is directed to structural laminates comprising zinc coated steel (i.e., a galvanized steel layer) (Clifford: abstract; para. [0019]; claim 2). Clifford teaches its materials provide improved strength while reducing weight, and furthermore, galvanized steel in particular has improved corrosion resistance (Clifford: abstract; para. [0002], [0008], and [0019]). Raghavendran, Rekret, Wodzinski, and Clifford are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of fiber reinforced composites. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided a support layer of galvanized steel, as disclosed by Clifford, in the structure of Raghavendran, Rekret, and Wodzinski, in order to provide improved strength while also reducing weight (Clifford: abstract; para. [0002] and [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to claim 1 and the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to be grammatically correct, and Applicant has removed the unsupported phrase “an open structure spacer layer” from claim 1. Therefore, the objection to claim 1 and the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Raghavendran and Rekret fail to teach the number and materials in the different layers according to amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the skin layer according to Rekret is a foam skin, but even if added to Raghavendran, would not enable the result of claim 1. Applicant’s amendment overcomes Raghavendran and Rekret as previously applied, but Applicant’s amendment does not overcome additional grounds of rejection which can be articulated in view of the broader disclosure of Raghavendran. Raghavendran teaches that its structure may include two or more skin layers, and therefore, additional skin layers (i.e., additional individual glass fiber layers) may be incorporated. As best understood, the range for the number of individual glass fiber layers taught by Raghavendran (i.e., two or more) overlaps the claimed range of at least 4 individual glass fiber layers. In addition, Raghavendran acknowledges that its core layer may be made by two separate process steps (i.e., a wet-laid process and a dry-laid process), implying the existence of at least two separate layers for its core (i.e., a first fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer and a second fiber reinforced porous thermoplastic layer). Therefore, Raghavendran and Rekret still obviate the present claims as amended.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783