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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 & 21, as well as the addition of new claims 22 – 23. Claims 4 & 18 – 20 are cancelled. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 17, & 21 – 23 are examined herein.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to new claim 22, the independent claim recites “an open area core defined by a plurality of walls.” Applicant’s specification and originally filed claims teach walls for defining a plurality of pores (i.e., honeycomb cells). There is no teaching in Applicant’s specification of a plurality of walls that do not define a plurality of pores/cells within said open area core. Applicant’s claimed open area core does not require the presence of a pores/cells in the open area core.
Applicant’s claim recitation of “an open area core defined by a plurality of walls” is a genus, but the originally filed specification only has support for a single species (plurality of walls defining a plurality of pores) within the recited genus. Applicant’s specification does not contain support for all the other species that exist within the recited genus. Therefore, claim 22 contains new matter.
Claim 23 is dependent on claim 22 and therefore also rejected for new matter.
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) 1 – 3, 6 – 9, 11, 15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2017/0282486 A1), in view of Guha et al. (WO 2018102420 A), Gerard (US 2015/0375464 A1), Knight (US 2013/0312736 A1), & McLaren et al. (US 2004/0041429 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Carlson et al. teach a panel structure for an airplane (“vehicle component construct”) (abstract). The panel structure is formed of a composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) comprising a composite support (“core”) formed as honeycomb (16/20/22/214/218/222) defining a plurality of pores (“an open area core”) (paragraph [0021]). The core is adhered to a panel (14/210) at a first face by a first adhesive layer (42). A panel (“structural skin”) (12/212) is adhered to a second face of the composite by a second adhesive layer (40) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Carlson et al. teach the panel may include one or more openings in the form of through-holes or cavities for receipt of components, such as handles and fasteners. Additionally, components, such as fasteners, may be directly or indirectly attached to said panel (paragraphs [0061] – [0062]). As shown in Figure 6, the handle (or another component) may be attached on either surface of the panel.
Carlson et al. do not teach the panel (14) or the panel (12) is a high gloss surface sheet of the external vehicle component exposed to natural elements in an outdoor environment and capable of being painted and accepted as ‘Class-A’ exterior autobody part.
Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a fiber reinforced resin layer, such as glass fiber-based SMC, with a high gloss sheen. High quality high gloss surfaces are generally required for vehicle surface panels, such as doors, hoods, quarter panels, trunks, and roof structures (paragraphs [0005], [0014] – [0015]). The automotive exterior panel with high gloss is obtainable by sanding, priming and paint finishing (paragraphs [0018] & [0033]). The vehicle component has a class-A surface finish associated with a surface shine and reflectivity required for exterior body panels for automotive manufacturers (paragraphs [0014] & [0017]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guha et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for the panel (14/210) taught by Carlson et al. with a high gloss sheen in order to provide the desirable high quality, Class-A, high gloss finish to an outer surface of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize the high gloss sheen with a shiny reflective surface, as taught by the combination of Carlson et al. and Guha et al., is decorative and no additional high gloss panel separate from the composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) would be needed to complete the vehicle component.
Carlson et al. fail to teach the window is formed as a single unit with said frame, said window formed of a transparent resin which said frame is molded in a single mold.
Gerard teaches formation of a transparent window within a multilayer composite material (i.e. Applicant’s “frame”), in order to form a motor vehicle windshield, porthole in a boat hull, visibility screen of an appliance, or a sunroof (paragraph [0021]), wherein the window is formed by the method steps of (1) cut out a portion of the composite, and then (2) fill the cutout (i.e. cavity) (10) with a transparent thermoplastic material (20) (paragraphs [0040], [0066]-[0067], & [0123]). Inside a closed mold (paragraph [0060] – [0061]), a liquid syrup is impregnated into the composite and polymerized to form the transparent thermoplastic material inside the window of the multilayer composite. This method of forming the window inside a composite panel saves time, simplifies the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window after the transparent thermoplastic is hardened (paragraphs [0038] & [0075]). As such, the window is formed within the cut-out (“through opening”) of the composite (“frame”) as a single unit with said composite, said window formed of a transparent resin molded with said frame in a closed mold (“single mold”).
PNG
media_image3.png
300
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
134
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gerard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a transparent resin window inside a composite frame, such as taught by Carlson et al., as a single unit with said frame, wherein said frame is molded in a single mold, in order to save time, simplify the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window to the frame.’
The references cited above fail to teach the frame containing a conduit embedded in the open area core.
Knight teaches a glazing panel (i.e., window) comprising a solar a solar panel between two sheets of glass (abstract) The glazing panel includes a frame (34) that is hollow and includes a chamber (36), wherein the chamber is utilized to carry some of the inlet and outlet conduits for a solar panel (P0037 & Figs. 2 – 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
332
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Knight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a chamber (i.e., “conduit”) into the body (i.e., “core”) of the frame of the panel structure (i.e., “frame”) taught by Carlson et al. for carrying of inlet and outlet conduits in the instance of the window comprising a solar panel.
The references cited above do not teach “said frame having a perimeter edge around the structural skin is wrapped and joined to the high gloss surface sheet.” Furthermore, the references cited above do not teach the composite sandwich panel material is watertight and waterproof.
McLaren et al. teach a composite panel for a vehicle, wherein the panel comprises an inner panel portion (22) (i.e., Applicant’s “structural skin”) is wrapped around a core and joined to an outer panel portion (20) (i.e., Applicant’s “surface sheet”) to form a liquid tight seal at the perimeter portions (28/30) (paragraph [0025] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
530
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of McLaren et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to wrap the inner structural skin around the core to seal the peripheral edges of the structural skin to the high gloss surface sheet in the form of a form a liquid tight seal/gasket, which results in a structure that meets Applicant’s recited “frame formed of a watertight and waterproof composite sandwich panel.”
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “exterior vehicle component” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to claim 2, as shown in Figures 1 & 7 above, the exterior surface of said panel structure (“frame”) taught by Carlson et al. is defined by the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich panel material and the oppositely opposed interior surface of said frame is defined by the structural skin of said composite sandwich panel material.
With regard to claim 3, Carlson et al. teach a panel structure for an airplane (“vehicle component construct”) (abstract). More specifically, the panel my form part or the entirety of a door, a side panel, an archway, a ceiling panel, a wing, or a floor structure (paragraph [0047]). Each of these portions of the airplane (vehicle) are a body section.
With regard to claim 6, as shown in Figures 1 & 7 above, Carlson et al. teach the open area core of said composite sandwich panel material is an array of cells.
With regard to claim 7, Carlson et al. teach the support composite honeycomb (“open area core”) are formed of thermoplastic or thermoset polymeric materials, or cardboard/paper materials (i.e. cellulosics), or metals (paragraph [0022]).
With regard to claims 8 – 9, Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a high gloss molding of SMC composition composed of predominantly fiber filler of chopped glass fibers (paragraphs [0011] & [0015]).
With regard to claim 11, Carlson et al. teach the first and second panels (“the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich panel material”) may be as thick or thin as desired, but is typically at least 0.03 mm and less than 3 mm (paragraph [0018]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 to 3.5 mm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 15, Carlson et al. teach the first and second panels (“high gloss surface sheet” and “structural skin”) may be formed of fibrous materials (i.e. a fiber mat”) the is formed of a fiber mat (paragraph [0020]).
With regard to claim 17, Carlson et al. teach the composite sandwich panel material has a material (22) (“fill”) in the pores of the open area core (Figs. 1 & 7 shown above), the material (22) being a thermal insulation or sound dampening foam (paragraphs [0024] – [0025] & [0027]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al., Guha et al., Gerard, Knight, & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nichtnennung (DE 10 2007 039126 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Carlson et al. do not teach the upper fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”) comprises a colorant.
Nichtnennung teaches a composite panel comprising a honeycomb core and SMC outer layers (paragraphs [0001] – [0002]). The typical SMC mat composition comprises polyester resin, glass fibers, and additives, such as color pigments (paragraph [0005]). The panel is used for a number of intended uses, such as floors, walls, and ceilings of vehicles (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Nichtnennung, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate color pigments (“colorant”) into a fiber reinforced resin outer layer of a composite panel for providing desired aesthetic appeal to the surface of a vehicle component.
Claim(s) 12 – 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al., Guha et al., Gerard, Knight, & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 106003850 A).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 1, Carlson et al. teach the first and second panels (“the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich panel material”) may be as thick or thin as desired, but is typically at least 0.03 mm and less than 3 mm (paragraph [0018]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 to 3.5 mm.
However, Carlson et al. do not teach the thickness of the honeycomb support (“open area core”), or the ratio of a thickness of the high gloss surface sheet to a thickness of the open area core.
Wang et al. teach a honeycomb sandwich structure comprising first and second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panels and a honeycomb core. The thickness of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”) is 0.2 mm – 3 mm (paragraphs [0024], [0035] & [0038]). Additionally, Wang et al. teach honeycomb core (“open area core”) has a thickness of 3 – 30 mm (paragraphs [0016], [0024], & [0038]). Therefore, the ratio of the thickness of the upper fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”) to the thickness of the open area core is 0.0066:1 to 1:1, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 0.01-1:1. The thickness of the honeycomb core is determined according to the required thickness of the overall structural member (paragraph [0033]). The honeycomb sandwich has strong mechanical properties and a long service life (paragraph [0007]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the honeycomb sandwich panel comprising fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panels (“surface sheets”) having a thickness of 0.2 mm – 3 mm and a honeycomb core to have a thickness of 3 – 30 mm, such that the ratio is 0.0066:1 to 1:1, for forming a honeycomb sandwich with strong mechanical properties and long service life.
With regard to claim 13, Carlson et al. fail to teach the composite sandwich panel material has a cloth intermediate between the high gloss surface sheet and the open area core.
Wang et al. teach a composite sandwich structure comprising a first fiber-reinforced (e.g. glass fibers) thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”), honeycomb core (“open core”), a second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“structural skin”), a first adhesive layer between each fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel and said honeycomb core (paragraph [0023] & Fig. 1 below). The fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“high gloss surface sheet”) and a honeycomb core are bonded by a non-woven layer (“intermediate cloth”) for increasing the bonding area of the two (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an intermediate cloth between a glass fiber reinforce layer, such as Applicant’s “high gloss surface sheet”) and a honeycomb core, for increasing the bonding area.
With regard to claims 14 & 16, Carlson et al. teach the first and second panels are adhered to the composite (“honeycomb core”) (16) with an adhesive (40/42) (paragraph [0039]).
Carlson et al. do not explicitly teach the first adhesive layer of said composite sandwich panel material contacts an interior volume of the open area core (claim 14). Additionally, Carlson et al. fail to teach the first adhesive layer of said composite sandwich panel material and the second adhesive layer of said composite sandwich panel material each independently are a polyurethane or polyurethane prepolymer, a moisture cure adhesive, a reactive hot melt adhesive, or polyurethane resin (claim 16).
Wang et al. teach a composite sandwich structure comprising a first fiber-reinforced (e.g. glass fibers) thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”), honeycomb core (“open core”), a second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“structural skin”), a first hot-melt adhesive layer between each fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel and said honeycomb core (paragraph [0023] & Fig. 1 below). A hot melt adhesive inherently layer flows into the interior of the honeycomb while in a molten state. Therefore, the adhesive melt inherently contacts an interior volume of the honeycomb cells during bonding. The honeycomb sandwich structure is not easy to be delaminated (paragraph [0007]).
PNG
media_image7.png
452
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to join a fiber reinforced layer and a honeycomb core with a hot melt adhesive layer that flows in the interior of the honeycomb for effectively bonding the layers without delamination.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2017/0282486 A1), in view of Guha et al. (WO 2018102420 A), Gerard (US 2015/0375464 A1), and McLaren et al. (US 2004/0041429 A1)
With regard to claim 21, Carlson et al. teach a panel structure for an airplane (i.e., “vehicle component construct”) (abstract). The panel structure is formed of a composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) comprising a composite support (i.e., “core”) formed as honeycomb (16/20/22/214/218/222) defining a plurality of pores (i.e., “an open area core”) (paragraph [0021]). The core is adhered to a panel (14/210) by a first adhesive layer (42). A panel (i.e., “structural skin”) (12/212) is adhered to a second face of the composite by a second adhesive layer (40) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 1). One or more relatively larger openings (e.g. through-holes) (202) (i.e., “a through opening extending from an exterior surface of said frame to an oppositely opposed interior surface of said frame”), suitable for receipt of components, such as windows (paragraphs [0062] – [0063] & Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Carlson et al. teach the panel may include one or more openings in the form of through-holes or cavities for receipt of components, such as handles and fasteners. Additionally, components, such as fasteners, may be directly or indirectly attached to said panel (paragraphs [0061] – [0062]). As shown in Figure 6, the handle (or another component) may be attached on either surface of the panel.
Carlson et al. do not teach the panel (14) or the panel (12) is a high gloss surface sheet of the external vehicle component exposed to natural elements in an outdoor environment and capable of being painted and accepted as ‘Class-A’ exterior autobody part.
Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a fiber reinforced resin layer, such as glass fiber-based SMC, with a high gloss sheen. High quality high gloss surfaces are generally required for vehicle surface panels, such as doors, hoods, quarter panels, trunks, and roof structures (paragraphs [0005], [0014] – [0015]). The automotive exterior panel with high gloss is obtainable by sanding, priming and paint finishing (paragraphs [0018] & [0033]). The vehicle component has a class-A surface finish associated with a surface shine and reflectivity required for exterior body panels for automotive manufacturers (paragraphs [0014] & [0017]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guha et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for the panel (14/210) taught by Carlson et al. with a high gloss sheen in order to provide the desirable high quality, Class-A, high gloss finish to an outer surface of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize the high gloss sheen with a shiny reflective surface, as taught by the combination of Carlson et al. and Guha et al., is decorative and no additional high gloss panel separate from the composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) would be needed to complete the vehicle component.
Carlson et al. fail to teach the window is formed as a single unit with said frame, said window formed of a transparent resin which said frame is molded in a single mold.
Gerard teaches formation of a transparent window within a multilayer composite material (i.e. Applicant’s “frame”), in order to form a motor vehicle windshield, porthole in a boat hull, visibility screen of an appliance, or a sunroof (paragraph [0021]), wherein the window is formed by the method steps of (1) cut out a portion of the composite, and then (2) fill the cutout (i.e. cavity) (10) with a transparent thermoplastic material (20) (paragraphs [0040], [0066]-[0067], & [0123]). Inside a closed mold (paragraph [0060] – [0061]), a liquid syrup is impregnated into the composite and polymerized to form the transparent thermoplastic material inside the window of the multilayer composite. This method of forming the window inside a composite panel saves time, simplifies the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window after the transparent thermoplastic is hardened (paragraphs [0038] & [0075]). As such, the window is formed within the cut-out (“through opening”) of the composite (“frame”) as a single unit with said composite, said window formed of a transparent resin molded with said frame in a closed mold (“single mold”).
PNG
media_image3.png
300
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
134
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gerard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a transparent resin window inside a composite frame, such as taught by Carlson et al., as a single unit with said frame, wherein said frame is molded in a single mold, in order to save time, simplify the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window to the frame.
The references cited above the composite sandwich panel material is watertight and waterproof.
McLaren et al. teach a composite panel for a vehicle, wherein the panel comprises an inner panel portion (22) (i.e., Applicant’s “structural skin”) is wrapped around a core and joined to an outer panel portion (20) (i.e., Applicant’s “surface sheet”) to form a liquid tight seal at the perimeter portions (28/30) (paragraph [0025] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
530
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of McLaren et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to wrap the inner structural skin around the core to seal the peripheral edges of the structural skin to the high gloss surface sheet in the form of a form a liquid tight seal/gasket, which results in a structure that meets Applicant’s recited “frame formed of a watertight and waterproof composite sandwich panel.”
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “an exterior vehicle component” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 21 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 21 is product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a transparent resin window inside a through-hole of an open area core. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777, F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al., Guha et al., Gerard, & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hedderich et al. (US 2007/0287028 A1).
With regard to claim 5, Gerard teaches the window is filled with a transparent thermoplastic, such as polystyrene (paragraph [0123]), but do not explicitly teach the polystyrene is acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS).
Hedderich et al. teach a self-illuminating glazing panel (“window”) suitable for use in an automotive vehicle comprising a transparent polymer (“resin”) substrate (22) formed by injection molding (paragraphs [0009], [0039], & [0041]) known in the art, such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) (paragraph [0021] & ‘028 claim 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hedderich et al., it would have been obvious to form the window of the vehicle taught by Carlson et al. with a molded transparent resin, such as ABS, using an injection molding technique (form as a single unit) because this material and molding technique are known in the art for molding windows of vehicles.
Claim(s) 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2017/0282486 A1), in view of Hudson (U.S. Patent No. 4,249,976 A), Guha et al. (WO 2018102420 A), Gerard (US 2015/0375464 A1), & McLaren et al. (US 2004/0041429 A1).
With regard to claim 22, Carlson et al. teach a panel structure for an airplane (“vehicle component construct”) (abstract). The panel structure is formed of a composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) comprising a composite support (“core”) formed as honeycomb (16/20/22/214/218/222) defined by a plurality of walls forming cells (i.e., “an open area core”) (paragraph [0021]). The core is adhered to a panel (14/210) by a first adhesive layer (42) at a first face. A panel (“structural skin”) (12/212) is adhered to a second face of the composite by a second adhesive layer (40) (paragraph [0039] & Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
380
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carlson et al. do not explicitly teach the first adhesive has a surface for adhesion between the open area core (honeycomb) and the high gloss surface sheet and structural skin, respectively, that is at least 5% more than a surface area of the walls at the first face. Furthermore, Carlson et al. do not explicitly teach the dimensions of the adhesive layers or the dimensions of the honeycomb cell walls to calculate Applicant’s recited relative adhesive surface area.
Hudson teaches a method of manufacturing a honeycomb sandwich comprising a honeycomb core, and two opposing skin layers joined by a melted layer of thermoplastic adhesive (19) at a high temperature (i.e., “hot melt adhesive”). The thermoplastic adhesive is formed as a continuous film for eliminating the need for extensive pre-fitting of the contact surfaces for providing a strong adhesive bond between the skin layers and the core, and thus minimizing surface irregularities (Col. 2, Lines 27 – 44 & Col. 4, Lines 39 – 56, Fig. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Hudson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the hot melt adhesive layer taught by the primary reference as a continuous layer (i.e., covering 100% of the surface area of a skin layer at a first face of a honeycomb core) in order to eliminate the need for pre-fit contact surfaces, and thus, minimize surface irregularities.
One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the surface area of the walls (i.e., edge of the walls) of a honeycomb core at a first face (i.e., interface) of an adjoining skin layer is significantly less than 100% the surface area of the skin layer due to the presence of the cell cavities in the core where the core does not have a surface area at the first face for joining the skin layer. As such, the adhesive, as taught by Hudson, that covers 100% of the surface of a face (of a skin layer) is at least 5% greater than the surface area at the edge of the honeycomb walls adjoining said skin layer at said first face.
Carlson et al. do not teach the panel (14) or the panel (12) (at the first face) is a high gloss surface sheet of the external vehicle component exposed to natural elements in an outdoor environment and capable of being painted and accepted as ‘Class-A’ exterior autobody part.
Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a fiber reinforced resin layer, such as glass fiber-based SMC, with a high gloss sheen. High quality high gloss surfaces are generally required for vehicle surface panels, such as doors, hoods, quarter panels, trunks, and roof structures (paragraphs [0005], [0014] – [0015]). The automotive exterior panel with high gloss is obtainable by sanding, priming and paint finishing (paragraphs [0018] & [0033]). The vehicle component has a class-A surface finish associated with a surface shine and reflectivity required for exterior body panels for automotive manufacturers (paragraphs [0014] & [0017]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guha et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for the panel (14/210) taught by Carlson et al. with a high gloss sheen in order to provide the desirable high quality, Class-A, high gloss finish to an outer surface of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize the high gloss sheen with a shiny reflective surface, as taught by the combination of Carlson et al. and Guha et al., is decorative and no additional high gloss panel separate from the composite sandwich panel (“a frame”) (10/200) would be needed to complete the vehicle component.
Carlson et al. fail to teach the window is formed as a single unit with said frame, said window formed of a transparent resin which said frame is molded in a single mold.
Gerard teaches formation of a transparent window within a multilayer composite material (i.e. Applicant’s “frame”), in order to form a motor vehicle windshield, porthole in a boat hull, visibility screen of an appliance, or a sunroof (paragraph [0021]), wherein the window is formed by the method steps of (1) cut out a portion of the composite, and then (2) fill the cutout (i.e. cavity) (10) with a transparent thermoplastic material (20) (paragraphs [0040], [0066]-[0067], & [0123]). Inside a closed mold (paragraph [0060] – [0061]), a liquid syrup is impregnated into the composite and polymerized to form the transparent thermoplastic material inside the window of the multilayer composite. This method of forming the window inside a composite panel saves time, simplifies the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window after the transparent thermoplastic is hardened (paragraphs [0038] & [0075]). As such, the window is formed within the cut-out (“through opening”) of the composite (“frame”) as a single unit with said composite, said window formed of a transparent resin molded with said frame in a closed mold (“single mold”).
PNG
media_image3.png
300
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
134
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gerard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a transparent resin window inside a composite frame, such as taught by Carlson et al., as a single unit with said frame, wherein said frame is molded in a single mold, in order to save time, simplify the manufacture of parts at an industrial scale, and integrally attaches/seals the window to the frame.’
The references cited above do not teach “said frame having a perimeter edge around the structural skin is wrapped and joined to the high gloss surface sheet.” Furthermore, the references cited above do not teach the composite sandwich panel material is watertight and waterproof.
McLaren et al. teach a composite panel for a vehicle, wherein the panel comprises an inner panel portion (22) (i.e., Applicant’s “structural skin”) is wrapped around a core and joined to an outer panel portion (20) (i.e., Applicant’s “surface sheet”) to form a liquid tight seal at the perimeter portions (28/30) (paragraph [0025] & Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
530
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of McLaren et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to wrap the inner structural skin around the core to seal the peripheral edges of the structural skin to the high gloss surface sheet in the form of a form a liquid tight seal/gasket, which results in a structure that meets Applicant’s recited “frame formed of a watertight and waterproof composite sandwich panel.”
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “exterior vehicle component” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to claim 23, as discussed above for claim 22, based on the teachings of Hudson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the hot melt adhesive layer taught by the primary reference as a continuous layer (i.e., covering 100% of the surface area of the structural skin at the second face of a honeycomb core) in order to eliminate the need for pre-fit contact surfaces, and thus, minimize surface irregularities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 17, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner notes a ‘negative’ or ‘exclusionary’ limitation in claims 1 and 21 for which Applicant has not support in the original disclosure. The remaining rejected claims are rejected as being dependent from Claim 1.
“Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 21 to include, verbatim, language from the last sentence of Paragraph [0033] of the present specification. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1 and 21 as amended contain support in the original disclosure” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 & 21, the rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 17, & 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “The Examiner commented that ‘[w]hen reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation ‘exterior vehicle component’ is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claim invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significant to claim construction’.
“Applicant respectfully notes that there is in fact substantial subject matter in Claims 1 and 21 to indicate that the panel described therein is in fact on the exterior of the vehicle (e.g., ‘…exposed to natural elements in an outdoor environment…’), even without giving patentable weight to the preamble language.
“Applicant further notes the amendments included herewith to Claims 1 and 21 such that ‘…the external vehicle component is configured to be positioned on an exterior of a vehicle such that the high gloss sheet of the external vehicle component is exposed….’
In view of each of the above, Applicant respectfully suggests that the nature of the vehicle component as being for the exterior of a vehicle does in fact have limiting effect” (Remarks, Pgs. 10 – 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant’s recitation of “an external vehicle component…positioned on an exterior of a vehicle…” in the body of the claims does not take away from the fact that the preamble of Applicant’s independent claims 1, 21, & 22 recites an intended use. The Examiner is required to address every limitation of the claims in an office action, including limitations recited in a preamble. Therefore, the Examiner’s comment regarding the preamble has been maintained in the rejection.
Applicant argues, “Carlson is an interior panel for an aircraft. The Examiner acknowledges this when she indicated in the Office Action that:
PNG
media_image8.png
124
572
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“The Examiner proceeds to add Guha to solve this shortcoming of Carlson, saying that ‘Guha et al. teach a vehicle component comprising a first cured outer layer of a fiber reinforced resin layer, such as glass fiber-based SMC, with a high gloss sheen. High quality high gloss surfaces are generally required for vehicle surface panels….’
“However, Applicant submits that there is no motivation for a POSITA starting with Carlson to seek out Guha in combination. Carlson is an interior component of an aircraft (which Applicant does not dispute is a vehicle). However, this is no reason for Carlson to seek out a solution to make the exterior surface of Carlson glossy. That exterior surface is buried ina non-visible manner when the panel is installed in the airplane. Thus, Carlson has no reason to particularly care about the appearance of that exterior surface, as it is not visible when in service” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner also previously acknowledged that Carlson et al. teach use of the panel as an interior panel as a preferred intended use. See interview summary mailed 1/26/2026 and non-final rejection mailed 11/06/2025. Although Carlson et al. do not explicitly teach the panel for exterior use, Carlson et al. also do not limit the use of the panel for only preferred intended uses. See paragraphs [0003] – [0004] & [0016] of Carlson et al.
MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Applicant argues, “The Examiner has noted that Carlson expressly does not limit his design to the interior of an airplane. However, Applicant respectfully suggests that a general, vague, nonlimiting statement such as that does not mean that Carlson is suggesting that his design to be used for an exterior of a vehicle. Thus, again, there is no reason for a POSITA in the shoes of Carlson to seek out Guha for a solution for providing a glossy surface for the exterior of Carlson’s interior airplane panel. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Carlson and Guha are not properly combined to make out a prima facie case of obviousness of Claims 1 and 21.
“While acknowledging the Examiner’s reference to MPEP 2123, Applicant respectfully asserts that this reference is not completely on point. Applicant is not asserting that the cited statement in Carlson teaches away from the combination with Guha. Applicant’s assertion is that Carlson demonstrates insufficient motivation to make the combination” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner did not assert that vague, nonlimiting statements made by Carlson should be considered an explicit teaching by the reference that the panel be used specifically as an exterior of a vehicle. Rather, Carlson et al. explicitly teach the intended use of the panel is not limited to the preferred embodiment of an interior panel of a vehicle. See paragraphs [0004] – [0005] & [0016] of Carlson et al. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude, based on the explicit teachings of Carlson et al., that the intended use of the panel taught by Carlson et al. should not be limited to only interior panels of a vehicle.
Furthermore, as discussed in the previous office actions, the motivation to use the panel specifically as an exterior panel of a vehicle is based on the teachings of the cited secondary reference of Guha et al. 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine is based on the teachings of the cited secondary reference. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the motivation to make the combination does not necessarily need to be based on an explicit teaching of a specific intended use in the cited primary reference alone.
Applicant argues, “Applicant has added new Claims 22 and 23. In relevant part, Claim 22 recites detail regarding the adhesive surface area between the walls of the open area core and the high gloss surface sheet. That limitation has support at Paragraph [0036] of the disclosure as filed. Thus, no new matter was included in Claim 22.
“New Claim 23 recites detail regarding the adhesive surface area between the walls of the open area core and the structural skin. That limitation also has support at Paragraph [0036]… Applicant suggests that the subject matter of Claims 22 and 23 is not taught or suggested in the art of record and as such those claims are allowable” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed the rejections above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights