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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 25, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 16, & 19. Claims 13 & 18 are cancelled.
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 – 7, 9 – 12, & 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 106003850 A) (2016), in view of Hudson (U.S. Patent No. 4,249,976 A), Milne et al. (US 11,603,142 B2), Guha et al. (WO 2018/102420 A1, provided with IDS filed 12/10/2021), Bezeault et al. (FR 3002759 A1) (2014), & McLaren et al. (US 2004/0041429 A1).
With regard to claim 1, 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”) (14), 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). The first adhesive layer is a hot melt adhesive layer, and therefore flows into the interior of the honeycomb while in a molten state. The hot melt adhesive inherently contacts a first face of the walls and an interior of the walls of the honeycomb cells during bonding, and thus partially fills the cells (pores). Furthermore, Fig. 1 suggests the hot adhesive film layer is a continuous layer. Therefore, the high gloss surface sheet and the structural skin are adhered to the walls interior of the open area core by the adhesive layers. Furthermore, the surface area of the adhesive film layer in contact with the honeycomb core is inherently greater than the surface area of the honeycomb walls at the face of the honeycomb core.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer each have a surface area for adhesion between the open area core (honeycomb) and the high glass surface sheet and structural skin, respectively, that is at least 5% more than a surface area of the walls at the first face and the second face, respectively. Wang et al. do explicitly teach the dimensions of the adhesive layers or the dimensions of the honeycomb cell walls to calculated Applicant’s claim limitation.
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 layer 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, 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 Wang et al. as a continuous layer (i.e. covering 100% of the surface area at the face of a honeycomb core) in order eliminate the need for pre-fit contact surfaces, and thus, minimize surface irregularities.
Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the hot adhesive film is continuous. However, Fig. 1 of Wang et al. suggests the first and second adhesive layers (13 & 15) are continuously applied to the surface of the honeycomb face (14).
Furthermore, Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the dimensions of cell walls or openings formed by cell walls. Therefore, Wang et al. do not provide a sufficient amount of information to calculate the surface area of the first adhesive layer and second adhesive layer to be at least 5% more than the surface area of the walls at the first face and second face of the honeycomb.
Milne et al. teach a structure body of a vehicle containing an energy-absorbing device comprising reinforcement structure, such as a honeycomb structure comprising channels formed of comb walls. The energy absorption characteristics desired in a particular area, e.g., the number of combs (cells) per unit area, the thickness of the comb walls is dependent upon the desired stiffness, crush characteristics, and materials employed. The thickness of the walls can be 0.5 mm to 10 mm and preferably 1 – 20 combs (cells) per 100 mm2 (Col. 7, Line 66 – Col. 8, Line 18, Fig. 12 modified below).
PNG
media_image2.png
264
214
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example, if one comb (cell) covered an area (length x width) of 100 mm2 (see modified Fig. 12 above showing a square encompassing a hexagonal cell), the cell has a length of 10 mm and a width of 10 mm. When a regular hexagon is inscribed inside a square, the side length of a hexagonal wall is calculated as follows:
= √3/2 x (side length of the square)
Furthermore, if each cell wall of the hexagon has a thickness of 0.5 mm, then the calculated surface area of the cell wall at the face relative to the total area of the square is as follows:
Side length of each hexagonal cell wall = √3/2 x 10 mm
= 8.66 mm
8.66 wall length x 6 walls x 0.5 mm wall thickness = 25.98 mm2
As shown in the calculation above, the surface area of the honeycomb walls at the face of a single cell, wherein the cell wall thickness is 0.5 mm at said face within a 100 mm2 area, is 25.98 mm2.
As discussed above, Wang et al. suggests in Fig. 1 that the adhesive layer(s) (13 & 15) are continuously applied to a face of the honeycomb (14), and therefore a first or second adhesive layer covers 100% of the 100 mm2 area at the honeycomb face. 5% more than the cell wall (at the face) surface area of 25.98 mm2 is calculated as 27.279 mm2, which is significantly less than 100 mm2. In this embodiment, a continuous adhesive layer applied to the face of a honeycomb core would have a surface area significantly greater than “5% more than the surface area at the first face and the second face” of the honeycomb (i.e., “open area core”).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Milne 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 core taught by Wang et al. such that the number of combs (cells) per unit area and the thickness of the honeycomb comb walls of a vehicle panel should be in the range of 0.5 mm to 10 mm thickness and 1 – 20 combs (cells) per 100 mm2 density for achieving an energy absorbing honeycomb core with the desired stiffness and crush characteristics. The honeycomb cell wall and density dimensions taught by Milne et al. would inherently result in a surface area of a honeycomb face (and thus the surface area of a continuous adhesive layer applied to the entire surface area at the face of the honeycomb) that is at least 5% more than the surface area of the cell walls at said face of the honeycomb.
Wang et al. do not teach the composite sandwich is a panel within a vehicle component. Also, Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the first (glass) fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (i.e., “surface sheet’) has a high gloss property.
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] – [0016]). The automotive exterior panel high gloss is obtainable by sanding, priming and paint finishing (paragraphs [0018] & [0033]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Guha et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sand, prime, or paint the outer glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel taught by Wang et al. in order to provide the desirable high quality high gloss finish to an outer surface of a vehicle.
The references cited above fail to teach a set of cutouts formed on an interior surface of said panel, said set of cutouts extending inward through said structural skin.
Bezeault et al. teach a bonnet (automobile hood) has panels comprising a skin (2) and a skin lining (3), wherein the hinge reinforcements (6A, 6B) on the skin liner 3 are inserted into cutouts (Fig. 21E, 24A, 24B). Fastening elements 22A, 22B, 16 associated with the sliding strips 25 which cooperate with the sliding grooves 26 make it possible to lock the assembly of the articulation reinforcements 6A, 6B on the skin lining 3 (pg. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bezeault et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a set of grooves (cutouts) on a surface of an automobile panel, such as a bonnet (hood), extending inward through the skin of said panel for attaching a hinge.
Wang et al. teach an edging 20 wrapped around the entire periphery (edge) of the honeycomb sandwich intermediate plate, formed from the first and second fiber-reinforced panels to fully enclose the honeycomb (i.e., “open area core”) (paragraph [0038] & Fig. 1 above).
However, Wang et al. do not teach whether or not the second fiber-reinforced panel (i.e., “structural skin” terminates against a backside of the first fiber-reinforced panel to encapsulate the open area core and inhibit moisture from entering an interior of the composite sandwich material).
McLaren et al. teach a composite panel comprising one or more gaskets is provided to form a liquid tight seal along the peripheries (edge) of the panel (paragraph [0025] & Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3, the bottom layer (22) (i.e., “structural skin”) terminates against a backside of top layer (20) (i.e., “surface sheet”), shown at labels 28/30, to encapsulate a core to form a liquid tight seal along the peripheries (i.e., “inhibit moisture from entering an interior of the composite sandwich material”).
PNG
media_image4.png
304
216
media_image4.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 form configure the composite taught by Wang et al. such that the second fiber-reinforced panel (i.e., “structural skin”) taught terminates against a backside of the first fiber-reinforced panel (20) modified as a “high gloss surface sheet” to encapsulate the core to form a liquid tight seal along the peripheries (i.e., “inhibit moisture from entering an interior of the composite sandwich material”).
With regard to claim 2, Wang et al. teach the exterior surface of said panel is defined by the first non-woven fabric layer (12) of said composite sandwich panel material and the oppositely opposed interior surface of said panel is defined by the second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“structural skin”) (17) of said composite sandwich material (paragraph [0038] & Fig. 1 above).
With regard to claim 3, Wang et al. fail to teach the vehicle component further comprises any of a locking mechanism or a plurality of hinges.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Bezeault et al. teach at locations defined by said cutouts, where the shape of each cutout corresponds to the surface attachment shape of a hinge.
With regard to claim 4, Wang et al. teach a honeycomb (open area core), which is an array, as shown in Figure 1 above.
With regard to claim 5, Wang et al. teach the honeycomb (open area core) of said composite sandwich material is formed of paper (cellulosics), polyethylene (PE), propylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC) (thermoplastics), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (thermoset), aluminum (metal), or foam (paragraph [0033]).
With regard to claim 6, Wang et al. teach the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel is a compression molded fiber reinforced resin matrix. For example, the panel may be thermoplastic fibers (PP, PE) reinforcing a thermoplastic resin (TPU, PA) (“thermoplastic sheet”).
With regard to claim 7, 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] & [0017], Guha’s claim 1).
With regard to claim 9, Wang et al. teach the thickness of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”) is 0.2 mm – 3 mm (paragraph [0035]), 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 10, as discussed above for claim 9, Wang et al. teach the thickness of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (“surface sheet”) is 0.2 mm – 3 mm (paragraphs [0035] & [0038]). Additionally, Wang et al. teach honeycomb core (“open area core”) has a thickness of 3 – 30 mm (paragraphs [0016] & [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.
With regard to claim 11, Wang et al. also teach the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel and the foam honeycomb core are bonded by a non-woven layer (“intermediate cloth”) for increasing the bonding area of the two (paragraph [0025]).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 1, Wang et al. teach the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel is joined to the foam core using a hot melt adhesive. Therefore, the cloth is embedded into the adhesive. Wang et al. teach the thickness of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel is 0.2 mm – 3 mm (paragraph [0035]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of less than 1.5.
Wang et al. teach the upper layer (“high gloss surface sheet”) is fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel, not SMC.
However, as discussed above, Guha et al. teach high gloss SMC (chopped glass fiber reinforced thermoset polyester) is also desirable as an outer layer for a vehicle component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the high gloss glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel of Wang et al. with the high gloss glass-fiber reinforce polyester thermoset layer taught by Guha et al.
With regard to claim 14, as discussed above for claim 1, Wang et al. teach a second fiber reinforced layer (“a fiber mat”).
With regard to claim 15, as discussed above for claim 1, Wang et al. the first adhesive layer of said composite sandwich material and the second adhesive layer of said composite sandwich material are hot-melt adhesives. For example, the hot-melt adhesive may be a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (paragraph [0034]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezeault et al., & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nichtnennung (DE 10 2007 039126 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Wang et al. do not teach the upper fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (i.e., “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 prior to the effective filing date 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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezeault et al., & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,070,994 B2).
With regard to claim 16, Wang et al. teach the cells (“pores”) of the honeycomb core (“open area core”) can be filled with a foam material (paragraphs [0023], [0033] & [0042]).
Wang et al. do not specify whether the cells of the honeycomb core are filled with a foam material such that the cells are fully filled or partially filled.
Carlson et al. teach a panel structure comprising a honeycomb core structure formed of a plurality of cells, wherein the cells are at least partially filled with activated material, such as foam. The amount of the volume filled may depend upon considerations such as desired strength and desired sound absorption (Col. 8, Lines 1 0 Col. 9, Line 2, & Fig. 5).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Carlson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to fill a portion of the cells of the honeycomb core with an activated material, such as expandable foam, wherein the volume of the cells filled with the activated material depends on the desired strength and sound absorption of the panel.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezeault et al., & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huaping et al. (CN 208827695 U) (May 2019)**.
**Provided by Applicant with IDS filed 6/05/2023.
With regard to claim 17, Wang et al. fail to teach a decorative layer is attached said second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel (i.e., “structural skin”).
Huaping et al. teach vehicle side wall plate comprising high gloss upper surface layer, a honeycomb core comprising open area pores (cells), and a PET hot-rolled non-woven fabric as a lower surface layer (paragraphs [0007] & [0019], Figure 1). The inner surface of the lower surface layer (“structural skin”) can be decorated, such as covered in leather (“decorative layer”) (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Huaping et al., it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to apply a decorative layer, such as leather, to the inner surface of the second fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel taught by Wang et al. for providing the desired aesthetic appeal when used as a vehicle side wall plate.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezeault et al., & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gandini (US 2007/0243358 A1).
With regard to claim 19, McLaren et al. teach one or more gaskets or seals (not shown in Figures) may be used to assistant in sealing may be used to assist in sealing the perimeter portion 28,30 relative to each other thereby substantially forming a continuous or non-continuous seal about the periphery of the panel to form a liquid tight seal (paragraph [0025]). However, McLaren et al. do not explicitly teach the gasket is disposed between the outer and inner sheets/skins at an edge formed where the inner and outer sheets/skins are joined.
Gandini teaches an insulating vacuum panel comprising sealing peripheral structure (14, 17, 18) and gasket 19 with hermetically sealing properties along edges of a cellular body (13) such that the sealing peripheral structure comprising a gasket is disposed between the outer and inner sheet at an edge formed where the inner and outer sheets are joined (paragraph [0018] & Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
620
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gandini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to dispose a gasket between the outer and inner sheets/skins at an edge formed where the inner and outer sheets/skins are joined to form a hermetical seal at the edges of the inner and outer layers of the panel.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezeault et al., & McLaren et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buisson (WO 2005/075188 A1).
With regard to claim 20, as discussed for claim 6, the high gloss sheet may be composed of SMC. Furthermore, as discussed for claim 9, the high gloss surface sheet has a thickness of 0.5 – 3 mm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1.5 to 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).
Durham et al. (‘384) fail to teach the pore diameter.
With regard to claim 20, as discussed above for claim 1, Wang et al. teach the thickness of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel is 0.2 mm – 3 mm (paragraph [0035]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1.5 to 5 mm.
Wang et al. teach the upper layer (i.e., “high gloss surface sheet”) is fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel, not SMC.
However, as discussed above, Guha et al. teach high gloss SMC (chopped glass fiber reinforced thermoset polyester) is also desirable as an outer layer for a vehicle component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the high gloss glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel of Wang et al. with the high gloss glass-fiber reinforce polyester thermoset layer taught by Guha et al.
Wang et al. do not teach the cell (pore) diameter of the honeycomb (open area core) structure.
Buisson teaches a self-supporting car body part comprising a honeycomb-like core layer. The honeycomb cells may be composed of foam, aluminum, cardboard or plastic (pg. 4, Lines 1 – 16). The preferred diameter of each cell in the honeycomb is 5 – 25 mm, which yields a compression resistance in the range of 100 KPa to 1000 KPa (pg. 4, Lines 23 – 25).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Buisson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the honeycomb core with cells having a diameter in the range of 5 – 25 mm, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 6 to 25 mm, for providing the desired compression resistance for a car body part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. By way of this amendment, claim 1 has been amended to remove the language that the Office Action asserted was not supported in this specification” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. By way of this amendment, claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the first adhesive layer contacts the first face of the walls and the walls interior of the open area core to partially fill the pores of the open area core and the second adhesive layer contracts the second face of the walls and the walls interior of the open area core to partially fill the pores of the open area core” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the rejection of claims 1 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Applicant additionally respectfully submits that the teachings of the primary reference Wang et al. are incompatible for the needed modifications to arrive at the presently claimed invention. That is, Wang et al. requires that the honeycomb 14 be filled with a foam before application of the hot melt adhesive (13, 15), non-woven fabric layer (12, 16), and the fiber reinforced thermoplastic panel (11, 17). Given that the pores of the honeycomb 14 are already filled with foam, there is no way for the adhesive to adhere to the walls interior to or partially fill the open area core as recited in amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 9 – 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Wang et al. do not specify that the cells be completely filled with foam. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the “foam filled” to mean that the cells may be partially filled or completely filled. This is evidenced by the teachings of Carlson et al., cited for the rejection of claim 16.
Second, foam material inherently contains a plurality of pores. Therefore, a honeycomb core comprising cells completely filled with foam material easily allows hot melt adhesive to enter the pores of the foam material – both along the walls of the cells and in the center of the cells. This inherently results in Applicant’s claimed adhesive layer “partially fills the pores of the open areas.”
Applicant argues, “Applicant understands that the Wang et al. reference does not explicitly state that the pores of the honeycomb are entirely filled, but so too the reference states that’s the pores are only partially filled. Thus, it appears that a common understanding of the term ‘fill’ would be applied by one having ordinary of the term ‘fill’ would be applied by one having an ordinary skill in the art to understand that the term ‘fill’ means ‘to put into as much as can be held or conveniently contained,’ as the attached definition demonstrates. Notably, a driver asking for a gas tank to be filled would expect the tank to be entirely filled with gas, not partially filled, and a construction crew tasked with filling a pothole in a road would be expected to entirely fill the pothole to the level of the roadway. This ordinary understanding of the term ‘filled’ is confirmed when the Wang et al. reference is read as a whole and the entire disclosure of the reference is considered. Specifically, the background of Wang et al. in paragraph [0005] states ‘because the bonding area between the skin and the honeycomb core is very small it is difficult to ensure the necessary bonding between the skin and the honeycomb core, and debonding and delamination are prone to occur, which directly affects the performance and service life of the product.’ Accordingly, a PHOTIA reading the Wang et al. reference as a whole would understand that a goal of Wang et al. is to increase the bonding area between the skin and the honeycomb core to reduce debonding and delamination, as such the PHOSITA would understand the step S1 (paragraph [0011]) instruction to ‘fill the pores of the honeycomb core with foam to form a foam honeycomb core’ to mean entire fill the pores. The PHOSITA would understand that pores full of foam would not be able to receive adhesive to adhere to the walls interior to or partially fill the open area core as recited in amended claim 1” (Remarks, Pgs. 10 – 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts the increased bonding area between the honeycomb core and the thermoplastic panels is the directly result of assuming the foam is filled to the brim of the cells. However, Wang et al. teach the following (emphasis provided by the examiner):
[0039] In the present invention, foam is first filled in the honeycomb core to form a foam honeycomb core, and the mechanical properties such as toughness and impact resistance of the honeycomb core are strengthened; The second hot melt adhesive film layer and the second non-woven fabric layer are placed in the first mold for thermocompression bonding to form an intermediate core, and then the intermediate core, and then the intermediate is placed between the two fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panels and passed through the second mold It is hot-pressed and bonded, and then injection-molded; there is a non-woven layer between the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic panel and the foam honeycomb core.
Due to the good toughness of the non-woven fabric itself, the mechanical properties of the entire structure are enhanced; and fiber reinforced The thermoplastic panel and the foam honeycomb core are bonded by a non-woven layer, which increases the bonding area of the two, and the injection molding edging strengthens the stability of the structure. The second molding is hot-pressed by means of rapid heating and rapid cooling, after the hot pressing is stabilized, it is rapidly cooled, so that the gluing stability is higher, thereby making the structural part less prone to degumming and delamination, and improving its service life.
One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the purpose of the foam for improve the toughness and impact resistance and the improved bonding area to be the result of the non-woven fabric and in the injection molding process with hot melt adhesive. This contradicts Applicant’s incorrect assumption that Wang et al. teach the foam must be fill the cells to the brim for improved bonding area. As previously discussed, Wang et al. do not explicitly teach the foam completely fills the cells or that the foam is directly involved in the improved delamination.
Applicant also assumes that the adhesive cannot bond to the foam inside the cells if the cells are only partially filled with adhesive. If we assume the foam inside the cells bond directly to the adhesive layer as asserted by Applicant, this does not preclude partial filling of the of the cells with foam. However, the adhesive is a hot melt (i.e., molten liquid) when during the lamination and bonding process. As such, the foam does not need to completely fill the cells for the liquid adhesive to bond. Therefore, when considering the reference of Wang et al. in its entirety, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily assume the foam entirely fills the cells.
Second, according to MPEP 2141.03.III. states the following:
The examiner must ascertain what would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art, and not to the inventor, a judge, a layman, those skilled in remote arts, or to geniuses in the art at hand. Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1043 (1984).
Therefore, to ascertain the level of ordinary skill in the art of what it means to be “foam filled” pore or cell in the art of honeycomb panels, the best source of consideration is not that of a common dictionary or a person filling their gas tank. If a reference fails to explicitly define a term, the examiner should interpret the term based on the interpretation by a person of ordinary skill in the art before considering an interpretation provided by a common dictionary.
Compared to a common dictionary, an analogous art reference is a better source for understanding how a specific term of art would be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in said art. As demonstrated by the analogous art reference of Carlson et al. discussed above for claim 16, a person of ordinary skill in the art of honeycomb core panels comprising foam filling material would not make the incorrect assumption a common person would make by assuming the term “filled” could only mean that the cells of a honeycomb core of a panel must be completely full to the brim with said foam material.
Applicant argues, “Even if one were to claim that ‘filling’ might have a gap near the top of the pores, gravity would place the filling material all the way to the bottom of the pore of the honeycomb, so at least one side of the honeycomb of Wang et al. is filled to the edge of the walls of the honeycomb. As such, there is not room for at least one of the adhesive layers to contact the first face of the walls and the walls interior of the open area core to partially fill the pores of the open are core such that the adhesive layer has a surface area for adhesion between the honeycomb and attached layer that is at least 5% more than a surface area of the walls of the honeycomb at the face of the honeycomb. Given that the foam fills the pores, there is not room for the adhesive to also partially fills the pores” (Remarks, 11).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant’s specification teaches, “the pores 24 of the open area core 12 are at least partially filled with a fill 49. The fill illustratively including foam pellets, fire retardant, or a phase change material. Phase change materials operative herein include waxes or an inorganic salt hydrates” (spec, paragraph [0032]). The force of gravity would apply to the fill materials of Applicant’s claim 16. Applicant has not explained why they assume partial filling of the pores with adhesive of claim 1 is inherently possible when combined with the presence of partially filled pores with fill material of claim 16, while also asserting the prior art that teaches using the same type of materials (foam) and bonding via the same use of hot melt adhesive pressed to the core via compression bonding would not inherently result in at least partial filling of pores (cells) with hot melt adhesive.
Second, foam as taught by Wang et al. inherently contains pores, which one of ordinary skill in the art would expect would fill with hot-melt adhesive during the bonding process. This would allow for the “partially fill the pores of the open area core,” as recited in Applicant’s claim 1, even if the entire cell were to be filled with foam. Applicant’s specification suggests this is how Applicant’s “partially filling of the pores” occurs when the pores of the open area core are partially filled with dampening foam, a fire retardant, or phase change material.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 12, 14 – 16, and 19 also encompass patentable subject matter distinct from dependency from independent claim 1, now believed to be allowable form” (Remarks, Pg. 11).
Applicant argues, “Nichtennung is cited in the pending office Action to cure the deficiencies of Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al. However, Nichtnennung fails to address the deficiencies as outlines above with respect to Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al.” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
Applicant argues, “Huaping et al. is cited in the pending office Action to cure the deficiencies of Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al. However, Hupaing et al. fails to address the deficiencies as outlines above with respect to Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al.” (Remarks, Pg. 13).
Applicant argues, “Buisson is cited in the pending office Action to cure the deficiencies of Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al. However, Buisson fails to address the deficiencies as outlines above with respect to Wang et al., Hudson, Milne et al., Guha et al., Bezault et al., and McLaren et al.” (Remarks, Pg. 14).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
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