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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 2/25/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendments are not found sufficient to overcome the cited prior art of record and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive of patentability for reasons set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants argue a lack of motivation to combine references on the grounds that the primary reference of Kasper et al., does not teach using the PSU adhesive film to bond the cover layer (e.g., a fiber reinforced thermoplastic layer) to a foamed core. Applicants assert that Kasper et al., exemplifies using the PSU adhesive film to bond the cover layer to a paper-based core material. In response, the Examiner is of the position that though not exemplified the disclosure directed to foam core materials, namely a polyether sulfone foam, cannot be ignored. Kasper et al., teach a multi-layer panel comprising a foam core, an adhesive film layer and a fiber reinformed thermoplastic resin layer (title, abstract, column 1, 10-45). Said foam core can be an open-celled type foam made from polyether sulfone (column 1, 10-45). As such, the Examiner maintains that the prior art of Kasper et al., renders obvious the structural limitations of the claimed foam core and adhesive film made from the same or similar materials, namely a foam core of polyether sulfone joined to a cover layer with a polysulfone adhesive film.
With regard to the claimed secondary reference, Applicants assert a lack of motivation to combine reference on the grounds that the secondary reference of Briand teaches away from using an adhesive layer made of a different polymer, particularly, PSU with a lower Tg, for bonding the foam core to the skin layers. Applicants assert that Briand teaches when the core is made of PPSU foam, the adjacent resin matrix layer should be made of a similar polymer, particularly, PPSU. According to Briand, "[f]orming the core 226 and an adjacent resin matrix layer 220 of materials with components having a common chemical composition (such as PPSU) can make the core 226 and an adjacent resin matrix layer 220 easier to weld to one another when joining the skin layer 220 to the core 226 (1 [0026]; emphasis added). In response, this argument is not found persuasive. The secondary reference of Briand was relied upon to teach the claimed PPSU foam core material. The Examiner if of the position that the polyether sulfone foam core layer of Kasper et al., and the PPSU foam core Briand et al., are similar since both materials are made from materials in the same family (e.g., sulfone). Since Kasper et al., does not teach or suggest that the PSU adhesive film and the foam core material need to be the exact same composition for bonding, the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the polyether sulfone foam core of Kasper et al., can be substituted with the PPSU foam core of Briand. Moreover, since both polyether sulfone and PPSU are comprised of similar materials in the same family (e.g., sulfone) the teachings of Briand directed to forming the core and adjacent resin matrix materials with “components having common chemical composition” would be satisfied to the extent that sufficient bonding can be achieved using similar foam compositions made from similar components. Applicants have not evidenced that the PSU adhesive film of Kasper et al., would be incompatible with the PPSU foam core of Briand or that such a substitution would result in an inferior product. As such, the Examiner maintains that since both references are concerned with forming composite panels used in aircrafts it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the composite panel of Kasper et al., with the specific PPSU foam layer of Briand. Motivation to use the specific PPSU of Briand as the foam core in Kasper et al., is found in the desire to form a composite having fire resistance and thermal properties. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the combination of cited prior renders the rejected claims obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper et al., US 5087500 in view of Briand US 20150274311 A1.
With regard to claim 1, the patent issued to Kasper et al., teach a multi-layer panel comprising a foam core, an adhesive film layer and a fiber reinformed thermoplastic resin layer (title, abstract, column 1, 10-45). Said foam core can be an open-celled type foam made from polyether sulfone (column 1, 10-45). With regard to claims 6 and 7, said cover layer is also made from a polyether sulfone that is mixed with fibers of glass, carbon or polyamide fibers (column 1, 10-45). Kasper et al., teach using the adhesive film layer to join the cover layer to the foam core layer (column 2, 1-15 and claim 3). Said panel can be used in aircrafts (column 3, 25). Kasper et al., teach using the adhesive film layer to join the cover layer to the foam core layer (column 2, 1-15 and claim 3). Said adhesive film is a polysulfone film sold under the trademark of Ultrason® S 2000 (column 4, lines 1-2). Said film is sold by BASF and has apparent glass transition temperature of 187⁰C https://www.basf.com/dam/jcr:cb9e928f-9c26-3ceb-9a08-f7cc23f160bf/basf/www/cn/documents/en/chinaplas/UltrasonESPproductbrochureEN.pdf
As such, the Examiner maintains that the primary reference teaches the claimed foam core and adhesive film made from the same or similar materials, namely a foam core of polyether sulfone joined to a cover layer with a polysulfone adhesive film.
Kasper et al., does not teach specifically teach the claimed foam core of PPSU.
The published patent application issued to Briand teach a composite panel used in aircrafts comprising a core layer of PPSU (figure 2, paragraph 0026). Specifically figure 2, exemplifies a composite comprising a core layer (226) made from PPSU (e.g., Radel® R-1050 PPSU Foam commercially available from Solvay Advanced Polymers) (paragraph 0026). Said core layer (226) if further sandwiched between outer resin matrix layers (figures 2 and 3, paragraph 0026). Briand also illustrates a composite having a plurality of core layers and matrix resin (cover layers) (figures 2 and 3). As such, the limitations of claim 8 is met. With regard to the limitations pertaining to claimed difference of Tg (glass transition temperature) between the adhesive film layer and the PPSU foam core, Radel® R-1050 PPSU foam is known known to have a Tg ranging from 220-230°C (https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=801427233e964766bcc21712fba42302 and https://www.solvay.com/sites/g/files/srpend616/files/2018-07/radel-ppsu-steam-sterilization-en.pdf). As such, the Examiner maintains that the difference of glass transition temperatures between the adhesive film of Kasper et al., and the PPSU foam core of Briand (e.g., adhesive film having a Tg of 187°C and PPSU foam core having a Tg of 220-230°C) would be met. With regard to the claimed amounts of the polysulfone and PPSU it appears that the polysulfone adhesive film is solely comprised of polysulfone and the PPSU foam is solely comprised of PPSU polymer. As such, the Examiner considers the amount limitations of claim 1 met. Briand teach that PPSU has suitable thermal properties, is fire resistant, is amorphous. Since both references are concerned with forming composite panels used in aircrafts it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the composite panel of Kasper et al., with the specific PPSU foam layer of Briand. Motivation to use the specific PPSU of Briand as the foam core in Kasper et al., is found in the desire to from a composite having fire resistance and thermal properties.
With specific regard to the claimed foam core thickness, areal weight of the adhesive and the composite layer as recited in claims 11-12, the cited combination of prior art does not specifically teach these features. The Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to optimize these features as a desired function of the multi-layer panel. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
5. Claim(s) 2-3, 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper et al., US 5087500 in view of Briand US 20150274311 A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of El-Hibri et al., US 2015/0267023.
The combination of cited prior art above does not specifically teach the claimed PPSU.
The published patent application issued to El-Hibri et al., teach a high temperature foam made from the PAES (title, abstract, paragraph 0071. With regard to claims 2-3, it appears that the PAES is made with an amount of the claimed PPSU (polyphenylsulfone) (paragraphs 0072-0082). El-Hibri specifically teach the PPSU foam used in the composite of Briand (paragraph 0075). Said PAES-PPSU comprising foam is used in the formation of aircraft articles and panels (0144-0145). With regard to claim 5, El-Hibri et al., teach forming a multi-layer panel comprising skin (outer) layers made from reinforcing fibers and epoxy resin (0145-0146). Though the combination of cited prior art does not specifically teach a blend of adhesives such as polysulfone and epoxy, the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the adhesive can formulated with a blend of adhesives based on desired end use and adhesive properties. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise and/or unexpected results. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960). With regard to claim 10, El-Hibri et al., teach the claimed density range of the foam (paragraph 0137). The Examiner is of the position that since each of the cited prior art references are concerned with forming composite panels for use in aircrafts a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the PPSU foam core used in the panel of Kasper et al., in Briand can be made to have a density consistent for the formation of a composite panel used in aircrafts as taught in El-Hibri et al. Applicants are invited prove otherwise and/or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the PPSU foam core in the composite Kasper et al., and Briand with a PPSU having the claimed % of mol units as taught by El-Hibri et al. Moreover, since El-Hibri et al., specifically teach using the same PPSU as Briand it reasonable to expect that the claim mol percentages are present. Motivation to use the PPSU of Briand and/or El-Hibri et al., is found in the desire to provide a foam core having high temperature.
Conclusion
6. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights