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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1 and 5-16 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. Claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1, 5-6 and 9-16, filed on 11/6/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein which.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (JP S63233830 A, attached on 12/20/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a metal-resin laminate FI composite in which a polypropylene-based sheet is sandwiched between metal plates and press-bonded (page 2, 1st paragraph). The polypropylene-based fiber (a propylene composite fiber) is obtained from a modified polypropylene obtained by modifying a crystalline polypropylene with an unsaturated carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof, or a crystalline polypropylene mixed with the modified polypropylene (page 3, 2nd full par.; and page 4, 1st par.). The examiner notes that, of the examples of the unsaturated carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof, maleic anhydride is preferably used (page 3, 5th full par.). As the modification method, various known methods can be employed (page 3, 6th full par.). For example, a crystalline polypropylene and an unsaturated carboxylic acid or a derivative thereof are melt-kneaded in the presence of an organic peroxide at a temperature not lower than the melting point of the crystalline polypropylene (page 3, 6th full par.). As the crystalline polypropylene used for the modified polypropylene and the crystalline polypropylene used by being mixed with the modified polypropylene, a homopolymer of propylene, a propylene-ethylene block copolymer or a random copolymer containing at least 70 wt.% or more of a propylene component, and the like can be exemplified (page 4, 4th par.). The examiner notes that the modified polypropylene may therefore have a polypropylene homopolymer structure that is grafted with the maleic anhydride as claimed. (In the alternative, Nguyen is applied below). The modified polypropylene may be mixed with unmodified crystalline polypropylene so that the content of the modified polypropylene is 5% by weight or more (page 4, 1st par.).
Sakamoto does not explicitly disclose the content of the unmodified polypropylene.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the modified polypropylene and the unmodified polypropylene in amounts that add to 100% in order to obtain a polypropylene-based fiber as suggested by Sakamoto (page 3, 2nd full par.; and page 4, 1st par.).
The polypropylene based sheet (referred to as a core material) comprises the polypropylene-based fiber and an organic fiber (page 2, 1st par., and page 3, 1st par.). The organic fibers used are not particularly limited, as long as they do not decompose or melt under the temperature conditions when the nonwoven fabric formed from the organic fibers and polypropylene fibers is melt-compressed or molded (page 5, 1st par.). Examples of the organic fibers include polyamide fibers, polyimide fibers, polyester fibers, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, polyvinylidene chloride fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, polyurethane fibers, and the like (page 5, 1st par.). Examples of the fibers include cellulose fibers, phenolic fibers, rayon fibers, acetate fibers, cotton fibers, flax fibers, jute fibers, wool fibers, silk fibers, and mixtures of two or more of these fibers (page 5, 1st par.).
Therefore, Sakamoto teaches the claimed fibers.
However, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fibers of Sakamoto with the disclosed materials and compositions in order to obtain a laminate having the advantageous properties disclosed by Sakamoto (see the last full paragraph on page 2 through to the second full paragraph on page 3, and the first paragraph on page 5).
Sakamoto further teaches that the polypropylene-based sheet (referred to as a core material) is obtained by heating and compressing a nonwoven fabric formed by irregularly entangling a polypropylene-based fiber obtained from a crystalline polypropylene containing the modified polypropylene with an organic fiber (page 2, 1st par.; and page 3, 2nd full par.). The nonwoven fabric is obtained by a binder method, a needle punching method, a hydraulic entangling method by spun bonding, a thermal bonding method, a wet papermaking method, or the like (page 5, 2nd par.). The examiner notes that irregularly entangling the fibers, particularly in combination with use of a binder, would result in a nonwoven fiber aggregate structure comprising two or more fiber aggregates, as claimed.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that irregularly entangling the fibers, particularly in combination with application of a binder, would have resulted in a nonwoven fiber aggregate structure comprising two or more fiber aggregates, as irregular entangling would result in the distribution of more than one fiber aggregate throughout the fabric, and use of a binder would further serve to bond and hold the fiber aggregates together.
Regarding claims 5-6, the proportion of the organic fibers in the nonwoven fabric is preferably in the range of 15 to 50% by weight, particularly preferably 20 to 40% by weight (3rd par. on page 5). Sakamoto also teaches 85 to 50 wt% of the polypropylene-based fiber (page 3, 2nd full par.; also see the claims).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto remains as applied above to claim 1, teaching irregularly entangling the fibers and teaching that the nonwoven fabric may be obtained by a binder method or needle-punching method, which the examiner notes would result in a nonwoven fiber aggregate structure in which two or more fiber aggregates are bonded, as claimed. Claim 8 further includes product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claims 9-10, with regard to the claimed flexural rigidity and flexural strength properties, the examiner notes that applicant has provided at paragraphs [0026], [0033], [0052] and [0069] as published in US 2023/0356499 (or as-filed: the second par. on page 5, the par. bridging pages 6-7, the 4th par. on page 11, or the par. bridging pages 15-16) specific structural examples which provide the structure and properties claimed. The examiner notes that the structure of Sakamoto discussed above (also see page 4, 2nd par.) is the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Sakamoto would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the molded body taught by Sakamoto to have the claimed properties.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Sakamoto remains as applied above, teaching a polypropylene-based sheet (a core layer) as claimed. Sakamoto teaches a metal-resin laminate FI composite in which the polypropylene-based sheet is sandwiched between metal plates (a skin layer) and press-bonded (page 2, 1st paragraph). The adhesive surface of the metal plate is usually subjected to a surface treatment such as a degreasing treatment or a sand blasting treatment (page 5, 5th par.). Further, a primer treatment such as an epoxy resin coating (a bonding layer) or a surface treatment such as a chromate treatment may be performed (see the following par.). The laminated composite can be obtained by laminating a metal sheet having a surface-treated adhesive surface on both surfaces of the polypropylene-based sheet, and then performing thermocompression bonding using a compression-molding machine, a hot roll, or the like (same paragraph). Thus, Sakamoto teaches a bonding layer as claimed.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the primer treatment, such as an epoxy resin, would function as a bonding layer as it provides a surface-treated adhesive surface for lamination to the polypropylene-based sheet.
Regarding claims 12-14, and regarding the claimed flexural rigidity and flexural strength properties of the sandwich panel, Sakamoto remains similarly as applied above to claims 9-10, teaching a core that would have the claimed properties. Sakamoto further teaches that, as the metal plate, a metal plate of a metal such as iron, steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, tin, nickel, or titanium, or an alloy containing one or more of these metals as a main component can be used (page 5, 5th par.). As applied above to claim 15, Sakamoto also teaches use of an epoxy-based adhesive. The examiner notes that these are the same materials disclosed by applicant for use in the sandwich panel. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Sakamoto would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the sandwich panel taught by Sakamoto to have the claimed properties.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (JP S63233830 A, attached on 12/20/2024), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nguyen (US 2007/0160799 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 5-6 and 8-15, Sakamoto remains as applied above, teaching wherein the maleic anhydride polyolefin is grafted with polyolefin and maleic anhydride.
However, in the event that Sakamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the maleic anhydride polyolefin is grafted with polyolefin and maleic anhydride, Nguyen is applied below.
Nguyen teaches moldable composite articles, such as those found in planes, cars, trucks, housing, and construction equipment ([0002] and [0018]). In an embodiment, Nguyen teaches that adhesion promoters are polyolefins grafted with maleic acid or maleic anhydride (MAH), both of which convert to succinic acid or succinic anhydride upon grafting to the polyolefin ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have grafted the polyolefin and the maleic anhydride of Sakamoto in order to provide an adhesion promoter for use in molded nonwoven fibrous articles, such as those found in planes, cars, trucks, housing, and construction equipment, as suggested by Nguyen (Abstract, [0002] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, in an embodiment, Nguyen teaches wherein a matrix fiber is a polyester fiber with a modulus greater than 10 cN/tex ([0013]). Nguyen also teaches that suitable synthetic fibers, for a matrix, having properties that make a good batt for use as molded articles are: polyester, such as polyester terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate, polytrimethylene terephthalate and polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCT), and polyamide such as nylon 6 and nylon 6.6 ([0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following (with respect to obviousness): “The claimed invention specifically uses a polypropylene composite fiber comprising polypropylene and maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene, wherein the polypropylene is a homopolymer. As explained in the application, by using a homopolymer instead of a block copolymer, "there is an effect of improving mechanical properties such as flexural strength and the like of the molded body by increasing the tensile strength of the fiber" (p.12 of the present specification). This is also evidenced by the comparison data between Example 4 comprising Preparation Example 4 prepared by using polypropylene homopolymer grafted with maleic anhydride, and Comparative Example 4 Preparation Example 12 using polypropylene/polyethylene block copolymer (PP/PE) (as taught in Sakamoto's examples, p.4) grafted with maleic anhydride, where Example 4 shows much better mechanical properties in flexural rigidity and flexural strength (Table 5).”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that the results for the sandwich panels of applicant’s Example 4 (comprising Preparation Example 4) and Comparative Example 4 (comprising Preparation Example 12) can be directly compared because both sandwich panels comprise a molded body comprising 40 wt% of a polypropylene composite fiber and 60 wt% of a polyethylene terephthalate fiber (Tables 1 and 5). However, this evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as the sandwich panel claimed in claim 11 comprises the molded body of claim 1, and as claim 1 does not limit the amounts of the claimed polypropylene composite fiber and polyester-based fiber. Therefore, it is unclear how the single Comparative Example demonstrates that results obtained for the claimed invention would have been unexpected when compared to Sakamoto. In addition, applicant’s results for flexural rigidity and flexural strength for both Example 4 and Comparative Example 4, as shown in Table 5, fall within the ranges further claimed in claims 12 and 13. Therefore, it is unclear how the results obtained for Comparative Example 4 demonstrate that the claimed invention would have resulted in unexpectedly improved mechanical properties when compared to the articles taught by Sakamoto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0291530 A1 (Scholl et al.) teaches porous fibers that include a thermoplastic composition comprising about 60 wt.% to about 99 wt.% of a matrix polymer that may be propylene homopolymers, and about 0.05 wt. % to about 20 wt.% of a nanoinclusion additive that may be a chemically modified polypropylene (Abstract, [0018]-[0021], [0024], [0028]-[0029]). Hydraulically entangled webs may be formed from the thermoplastic composition, and the nonwoven web may contain other types of fibers such as those formed from polyesters ([0099]-[0100]).
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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789