DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites “the number of cells per unit area at a cross-section of the molded body being from 20 cells/mm2 to 100 cells/mm2”. This limitation is indefinite because, given that the claim further recites that that the molded body has a foamed layer with cells and skin layers without cells, it is not clear what constitutes “a cross-section of the molded body”. Specifically, it is not clear if “a cross-section of the molded body” includes the entire body, which has both a foamed layer and skins, or only the foamed layer, as is described in the instant disclosure (see, for example, par. 88 of Applicant’s published application). As the skin layers are cell-free, the number of cells per unit area in a cross section including the skins would be less than that of the foamed layer alone. For the sake of compact prosecution, either interpretation, i.e. wherein the whole cross-section is included or wherein only the foamed layer is included in the calculation, is considered herein to be correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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 according to the English language translation submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") filed May 6, 2022, for the reasons discussed in the previous Office Action.
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 cell area ratio range or the claimed ratio of thicknesses. However, Satoru does teach that the material may have an area ratio of resin, i.e. which refers to the area occupied by resin rather than cells in the material, of 40 % or more (par. 13, 14). If the material is assumed to only include resin and cells, the taught resin area ratio corresponds to a cell area ratio of 60 % or less, which encompasses and renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Takashi further 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 %, which is consistent with Satoru’s teachings. 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 cell 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 and Satoru does teach that the material may have an area ratio of resin, i.e. which refers to the area occupied by resin rather than cells in the material, of 40 % or more (par. 13, 14). If the material is assumed to only include resin and cells, the taught resin area ratio corresponds to a cell area ratio of 60 % or less, which encompasses and renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 %, most of which overlaps with the range implied by Satoru. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohi (US PG Pug. No. 2018/0086890).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Dohi teaches molded foamed bodies comprising a polyethylene (i.e. a thermoplastic)-based resin and cells, which have an average diameter of 10 to 80 µm (i.e. 0.01 to 0.8 mm) in the thickness direction and a number of cells per unit area of 60 to 300 cells/mm2 in a cross-section of the molded body in the thickness direction (par. 36, 41, 49), which corresponds to cell area ratio range of about 0.3 to 11.84 %. The instantly claimed average cell diameter and cells per unit area ranges are overlapped or encompassed and rendered obvious by Dohi. The recited cell area ratio range is sufficiently numerically close to that of Dohi (i.e. the claimed 12 % vs. Dohi’s 11.84 %), that it is also rendered obvious by Dohi’s teaching. See MPEP 2144.05. Dohi further teaches that about 5 to 60 % of the resin making the foam undergoes body crosslinking during preparation, thereby establishing that 40 to 95 percent, including at least some polyethylene, that is not cross-linked is still present in the final product (par. 46).
The teachings of Dohi might be considered to differ from the current invention in that his molded body is not disclosed to include skin layers on each side of the foamed layer, wherein the layers have the claimed relative thicknesses. However, Dohi does teach that his foamed body has a thickness in the range of 0.05 to 0.35 mm and that layers of pressure-sensitive adhesive having a thickness in the range of 5 to 200 µm (i.e. 0.005 to 0.2 mm) may be applied to both sides of the foamed body (par. 14, 69). The adhesive layers are presumed to be free of cells because Dohi makes no disclosure of them being foamed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure both sides of Dohi’s foamed sheet having the cell distribution discussed above and having a thickness of 0.05 to 0.35 mm to include layers of unfoamed pressure-sensitive adhesive having a thickness of 0.005 to 0.2 mm because Dohi explicitly teaches applying adhesive layers to both sides of his foamed bodies and makes no disclosure of the adhesive being foamed. The ratio of the thickness of the foamed layer to the total thickness in such a three-layer structure (i.e. arranged as adhesive-foam-adhesive) is calculated to range from about 11 to 97 %. The instantly claimed thickness ratio is encompassed and rendered obvious by Dohi. See MPEP 2144.05.
The requirement that the recited “molded body” is molded is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited processes, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As the claim places no requirements on the skin and foamed layers being the same material, Dohi’s foam and adhesive body, as discussed above, has the structure that is implied.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Dohi differ from the current invention in that the maximum diameter of cells in his product is not disclosed. However, it would have been obvious to configure all of Dohi’s cells to be within the taught range of average diameters, thereby also achieving an average diameter in the taught range, because Dohi explicitly teaches that such a range of cell diameters is appropriate. For example, Dohi renders obvious configuring all of the cells in a cross-section in his product to have a diameter of 0.8 mm. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the recited maximum diameter is a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
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. Dohi’s product discussed above meets the claim requirement(s) because it is capable of being used as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the rejections made in view of Jayaraman should be withdrawn because the cell area ratio range that was identified in the rejection was based on calculations rather than being expressly taught by Jayaraman. However, a cell area ratio is an inherent property of any foam and depends directly on the size of cells and the number of cells that are present in a given portion of the foam, both of which Jayaraman teaches. As discussed in the previous Office Action, Jayaraman teaches cell sizes and a cell density that achieve a cell area ratio range that encompasses and renders obvious that of the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05. The fact that a different measure is used to express the cell content of the claimed foam does not distinguish the claims over what has been rendered obvious by Jayaraman.
Applicant has further argued that Jayaraman’s Figure 4 depicts a foam with narrower cell walls than what are shown in Figure 3 of the instant disclosure, which Applicant argues shows that Jayaraman has not been established to teach or suggest the claimed cell structure. However, the fact that Jayaraman exemplifies some foams with higher cell area ratios does not negate the fact that he renders obvious the claimed range of cell area ratios, as discussed above. As discussed in the previous Office Action, Jayaraman’s teachings meet the cell structure requirements of claim 1 because he teaches foams having cells of sizes, numbers, and relative areas commensurate with the instant claims.
Regarding the rejections citing Satoru in combination with Takashi or Perman, Applicant has argued that the proposed combinations, which result in cell area ratios that meet the claim requirements, would have required modifications that are contrary to Satoru’s teachings. However, as discussed above and acknowledged by Applicant, Satoru teaches that the resin area ratio in his product is preferably greater than 40 % (par. 13), which corresponds to a cell area ratio of less than 60 %. Although Applicant is correct that Satoru teaches that it is preferable for the resin area ratio to be about 60 %, which corresponds to a cell area ratio of about 40 % or more, from the standpoint of making a lightweight foam, Satoru explicitly teaches that there is no upper limit to the resin area ratio (par. 13), which equates to there being no lower limit to the cell area ratio. Additionally, Satoru’s teaching of a preferred upper value for the resin area ratio cannot be concluded to be a teaching away from even higher values because his teaching does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage higher resin area ratios, particularly as Satoru teaches there is no upper limit to the range and as Takahashi and Perman otherwise motivate making foams with higher resin area ratios (i.e. and, correspondingly, lower cell area ratios that include the recited range). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be required to make a modification that is contrary to Satoru’s teachings, if they were motivated to incorporate Takashi or Perman’s teachings, as discussed above, which result in a cell area ratio that encompasses and renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights