DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed January 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaraman (US PG Pub. No. 2010/0310802) and, optionally, further in view of Satoru (JP 2002-234046), cited herein according to the English language translation submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") filed May 6, 2022.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Jayaraman teaches molded foamed bodies comprising a thermoplastic resin, which may be polyethylene, and cells, which may have an average diameter in the range of 10 to 150 µm (i.e. 0.01 to 0.15 mm) and a cell density in the range of 105 to 107 cells/cm3, which corresponds to about 22 to 464 cells per unit area in a cross-section of the molded bodies (Abstract; par. 11, 65, 67). Jayaraman’s taught ranges of average cell diameters and cell densities correspond to a cell area ratio range of about 0.17 to nearly 100 %. The instantly claimed average cell diameter, cells-per-unit area, and area ratio ranges are encompassed or overlapped and rendered obvious by Jayaraman’s teachings. See MPEP 2144.05.
The teachings of Jayaraman differ from the current invention in that the molded bodies discussed above are not explicitly taught to include skin layers without cells and in that he does not teach the claimed ratio of thicknesses. However, Jayaraman does teach that his foams can be made to be self-skinning (par. 78), which creates an outer layer that is free of cells. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the exemplified foams discussed above to be self-skinning, and to have formed a skin, because Jayaraman explicitly teaches to make his foams self-skinning and, therefore, to have skins. Satoru further teaches to include a skin layer with no cells on the exterior surface of a molded body for an automobile component and discloses that if the skin is too thin, the strength of the molded product by will be lowered (par. 15). Satoru also teaches that various patterns and grains may be formed on/in a skin layer on the surface of the molded product (par. 18). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a skin layer containing no cells (i.e. "a region in which the cells are not present") on the surface of Jayaraman's molded body in order to enhance the molded body's strength and provide it with a surface that may be patterned as desired, e.g. to achieve a desired aesthetic effect, and because Satoru teaches that such a structure is appropriate for and enhances the strength of molded foam automobile components.
The requirement that the foamed layer have a particular ratio of thickness to the total thickness is effectively two selections of dimensions. As no criticality has been established, the required dimension ratio range is a prima facie obvious selection of dimensions or relative dimensions that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Jayaraman also exemplifies molding his foam into shapes that have thicknesses of 0.7 mm and 1 mm and, as noted above, Jayaraman exemplifies foams having an average cell size of 37.5 and 61 µm (par. 90, 124, 131). Satoru further teaches that the weight (or lightweight character) and strength of a foamed body with skin layers depends on the skin thickness, and that it is important to select an appropriate skin thickness depending on the cell diameter, with skin thicknesses of 2 to 5 times the average cell diameter being recommended (par. 15, 48). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure a molded foam product to have an overall thickness 0.7 mm and 1 mm and average cell size of 37.5 and 61 µm because Jayaraman teaches such ranges to be appropriate. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate skin thickness for such products, including selecting a skin thickness in the range of 2 to 5 times the average cell diameter, according to the weight and strength requirements of a product, as taught by Satoru. The claimed thickness ratio range is rendered obvious by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. For example, it would have been obvious to configure a product rendered obvious in view of Satoru, e.g. having an overall thickness of 1 mm and an average cell size of 37.5 µm, to have a skin thickness in the range of 75 to 187.5 µm, which equates to a foam layer-to-total molded body thickness ratio of 62.5 to 85 % and meets the claim requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Jayaraman differ from the current invention in that the molded bodies discussed above are not explicitly taught to have a maximum cell diameter of less than 0.2 mm. However, Jayaraman teaches that his foams may have an average cell size of 10 to 150 microns (i.e. 0.01 to 0.15 mm) and, as noted above, teaches exemplary foams with average cell sizes of 0.0371 mm and 0.061 mm (par. 54, Table 2). Jayaraman also clearly finds a uniform cell size distribution to be advantageous, teaching to take steps that he discloses are significant for achieving a more uniform size distribution, repeatedly highlighting that his foams have a more uniform cell size distribution than other foams, and even exemplifying a foam with a cell size distribution in the range of 85 +/- 20 microns (par. 60, 65, 131). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Jayaraman's foams, including the exemplified foams discussed above, to have as uniform of a size distribution as possible, including configure all of the cells in a foam to fall within the taught average size range and including having a foam wherein the cells only vary by +/- 20 microns from the average, because Jayaraman clearly finds a uniform cell size distribution to be advantageous, because Jayaraman makes clear that cell sizes in the disclosed range(s) (e.g. 10 to 150 microns, which is lower than 0.2 mm) are appropriate and useful for his product, because Jayaraman teaches that a foams having a cell size variation of +/- 20 microns and/or a maximum size of 105 microns (i.e. 85 microns plus 20 microns) are appropriate and useful for his product, and because one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would understand that a foam with as uniform of a cellular structure as possible will also desirably have as uniform of properties as possible. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the recited maximum cell sizes is a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the claim requirements that the recited product is a "component for an automobile" or is part of a "component for an automobile" are statements of intended use. Jayaraman's products discussed above meet the claim requirement(s) because they are capable of being used as claimed, particularly as Jayaraman teaches that his products are useful in the automotive industry, such as being used for seals, door panels, and instrument skins in vehicles (par. 113, 134).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru in view of Takashi (JP 2003039475 A), cited herein according to the English language translation submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") filed May 6, 2022.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, Satoru teaches a molded body, which is a component for an automobile (i.e. or "a component for an automobile, the component comprising" a "molded body"), comprising polypropylene (i.e. a thermoplastic resin), a region containing no cells, and a region containing cells that are present in a cross section of the molded body in a number of cells per unit area of 20 to 50 cells/mm2 (par. 12, 15).
The teachings of Satoru differ from the current invention in that the average and maximum diameters of the cells in his product are not disclosed. Satoru also does not teach the claimed area ratio range or the claimed ratio of thicknesses. However, Takashi teaches to configure a molded, foam component for an automobile to include uniform, fine cells with an average size in the range of 1 to 100 µm (i.e. 0.001 to 0.1 mm) and preferably with a maximum cell diameter of less than 100 µm in order to create a product that demonstrates a reduced number of defects and reduced weight due to the cellular structure without greatly reducing the mechanical strength, and that is appropriate for use as a component requiring light weight and high bending rigidity (par. 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the cells in Satoru's foam product to have an average diameter in the range of 1 to 100 µm and a maximum cell diameter of less than 100 µm in order to reduce the occurrence of defects, to achieve a good balance of strength and weight, and to render the product appropriate for use in components that require low weight and high bending rigidity.
A product including pores having the cell density disclosed by Satoru and the cell sizes disclosed by Takashi is calculated to have a cell area ratio ranging from about 0.002 to 39.3 %. The instantly claimed average cell diameter and area ratio ranges are overlapped and rendered obvious by the cited prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Satoru teaches that the molded automotive component (i.e. “molded body”) should have an overall thickness of about 2 to 5 mm and that the skin layers should have a thickness that is 2 to 5 times the average cell diameter (par. 20, 48). Therefore, as the product of Satoru and Takashi has cells with an average diameter in the range of 1 to 100 µm (discussed above), the skin thickness of such a product can range from 2 to 500 µm, which equates to a foam layer-to-total molded body thickness of 50 to about 99.9 %. The instantly claimed thickness ratio range is encompassed and rendered obvious by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru in view of Perman (US Pat. No. 5,670,102).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, Satoru teaches a molded body, which is a component for an automobile (i.e. or "a component for an automobile, the component comprising" a "molded body"), comprising polypropylene (i.e. a thermoplastic resin), a region containing no cells, and a region containing cells that are present in a cross section of the molded body in a number of cells per unit area of 20 to 50 cells/mm2 (par. 12, 15).
The teachings of Satoru differ from the current invention in that the average and maximum diameters of the cells in his product are not disclosed. Satoru also does not teach the claimed area ratio range. Satoru also does not teach the claimed area ratio range or the claimed ratio of thicknesses. However, as noted above, Satoru’s foam is a thermoplastic foam. Perman further teaches that cell size has been demonstrated to be critical for the shear strength properties of a thermoplastic foam and that a stronger foam is obtained from smaller cells for a foam of a given density, thereby demonstrating that cell size is a result-effective variable for foams (col. 6, ln. 20-28). Perman also teaches that a cell size range of 20 to 100 µm is preferable for a thermoplastic foam article (col. 5, ln. 14-18). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate range of cell sizes, including selecting cell sizes in the range of 20 to 100 µm (i.e. 0.02 to 0.1 mm), for Satoru’s foam according to the shear strength requirements of the foamed article that is to be formed and because Perman teaches that such a range of cell sizes is appropriate and preferable for foam thermoplastic articles, thereby implying that such a range achieves strengths in a desired range. As it would have been obvious to select cell sizes in the range of 20 to 100 µm, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art configure all of the cells in Satoru’s foam to have sizes spanning any range of values between 20 to 100 µm (see MPEP 2144.05), including, for example, configuring all of the cells to have sizes in the range of 30 to 100 µm, which would necessarily achieve an average cell diameter in the range of 0.03 to 0.1 mm and a maximum cell diameter of less than 0.2 mm. As noted, the instantly claimed average cell diameter is rendered obvious by Perman. See MPEP 2144.05.
A foam article having an average cell diameter of 0.03 to 0.1 mm and 20 to 50 cells/mm2, as is rendered obvious by Satoru and Perman, is calculated to have a cell area ratio of about 1.4 to 88 %. The instantly claimed cell area ratio is obvious in view of Satoru and Perman. See MPEP 2144.05.
Satoru teaches that the molded automotive component (i.e. “molded body”) should have an overall thickness of about 2 to 5 mm and that the skin layers should have a thickness that is 2 to 5 times the average cell diameter (par. 20, 48). Therefore, as the product of Satoru and Perman has cells with an average diameter in the range of 20 to 100 µm (discussed above), the skin thickness of such a product can range from 40 to 500 µm, which equates to a foam layer-to-total molded body thickness of 50 to 98.4 %. The instantly claimed thickness ratio range is encompassed and rendered obvious by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that none of the cited prior art teaches the ratio of thicknesses now recited in claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to make products meeting the claimed thickness requirements, particularly in view of Satoru’s teachings of skin thicknesses relative to average cell diameters (par. 15, 48), for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784