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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 1/21/2026 and 2/2/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 and 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 now requires both the protruding portion and the cutout to not be level with the opposite face and that none of the previously cited references describe this limitation. While Examiner agrees that the previously recited references including Funakoshi did not describe this limitation fully, after further search and consideration, new references are cited which describe all of the claimed limitations of claim 1 including the protruding portion and cutout being on a different level than the opposite face. The other claims also remain rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto JP2009248436A, see English translation provided) modified by Shigeki (CN104340099, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto meets the claimed, A resin molded article comprising: a main body portion having a design face and an opposite face thereto, (Hashimoto [0026] and Figure 3 describe a general portion 32 which has two faces, one on the top and one on the bottom) and having a first foamed layer formed inside the main body portion; (Hashimoto [0026] foam layer 30b) a protruding portion that is provided at an edge portion of the main body portion, and that protrudes toward a direction opposite from the design face of the main body portion in a thickness direction of the main body portion; (Hashimoto [0026]-[0028] describe a wall portion 33, see Figure 3 showing it at the edge of the general portion 32 and protruding in the thickness direction) wherein a pair of first skin layers cover a design face side surface and an opposite face side surface of the first foamed layer, (Hashimoto [0026] and Figure 3 show solid layer 30a on both the top and bottom of the foam 30b) a tip portion is provided along a surface of the protruding portion that continues from the design face of the main body portion at an end of the protruding portion in the protruding direction, (Hashimoto [0027]-[0028] and Figure 3 show the thin flange 35) a cutout is provided on an opposite side of the tip portion to the surface of the protruding portion that continues from the design face of the main body portion, (Hashimoto [0026] and Figure 3 describe the stepped portion 34) the protruding portion and the cutout are not on a level with the opposite face, (Hashimoto Figure 3 shows both the thin flange 35 and the wall portion 33 are not level with the bottom face of the solid layer 30a) the protruding portion has a second foamed layer and a pair of second skin layers covering a design face side surface and an opposite face side surface of the second foamed layer, (Hashimoto [0026] describe foam and skin layers in the vertical wall portion 33 also, see Figure 3) and the protruding portion is inclined with respect to the thickness direction of the main body, (Hashimoto Figure 3 shows the wall portion 33 is slightly angled off the thickness direction) and formation of the foamed layer is suppressed at the tip portion (Hashimoto [0026] describes only solid layer 30a in the flange 35.)
Hashimoto does not describe a concavity and does not meet the claimed, and a concavity that is recessed from a surface of the opposite face toward a thickness direction side of the main body portion at a root portion of the protruding portion at the opposite face.
Analogous in the field of resin molded articles, Shigeki also describes a foamed article with a protruding portion and meets the claimed, and a concavity that is recessed from a surface of the opposite face toward a thickness direction side of the main body portion at a root portion of the protruding portion at the opposite face (Shigeki [0057] and Figure 8 show an engagement recess 29 which is located at the base of a protruding portion and cuts into the main portion of the article in the thickness direction.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the molded article of Hashimoto with the engagement recess of Shigeki in order to allow for a portion of the article to engage with other components, see Shigeki [0057].
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto meets the claimed, The resin molded article according to claim 1, wherein at a cross-section in the thickness direction of the main body portion, a thickness Al of the first foamed layer is larger than a total thickness B1 of the pair first skin layers (Hashimoto Figure 3 shows the foam 30b is thicker than the two solid layers 30a.)
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto does not meet the claimed, The resin molded article according to claim 1, wherein the concavity is recessed at an acute angle from the surface of the opposite face.
Shigeki further meets the claimed, The resin molded article according to claim 1, wherein the concavity is recessed at an acute angle from the surface of the opposite face (Shigeki Figure 8 shows the engagement recess 29 is slightly acute compared to the plane of the bottom face of the article.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the article of Hashimoto with the acutely angled recess described in Shigeki because it is a known structure for producing an engaging recess for engagement with other parts or components, see Shigeki [0057].
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto modified by Shigeki as applied to claim 1 or 2 above, and further in view of Shiokawa (JP2017100449, see English provided with the IDs dated 10/24/2022.)
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto Figure 3 shows a protruding portion as wall portion 33 and shows layers 30a covering the protruding portion but does not specify that the protruding portion foam is less than thick that the skin layers and does not meet the claimed, The resin molded article according claim1, wherein: at a cross-section in the thickness direction of the main body portion, a thickness A2 of the second foamed layer is smaller than a total thickness B2 of the pair of the second skin layers.
Analogous in the field of resin molded articles, Shiokawa describes a similar resin-molded article having a main body 11, projecting portions 12, skin 14, and foam. Although Shiokawa does not explicitly describe the skin is thicker than the foam in the projecting portions 12 and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The resin molded article according claim1, wherein: at a cross-section in the thickness direction of the main body portion, a thickness A2 of the second foamed layer is smaller than a total thickness B2 of the pair of the second skin layers however, Shiokawa [0029] describe the ratio of the thickness LT of the skin layer in the thinner portion of the protruding portion 12 is higher than the ratio of the skin in the main body area. Shiokawa [0029] also discloses that the thickness of the skin layer prevents cracking due to pressure from the foam. Shiokawa discloses that the thickness of the skin layer is a result effective variable which affects the quality of the molded article via preventing cracking and foam burrs from forming through the cracks, see Shiokawa [0029]-[0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the thickness of the skin layers in the protruding portions disclosed in modified Hashimoto through routine optimization such that the skin layer is thicker than the foam at the protruding portions in order to prevent unwanted cracking and foam burrs from forming, see Shiokawa [0029]-[0030].
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto Figure 3 shows a protruding portion as wall portion 33 and shows layers 30a covering the protruding portion but does not specify that the protruding portion foam is less than thick that the skin layers and does not meet the claimed, The resin molded article according claim 2, wherein: at a cross-section in the thickness direction of the main body portion, a thickness B2 of the second foamed layer is smaller than a total thickness B2 of the pair of the second skin layers.
Analogous in the field of resin molded articles, Shiokawa describes a similar resin-molded article having a main body 11, projecting portions 12, skin 14, and foam. Although Shiokawa does not explicitly describe the skin is thicker than the foam in the projecting portions 12 and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The resin molded article according claim 2, wherein: at a cross-section in the thickness direction of the main body portion, a thickness A2 of the second foamed layer is smaller than a total thickness B2 of the pair of the second skin layers. however, Shiokawa [0029] describe the ratio of the thickness LT of the skin layer in the thinner portion of the protruding portion 12 is higher than the ratio of the skin in the main body area. Shiokawa [0029] also discloses that the thickness of the skin layer prevents cracking due to pressure from the foam.
Shiokawa discloses that the thickness of the skin layer is a result effective variable which affects the quality of the molded article via preventing cracking and foam burrs from forming through the cracks, see Shiokawa [0029]-[0030]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the thickness of the skin layers in the protruding portions disclosed in modified Hashimoto through routine optimization such that the skin layer is thicker than the foam at the protruding portions in order to prevent unwanted cracking and foam burrs from forming, see Shiokawa [0029]-[0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744