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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 02/20/2026 , with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither WO’989 nor Deseure discloses or suggests this combination of features, there is no disclosure of a die configured to leave a vacant cavity, no curable composition comprising a blowing agent, and no resulting foam composition.
Examiner maintains the rejection that WO’989 didn’t specifically teach a cavity, however it’s known for a person of ordinary skilled in the art that for injection molding – there has to be space for the material and Deseure discloses that the overmolding comprises injecting a curable composition comprising a blowing agent into a vacant cavity defined between at least a portion of the panel/substrate and the injection molding die and curing the curable composition to form the foam composition, (Figures 3-4, [0033], [0034], [0038] substrate-1, curable composition polyurethane with a blowing agent-4 is injected into a closed mold-11/12). Therefore, the argument is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13, 15,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018034949, WO’949 hereinafter translation provided, listed in IDS in view of Deseure US 20120064320 .
Regarding claim 1, WO’949 discloses a method of making an article, the method comprising: preheating at least a portion of a panel to a softening temperature of a first layer of the panel prior to placing the preheated portion of the panel within an injection molding die ([0116], WO’949 disclose that the panels are made of certain polymer therefore when preheated it would have a definite processing/softening temperature before its inserted into the molding die), wherein the panel comprises first and second layers each having first and second opposed major surfaces and a core disposed therebetween ([004]), the second layer being free of any openings between the first and second major surfaces of the second layer ([0004]), wherein the core has a plurality of walls extending from the second surface of the first layer to the first surface of the second layer providing a series of connected cells ([0004]), wherein some of the cell walls have openings providing fluid communication between a series of at least 3 cells, wherein each cell wall has a plurality of sides ([0004]), wherein each side of a cell wall has an area, and wherein an opening in a cell wall has an area that is at least 50 percent of the area of a side of that cell wall ([0004]), and wherein the first layer has at least a first opening extending between the first and second major surfaces of the first layer into at least one cell in the series ([0004]); placing the preheated portion of the panel in the injection molding die ([0125]); closing the injection molding die, thereby forming a material-to-material connection between die to alter shape of the panel, preheated portion of the, panel ([0116], [0128], Figure 28B shwoing the final product, wherein the injection molding die comprises into at least two sections and is configured to leave a vacant cavity defined between the preheated portion of the panel and one section of the injection molding die when closed (the prior art didn’t specifically teach a cavity, however it’s known for a person of ordinary skilled in the art that for injection molding – there has to be space/cavity for the material),
WO’ 949 discloses polypropylene thermoformed panels ([0121],[0127]) but didn’t explicitly disclose wherein the molded structure comprises injecting a curable composition comprising a blowing agent into a vacant cavity injecting a curable composition. In the same field of endeavor related to overmolding foam composition, Deseure discloses that the overmolding comprises injecting a curable composition comprising a blowing agent into a vacant cavity defined between at least a portion of the panel/substrate and the injection molding die and curing the curable composition (Figures 3-4, [0033], [0034], [0038] substrate-1, curable composition polyurethane with a blowing agent-4 is injected into a closed mold-11/12), thereby forming a material- to-material connection between at least one major surface of the preheated portion of the panel (Figure 28B showing in the final product the structure is intact).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to application invention combine the teaching of the panels in WO’949 with that of semi rigid foam composition taught by Deseure for the purpose of improving the acoustic properties of the panel body.
Regarding claim 2 Deseure discloses the molded structure comprises a polyurethane foam [0038]).
9. Regarding claim 4 WO’989 discloses wherein the panel is supported in the injection molding die on at least a portion of the first layer ([0125], a portion of a panel is placed therefore a part is supported in the injection molding die).
10. Regarding claim 5, WO’989 discloses wherein the panel is unsupported in the injection molding die on each of the first layer and the second layer ([0125], a portion of a panel is placed therefore a part is unsupported in the injection molding die).
11. Regarding Claim 6, WO’989 discloses the molded structure is applied to at least one major surface of the panel ([0125]).
12. Regarding claim 7 WO’989 discloses the entire panel is inserted into the injection molding die ([0127]).
13. Regarding Claim 8, WO’989 discloses wherein the panel comprises a shape, and the method further comprises altering the shape of the panel in the injection molding die ([0128]).
14. Regarding claim 9 WO’989 discloses at least one cell is consolidated and folded over to form a reinforcement bead ([0128]).
15. Regarding claim 10, WO’989 discloses wherein the injection molding die is configured to reduce a thickness of at least a portion of the panel by 5% to 95% ([0126]) or to increase a thickness of at least a portion of the panel by 30% more ([0126], within the claimed range limitation).
16. Regarding Claim 11, WO 989 discloses comprising at least partially shaping the panel using thermoforming or compression molding prior to placing at least a portion of the panel within the injection molding die ([0125]).
17. Regarding Claim 13, WO 989 discloses the first layer of the panel comprises at least one opening between the first and second major surfaces of the first layer ([0063]), and wherein the method further comprises plugging the at least one opening prior to overmolding the at least one molded structure on a surface of the panel in the injection molding die (Figure 1, holes 190 are plugged in the extending between the first and second major surfaces 111, 112 of first layer 110 of panel-100 ).
Regarding Claim 15, WO’989/Deseure disclose all the method of forming the article, hence the claim limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 17, WO’989/Deseure disclose curable composition is injected with a sufficiently low force/ pressure to maintain the structure of the panel ([0011], Injecting a curable composition with a low force to preserve panel structure is common. And this approach is used in low-pressure injection molding, Deseure).
Regarding Claim 18, WO’989 discloses wherein the panel comprises polypropylene and is preheated to about 150°C to 165°C ([0121]).
Regarding claim 19, WO’989/Deseure disclose all the method of forming the article as discussed in Claim1. However didn’t specifically disclose wherein the article exhibits an airflow resistance of 4,000 to 70,000 Pa-s/m2. This is an inherent property of the article; therefore mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249.
Regarding Claim 20 WO’989 discloses article formed according to the method of claim 1 (as discussed in Claim 1 and 15).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018034949, WO’949 hereinafter translation provided, listed in IDS in view of of Deseure US 20120064320 as applied in claim 1 further in view of Lewit US 5897818 .
Regarding Claim 14 WO’989 discloses method of making an article, the method comprising: placing at least a portion of a panel in an injection molding die; and overmolding at least one molded structure on a surface of the panel in the injection molding die ([00125]). WO’989 didn’t disclose that a molded structure is disposed between the panel and the substrate. In the same field related to composite structures, Lewit discloses comprising disposing a substrate facing into the injection molding die and a distance from the panel and attaching the substrate to the molded structure when the foam composition forms, wherein the molded structure is disposed between the panel and the substrate (Figure 2, col 6 line 49-55, substrate-13, panel/fabric layer-15 with foam composition, annotated below).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to applicant’s invention to combine the teaching of the panel taught by WO’949 with that of substrate on the outer layer of the panel as taught by Lewit for the purpose of enhancing the structural properties of the product (col 5, line 65-67).
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights