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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on January 7th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on October 28th, 2025.
Rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed January 7th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants argues concerning the prior art rejections in view of the amendments filed January 7th, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues method step C) defines forming a liquid film layer on the tool cavity to keep the granulate in a totally liquid state and on the contrary, Kutluoglu teaches forming the layers in the presence of the first and second mold parts as shown in Fig. 4 and paragraph [0018]. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The tool cavity of Kutluoglu corresponds to a mold cavity and the face portions of the mold parts correspond to the portions with the cavity as per specification paragraph [0090]. Furthermore, as per specification paragraph [0014] of the instant spec the liquid film layer is formed of molten granulate. The molten plastic particulate material of Kutluoglu forms a molten (liquid) film layer as the molten plastic particulate material forms a molded skin of a desired thickness ([0407]). As such, Kutluoglu discloses formation of a liquid film layer. Kutluoglu further discloses in specification paragraphs [0403-0408] that the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the process steps and therefore the granulate would be kept in a molten state by the actively heated mold parts.
Applicant argues that in step D) the liquid film layer is applied or transferred onto the surface of the foamed plastic molded body and is maintained in a totally liquid state, which is not disclosed by Kutluogou. Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Applied” and “transferred” do not have the same claim scope as the term “applied” is much broader than “transferred”. As the claim is currently recited, Kutluoglu discloses in specification paragraphs [0406, 0408] that the molten plastic particular material contacts the heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material and then the bringing together of the heated mold parts and the heat cause the two materials to join and form a composite sandwich. Furthermore, it is noted in [0006] of the instant specification that the applicant is trying to improve upon the disadvantage of the plastic films having to be applied to the foamed plastic molded bodies in a separate working step. This contradicts the allegation the liquid film layer is “transferred” onto the surface of the foamed plastic molded body in step D). The instant specification does not provide support for “transferring” the liquid film layer. Kutluoglu further discloses in specification paragraphs [0403-0408] that the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the process steps and therefore the granulate would be kept in a molten state by the actively heated mold parts.
Applicant argues that contrary to Kutluogou, claim 16 recites forming a liquid film layer on the tool cavity without foamed plastic body. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kutluogou discloses applying a granulate ([0405]; plastic particulate material) to the at least one tool cavity during the heating ([0404-0405]; applying plastic particulate material while the mold parts are actively heated) without the foamed plastic molded body ([0403-0405]; applies the plastic particulate material to the first and second mold parts before the heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material).
Applicant argues Kutluoglu does not disclose formation of a liquid film layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kutluoglu heats the first and second mold halves to an elevated temperature, such that the mold halves are at a temperature to make the plastic particulate material molten ([0403]) and then applies the plastic particulate material to the first and second mold halves ([0405]). The molten plastic particulate material forms a molten (liquid) film layer as the molten plastic particulate material forms a molded skin of a desired thickness ([0407]). As such, Kutluoglu discloses formation of a liquid film layer.
Applicant argues Dodd fails to disclose liquid film layer forming on a tool and applying/transferring it to the molded body. In particular, Applicant argues Dodd teaches the spraying is not applied to a tool cavity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejection of claim 22 is based on a combination of Kutluoglu and Dodd. Kutluoglu discloses heating the at least one tool cavity of the tool mold to a temperature (Fig. 1; [0403]; heating first and second mold parts to an elevated temperature, said mold parts are mold halves with molding cavities); applying a granulate to the at least one tool cavity during the heating ([0404-0405]; applying plastic particulate material while the mold parts are actively heated) without the foamed plastic molded body ([0403-0405]; applies the plastic particulate material to the first and second mold halves before the heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material); fusing the granulate in the at least one tool cavity to form a liquid film layer ([0407]; plastic particulate material is melted to form skin) and applying the liquid film layer to the foamed plastic molded body to form the film layer coating on the surface of the foamed plastic molded body by fusing the liquid film layer on the surface of the foamed plastic molded body ([0406-0408]; melted plastic particular material forming skin contacts a surface of expandable foam plastic filler forming core). Dodd teaches a method of forming a foam molded product with a film coating (Fig. 2; Pg. 26, 3rd ¶, Pg. 29, 2nd ¶; making a foam molded article with a coating) comprising applying the film coating to a mold cavity (Fig. 2, Pg. 47, 3rd ¶; mold half with interior surface, i.e. mold cavity) by spraying coating particles (4th ¶ of page 25 and 1st ¶ of page 26; coating material may be in the form of particles) with a spray pistol (Fig. 2; Pg. 47, 3rd ¶; flame spray gun 26 applies coating material to interior surface of mold half). As such, the combination of Kutluoglu and Dodd teaches the cumulative limitations of claim 22.
Applicant argues the instant invention enables the method step D) the molten film layer can be applied in the totally liquid state to the surface of the foamed plastic molded body in order to form a closed coating layer on the surface of the plastic molded body, wherein the liquid layer directly fuses with the material of the foamed plastic and only afterwards cooling down. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kutluoglu discloses in specification paragraphs [0403-0408] that the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the process steps and therefore the granulate would be kept in a molten state by the actively heated mold parts.
Applicant argues the aforementioned method according to the invention has the advantage that no burrs or voids occur on the manufactured plastic molded body specially on the coating layer. Applicant further argues that by the provision according to the current invention that the film layer is kept during the entire method steps B) through D) in the liquid form an improved adhesion between the film layer coating and the plastic molded body can be achieved. Examiner respectfully disagrees. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." See MPEP 2145 (II). As Kutluoglu discloses the cumulative limitations of claim 16, it is expected that these advantages would be present in the prior art.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to keep the molten granulate during specifically the method steps B) to D) in a completely molten state, namely by controlling the cavity in such a way that the temperature is substantially at least above the melting temperature of the applied granulate and maintaining the layer in a liquid state as recited by the present invention. Applicant further argues in contrast the cited references at best teach a partially molten granulate is applied to the foamed plastic molded body, wherein only an unstable adhesion between the film plastic layer and the foamed plastic molded body can be achieved. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., keep the granulate in a completely molten state) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 (VI). Furthermore, Kutluoglu heats the first and second mold halves to an elevated temperature, such that the mold halves are at a temperature to make the plastic particulate material molten ([0403]) and then applies the plastic particulate material to the first and second mold halves ([0405]). Kutluoglu further discloses in specification paragraphs [0403-0408] that the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the process steps and therefore the granulate would be kept in a molten state by the actively heated mold parts. As such, Kutluoglu discloses the limitations as required by claim 16.
Applicant argues that without improper hindsight reconstruction, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to perform the proposed modification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Appellant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145 (X). The cited prior art references address all of the limitations of the claims and provide a rational and factual motivation for their hypothetical combination.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
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.
Claim 16-30 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…and to keep the granulate in a totally liquid state in method steps C) and D)” in the last two lines. The specification fails to provide written description support for this limitation. "While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure." See MPEP 2163 (1B). There is no recitation in the specification or suggestion from the figures that the granulate is kept in a totally liquid state in the method steps C) and D).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the cooling in method step E) enclosing of the at least one tool cavity is performed” in lines 7 and 8. Previously the claim recited the tool mold is closed in step D) and step E) is performed with the at least one tool cavity in a closed molding condition. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed this limitation refers to the cooling in method step E) of the at least one tool cavity is performed in a closed molding condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu).
Regarding claim 16, Kutluoglu discloses a method for manufacturing a foamed plastic molded body with a film layer coating (Fig. 1; [0084]; manufacturing composite article comprising heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material core and plastic particulate material skin) by using a tool mold with at least one tool cavity to form a shaping mold cavity (Fig. 1; [0084]; upper and lower mold parts with cavities), comprising the following method steps:
- A) heating the at least one tool cavity of the tool mold to a temperature (Fig. 1; [0403]; heating first and second mold parts to an elevated temperature, said mold parts are mold halves with molding cavities);
- B) applying a granulate ([0405]; plastic particulate material) to the at least one tool cavity during the heating ([0404-0405]; applying plastic particulate material while the mold parts are actively heated) without the foamed plastic molded body ([0403-0405]; applies the plastic particulate material to the first and second mold parts before the heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material);
- C) fusing the granulate in the at least one tool cavity to form a liquid film layer ([0403-0407]; the plastic particulate material is applied to the first and second mold parts heated to the elevated temperature that makes the plastic particulate material molten, wherein the plastic particulate material is melted to form skin);
- D) applying the liquid film layer to the foamed plastic molded body to form the film layer coating on the surface of the foamed plastic molded body by fusing the liquid film layer on the surface of the foamed plastic molded body ([0406-0408]; melted plastic particular material forming skin contacts a surface of expandable foam plastic filler forming core);
- E) cooling the at least one tool cavity and ejecting the foamed plastic molded body coated with the film layer coating ([0410-0411]; cooling mold parts and removing complete article from the mold parts), wherein while performing the method, a temperature of the at least one tool cavity is guided or controlled, respectively ([0107]; the temperature of the mold parts is computer-controlled throughout the manufacturing process), in such a way that the temperature is substantially at least above a melting temperature of the granulate during an entire period of perform in at least method steps B) to D) ([0403-0408, 0431]; the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the steps of opening the mold parts, applying the plastic particulate material, melting the plastic particulate material and applying expandable foam plastic filler and bringing the actively heated mold parts together to close the mold cavity and thereby fuse the plastic particulate material and expandable foam plastic filler) and to keep the granulate in a totally liquid state in method steps C) and D) ([0403-0408]; the mold parts are actively heated to the elevated temperature capable of melting the plastic particulate material throughout the steps and therefore the granulate would be kept in a molten state by the actively heated mold parts).
Regarding claim 18, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein in an area of the at least one tool cavity first method steps A) to C) are performed, then the tool mold is closed ([0402]; moving the mold parts into a brought-together configuration) and a mold cavity of the tool mold is filled with a first expandable plastic granulate or with foam pearls, respectively ([0406]; applying heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material), and then the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, are expanded in the mold cavity ([0406-0408]; the heat from the heated mold parts will activate the heat-activated expandable foam plastic filler material, causing it to expand), wherein method step D) is performed by the fact that the foamed plastic molded body or the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, is expanded against the liquid film layer formed on the at least one tool cavity and fuses therewith ([0406-0408]; expandable foam plastic filler contacts melted plastic particular material forming skin and expands against the skin to form composite sandwich).
Regarding claim 19, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein the granulate is applied in method step B) beyond a region of the at least one tool cavity to the multi-part tool mold (Fig. 4; [0098]; the mold parts may be slight open at their edges that enables excess material to ooze out and form a bead), and that at least one part of the multi-part tool mold comprises a sealing ring (Fig. 4; [0098]; the mold parts may be slight open at their edges forming a sealing ring that enables excess material to ooze out and form a bead) which, when closing the tool mold, throws up the granulate outside the region of the at least one first and/or second tool cavity to a bead in an edge area of the at one first and/or second tool cavity (Fig. 4; [0098]; the mold parts may be slight open at their edges forming a sealing ring that enables excess material to ooze out and form a bead).
Regarding claim 23, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein the at least one tool cavity to be heated is heated in method step A) by introducing a heating medium through corresponding heating channels in the at least one tool cavity ([0054]; heating mold parts by flowing temperature-controlled oil through channels in the mold).
Regarding claim 25, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein in method step B) the granulate is a powdery thermoplastic plastic granulate ([0079]; plastic particulate material can be polystyrene, polyethylene, etc.), and the powder thermoplastic granulate is applied to the at least one tool cavity ([0079, 0404-0405]; applying plastic particulate material while the mold parts are actively heated).
Regarding claim 26, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein the at least one tool cavity to be heated is heated in method step A) by an external heating source ([0109]; mold parts can be heated by microwave) which is arranged to be spaced apart from the at least one tool cavity, where the external heating source is a radiant heater ([0109]; mold parts can be heated by microwave).
Regarding claim 29, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein in method step E) the at least one tool cavity to be cooled is cooled conductively ([0090]; mold parts can be cooled by flowing temperature-controlled oil through channels in the mold parts).
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.
Claims 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu).
Regarding claim 24, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein in method step A) the at least one tool cavity to be heated is heated to at least a temperature above the melting temperature of the granulate in the range of 80°C to 260°C ([0403]; heating mold parts to melt plastic particulate material, heating to temperature from about 100°C to about 400°C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 28, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein in method step B) the granulate is applied to the tool cavity with a layer thickness in the range of 0.05 mm to 2 mm ([0089]; plastic particulate material forming the skin having a desired thickness of about 0.001 cm to about 3.0 cm; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu) as applied to claim 17, in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2016107499 A; hereafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 17, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein method steps A) to E) are performed for at least one second opposite tool cavity, wherein applying the liquid film layer by fusing the liquid film layer with the surface of the foamed plastic molded body is performed according to method step D) by closing the tool mold again and the cooling in method step E) of the at least one tool cavity is performed in a closed molding condition (Fig. 1-2; [0399-0410]; upper skin is melted and molded in upper mold and then applied to core by closing the mold parts and fused by expansion, and cooling thereafter).
Kutluoglu does not disclose the foamed plastic molded body is produced in the tool mold by an expansion method before performing method steps A) to E) and then the tool mold is opened.
However, Sasaki teaches a method for manufacturing a foamed plastic molded body with a film layer coating ([0001]; producing a foamed molded article with a skin material) by forming and heat fusing a skin formed from thermoplastic resin powder to a previously molded thermoplastic resin foam molded product ([0012]).
Kutluoglu and Sasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kutluoglu with the teachings of Sasaki to provide the foamed plastic molded body is produced in the tool mold by an expansion method before performing method steps A) to E) and then the tool mold is opened. Doing so would avoid the molding pressure resulting from the expansion of the expandable plastic granules damaging the surface of the film layer coating (Sasaki [0010]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu) as applied to claim 18, in view of Cretti (US 4756859 A).
Regarding claim 20, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 18.
Kutluoglu does not disclose in the method step of the expansion of the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, the expansion process is terminated after a defined period of time and the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, which are not yet melted or expanded are removed from the mold cavity.
However, Cretti teaches a method of forming a layered foam molded product by expanding thermoplastic foam beads (Col. 1, Ln. 39-56), wherein the expansion process comprises plural steps of expansion in which the expansion is stopped and unexpanded thermoplastic foam beads are removed (Claim 1; Col. 5, Ln. 66 to Col. 6, Ln. 37; polystyrene beads are partially expanded, unexpanded beads withdrawn and new beads are filled in).
Kutluoglu and Cretti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kutluoglu with the teachings of Cretti to provide in the method step of the expansion of the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, the expansion process is terminated after a defined period of time and the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, which are not yet melted or expanded are removed from the mold cavity. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of composite foam articles with high-strength zones with improved mechanical and aesthetic characteristics (Cretti Col. 1, Ln. 67 to Col. 2, Ln. 19).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 20.
Modified Kutluoglu does not disclose after removing non-expanded proportions of the first expandable plastic granulate or of the foam pearls, respectively, the mold cavity is filled with a second expandable plastic granulate or with the foam pearls, respectively, which are then expanded to form the foamed plastic molded body.
However, Cretti further teaches a method of forming a layered foam molded product by expanding thermoplastic foam beads (Col. 1, Ln. 39-56), wherein the expansion process comprises plural steps of expansion in which the expansion is stopped and unexpanded thermoplastic foam beads are removed and new thermoplastic foam beads are added (Claim 1; Col. 5, Ln. 66 to Col. 6, Ln. 37; polystyrene beads are partially expanded, unexpanded beads withdrawn and new beads are filled in).
Kutluoglu and Cretti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Kutluoglu with the teachings of Cretti to provide after removing non-expanded proportions of the first expandable plastic granulate or of the foam pearls, respectively, the mold cavity is filled with a second expandable plastic granulate or with the foam pearls, respectively, which are then expanded to form the foamed plastic molded body. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of composite foam articles with high-strength zones with improved mechanical and aesthetic characteristics (Cretti Col. 1, Ln. 67 to Col. 2, Ln. 19).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu) as applied to claim 16, in view of Dodd et al. (GB 2300588 A; hereafter Dodd).
Regarding claim 22, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16.
Kutluoglu does not disclose the granulate is applied in method step B) by means of a spray pistol to the at least one heated tool cavity.
However, Dodd teaches a method of forming a foam molded product with a film coating (Fig. 2; Pg. 26, 3rd ¶, Pg. 29, 2nd ¶; making a foam molded article with a coating) comprising applying the film coating to a mold cavity (Fig. 2, Pg. 47, 3rd ¶; mold half with interior surface, i.e. mold cavity) by spraying coating particles (4th ¶ of page 25 and 1st ¶ of page 26; coating material may be in the form of particles) with a spray pistol (Fig. 2; Pg. 47, 3rd ¶; flame spray gun 26 applies coating material to interior surface of mold half).
Kutluoglu and Dodd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kutluoglu with the teachings of Dodd to provide the granulate is applied in method step B) by means of a spray pistol to the at least one heated tool cavity. It is well known in the art to use spray pistols to apply particulate coating materials for the purposes of manufacturing products with coatings comprising a high quality durable surface finish at a reasonable cost (Dodd Pg. 5).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu) as applied to claim 16, in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20050017391 A1; hereafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 27, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 16.
Kutluoglu does not disclose in method step B) the granulate is only proportionately applied to defined partial regions of the at least one tool cavity to form the liquid film layer in certain areas, wherein in subregions of the at least one tool cavity can be covered in order to prevent a granulate application in method step B).
However, Kobayashi teaches a method of manufacturing a foam molded article with a film coating (Fig. 4-8; [0021]) wherein a film coating is applied to a partial region of a tool cavity of a mold ([0038]; skin material 2 is placed in a partial region of male die 4).
Kutluoglu and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kutluoglu with the teachings of Kobayashi to provide in method step B) the granulate is only proportionately applied to defined partial regions of the at least one tool cavity to form at least one film layer in certain areas. Doing so would provide a foam molded article with a partial film coating (Kobayashi [0033]) for the purposes of providing a decorative aesthetic.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutluoglu et al. (US 20150024187 A1; hereafter Kutluoglu) as applied to claim 18, in view of Steiner (US 20100043981 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Kutluoglu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 18.
Kutluoglu does not explicitly disclose the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, are supplied and/or discharged through at least one injector device.
However, Steiner teaches a method of forming a foam molded article with a film coating ([0001]), wherein expandable plastic granules or foam pearls are supplied and/or discharged to a mold through an injector device ([0001-0002, 0040]; filling injector 21 fills mold with expandable (foamable) plastic granules).
Kutluoglu and Steiner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of foam molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kutluoglu with the teachings of Steiner to provide the first expandable plastic granulate or the foam pearls, respectively, are supplied and/or discharged through at least one injector device. It is well known if the art of foam molding to use an injector to inject a foam molding material into a mold.
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754