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 .
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending as amended on August 22, 2025. Support for amended claim 1 is found in original claim 2. Claim 2 is canceled.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below were not necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. This action is non-final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in the action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 22, 2025, have been fully considered.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues (pages 6-7) that it would not be obvious to substitute the filler of Aoki (US 6,492,014) for the fiber of Hitomi (JP 2014208417 A) because the filler of Aoki and the fiber of Hitomi are different materials and the filler of Aoki is more closely compared to the powder talc of Hitomi. This argument is found persuasive and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Aoki in view of Hitomi have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Aoki (US 6,492,014) in view of Hitomi (JP 2014208417 A).
Applicant also argues (page 5) that none of the cited references teach a sea-island structure with the polycarbonate (PC) constituting a sea component for both the resin foam plate and the resin sheet. This argument is not found persuasive because using a 90/10 PC/ABS blend for both the foam plate and the resin sheet is obvious based on the teachings of Aoki and would be expected to have a sea-island structure with the polycarbonate resin constituting a sea component. MPEP 2123, subsection II states "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Aoki teaches that the foamed PC resin layer and non-foamed PC resin layer are most preferably 90 wt.% of a PC resin (Aoki, col. 2, lines 17-25) and that the PC resin may be mixed with ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers, Aoki, col. 3, line 10). Because Aoki teaches that 90 wt% PC is preferable, one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore immediately envisage using resin mixtures with a high PC content and low ABS content, such as 90 wt.% polycarbonate resin and 10 wt.% ABS resin. Aoki further teaches that the non-foamed layer is made of a polycarbonate resin and one or more other resins or elastomers described with reference to the foamed polycarbonate layer (Aoki, col. 4, lines 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the same blend of 90/10 PC/ABS for both the foamed and non-foamed layers. These blends would be expected to form sea-island structures. Krache (Some Mechanical and Thermal Properties of PC/ABS blends, Materials Sciences and Applications, 2011, 2, 404-410) teaches that for blends containing 90% PC, the ABS phase appears as spherical inclusions in the PC matrix (Krache, page 408, col. 2, paragraph 3), reading on a sea-island formation with PC as the sea. In addition, [0041] of the instant specification states that the resin foam plate and resin sheet each contain PC resin in not less than 50 wt% and form sea-island structures where the PC resin is the sea, supporting the conclusion that a 90/10 PC/ABS blend forms a sea-island structure with PC as the sea.
Applicant argues (page 6-7) that one would not use the fiber of Hitomi in the non-foamed layer of Aoki because Hitomi and Aoki teach different manufacturing methods. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123, subsection II. While Aoki teaches that it is preferred that the composite sheet be prepared by coextrusion or extrusion (Aoki, col. 5, lines 40-42) and Hitomi does not teach coextrusion or extrusion, Aoki also teaches a method of assembling the composite sheet that is similar to Hitomi. Hitomi teaches heating the laminate and pressing it on a synthetic foam sheet (Hitomi, [0076]) and Aoki teaches heat bonding a non-foamed polycarbonate resin film with a foamed polycarbonate sheet (Aoki, col. 5, line 31-32).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For the utmost clarity, the examiner recommends defining “ABS resin” and “AS resin” in claim 6, line 3 because these resins are not defined elsewhere in the application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 6,492,014) in view of Hitomi (JP 2014208417 A, Cite No. 1 on 8/25/2022 IDS, references are made to English translation provided with the 8/25/2022 IDS) and evidenced by Krache (Some Mechanical and Thermal Properties of PC/ABS blends, Materials Sciences and Applications, 2011, 2, 404-410) and Kipp (MatWeb Plastic Material Data Sheets, Table 2. Material Properties (Metric Units) filtered for PC/ABS blends, retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpPMDS0001/id:kt012O A312/matweb-plastic-material/table-2-material-properties on 11/25/2025, 2017).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Aoki teaches a lightweight plate (non-flexible composite sheet like a board, Aoki, col. 4, lines 2-3) comprising: a resin foam plate and a resin sheet overlaid on a major surface of the resin foam plate, wherein each of the resin foam plate and the resin sheet contain a polycarbonate (PC) resin in not less than 50 wt.% (Aoki, col. 2, lines 17-25). Aoki further teaches wherein the PC resin has a viscosity-average molecular weight of 25,000 to 70,000 (Aoki, col. 2, lines 61-67).
Aoki further that the foamed PC resin layer and non-foamed PC resin layer are most preferably 90 wt.% of a polycarbonate resin (Aoki, col. 2, lines 17-25). Aoki further teaches that the PC resin may be mixed with ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers, Aoki, col. 3, line 10) (claim 6). Because Aoki teaches that 90 wt% PC is preferable, one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore immediately envisage using resin mixtures with a high PC content and low ABS content, such as 90 wt.% polycarbonate resin and 10 wt.% ABS resin. Aoki further teaches that the non-foamed layer is made of a polycarbonate resin and one or more other resins or elastomers described with reference to the foamed polycarbonate layer (Aoki, col. 4, lines 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the same blend of 90/10 PC/ABS for both the foamed and non-foamed layers. Aoki does not explicitly teach that this combination yields a sea-island structure.
However, it would be reasonable to expect a blend of 90% PC and 10% ABS to form a sea-island structure with PC constituting a sea component, as evidenced by Krache. Krache teaches that for blends containing 90% PC, the ABS phase appears as spherical inclusions in the PC matrix (Krache, page 408, col. 2, paragraph 3), reading on a sea-island formation with PC as the sea. In addition, [0041] of the instant specification states that the resin foam plate and resin sheet each contain PC resin in not less than 50 wt% and form sea-island structures where the PC resin is the sea, supporting the conclusion that a 90/10 PC/ABS blend forms a sea-island structure with PC as the sea.
Aoki teaches that the foamed polycarbonate has a density of 0.03-0.6 g/cm3 (Aoki, col. 3, lines 46-47). The expansion ratio can be calculating using the density difference between a foamed and un-foamed resin. Aoki does not specify the density of the resin prior to foaming.
However, prior to the effective filing date, PC/ABS blends were known to have densities in the range of about 1.10-1.25 g/cm3, as evidenced by Kipp (see range of values presented in the density column of Table 2). For the purposes of estimating the expansion ratio, the density of the resin is approximated the midpoint of this range, 1.18 g/cm3. This corresponds to an expansion ratio of about 2 (1.18/0.6) to 39 (1.18/0.03). A range of 2 to 39 overlaps with the claimed range of a resin foam plate having an expansion ratio of 1.2 to 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Aoki does not teach that the resin sheet contains fiber.
However, prior to the effective filing date, fiber-reinforced plastic sheets were known to be useful for making strong composite sheets, as taught by Hitomi. Hitomi teaches fiber-reinforced composites, including high-strength materials such as fiber-reinforced plastics and lightweight core materials such as synthetic resin foam sheets (Hitomi, [0002]). Hitomi further teaches that a fiber-reinforced plastic layer is laminated and integrated on the surface of a synthetic resin foam sheet and that the resulting fiber-reinforced composite has improved mechanical strength and shock absorption (Hitomi, [0075]). Specifically, the impact force applied to the fiber-reinforced composite is propagated to the entire fiber-reinforced plastic layer and is transmitted to the entirety of the synthetic foam sheet (Hitomi, [0075]). Therefore, the impact force applied to the fiber-reinforced composite is efficiently absorbed by the entire synthetic resin foam sheet and thus the fiber-reinforced composite of the present invention has excellent impact resistance (Hitomi, [0075]). Given the disclosure of Hitomi, it is evident that inclusion of fiber in the resin sheet is known to improve mechanical strength, shock absorption, and impact resistance by distributing force.
Aoki targets properties such as mechanical strength, toughness, and shock resistance (Aoki, col. 1 line 66 to col. 2 line2 and col. 6, lines 7-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-foamed resin of Aoki with the fiber of Hitomi in order to improve the mechanical strength, shock absorption, and impact resistance of the composite. One would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a composite sheet with good mechanical properties because Hitomi teaches that fiber reinforced composites have improved mechanical strength, shock absorption, and impact resistance and the resin sheet of Hitomi can be made with thermoplastic resins (Hitomi, [0068]). In addition, both Hitomi and Aoki teach similar methods of assembling the composite sheets. Hitomi teaches heating the laminate and pressing it on a synthetic foam sheet (Hitomi, [0076]) and Aoki teaches heat bonding a non-foamed polycarbonate resin film with a foamed polycarbonate sheet (Aoki, col. 5, line 31-32). Modifying the non-foamed resin of Aoki with the fiber of Aoki reads on a resin sheet containing fiber.
Regarding claim 3, modified Aoki teaches the lightweight plate according to claim 1 including a foam plate. The foam plate has cells (Cell size of the foamed layer, Aoki, col. 3, lines 38-39) and therefore can be reasonably considered to have holes. These holes are provided to reduce weight (For reasons of suitable… weight, the foamed polycarbonate layer generally has a density, Aoki, col. 3, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 5, modified Aoki teaches the lightweight plate according to claim 1, wherein a resin sheet is overlaid on each of two major surfaces of the resin foam plate (On each of both sides of the thus obtained foam sheet, the resin B… was laminated… to obtain a composite sheet, Aoki, col. 8, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 7, modified Aoki teaches the lightweight plate according to claim 1, wherein the resin foam plate is foam-molded by a blowing agent (The foamed polycarbonate resin layer may be generally prepared by an extrusion molding method which includes the following steps… mixed with a blowing agent… extrudate starts foaming, Aoki, col. 2, lines 26-38); and the blowing agent is carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas, or air (Aoki, col. 3, lines 25-27). Carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas, and air are physical blowing agents and correspond to the blowing agent contains 0 wt.% chemical blowing agents based on the blowing agent.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 6,492,014) in view of Hitomi (JP 2014208417 A, Cite No. 1 on 8/25/2022 IDS, references are made to English translation provided with the 8/25/2022 IDS) and evidenced by Krache (Some Mechanical and Thermal Properties of PC/ABS blends, Materials Sciences and Applications, 2011, 2, 404-410) and Kipp (MatWeb Plastic Material Data Sheets, Table 2. Material Properties (Metric Units) filtered for PC/ABS blends, retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpPMDS0001/id:kt012O A312/matweb-plastic-material/table-2-material-properties on 11/25/2025, 2017) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nasibov (US 2019/0055731 A1).
Modified Aoki teaches the lightweight plate according to claim 1. Aoki does not teach wherein, in a vertical cross section of the resin foam plate, a proportion of a cross-sectional area of the hole based on an entire cross-sectional area of the resin foam plate is 0.2 to 0.8.
However, Nasibov teaches a sandwich panel with a plurality of openings surrounded on all lateral sides by the core layer (Nasibov, abstract). These openings read on holes. Nasibov further teaches that the core layer can be foam (Nasibov, [0094]). Nasibov teaches that the elongated openings reduce the weight of the panel due to removed material while other properties, such as thermal insulation are not adversely affected (Nasibov, [0059]). The openings of Nasibov can be circles, ovals, triangles, squares, rectangles, and hexagons (Nasibov, [0023]). The figure below illustrates an example panel 100 where 106 is the core layer and 108 is a triangular hole (Nasibov, figure 1a).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nasibov teaches that use of triangular openings provides no measurable decrease in flexural strength of the panel under normal loading and that use of openings enables panels to be made which are lighter and therefore easier to transport and install, reduces the overall strength requirements of building foundations or other supporting elements, and reduces materials use (Nasibov, [0080]). Nasibov further teaches openings extending all the way through the panel from one side to the other and that such openings can be used to carry pipes or cables (Nasibov, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the plate of Aoki with the holes of Nasibov in order to produce lighter plates, use less material, and provide openings for pipes and/or cables (claim 3).
Nasibov teaches that the ratio of the overall volume of the non-metal layer to the volume of the plurality of openings is between 1:0.25 to 1:0.35 (Nasibov, [0079]), but the exact size of each opening is not specified. Taking the figure above with triangular holes as being drawn approximately to scale, the cross-section of the hole based on the entire cross-sectional area of the resin foam plate is in the range of 0 to about 0.5, depending on where one takes the cross-section. This interpretation is reasonable because one would require similarly sized hole to produce the foam to opening ratio of 1:0.25 to 1:0.35 taught by Nasibov. A range of 0-0.5 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.8 (claim 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 6,492,014) in view of Hitomi (JP 2014208417 A, Cite No. 1 on 8/25/2022 IDS, references are made to English translation provided with the 8/25/2022 IDS) and evidenced by Krache (Some Mechanical and Thermal Properties of PC/ABS blends, Materials Sciences and Applications, 2011, 2, 404-410) and Kipp (MatWeb Plastic Material Data Sheets, Table 2. Material Properties (Metric Units) filtered for PC/ABS blends, retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpPMDS0001/id:kt012 OA312/matweb-plastic-material/table-2-material-properties on 11/25/2025, 2017) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Segall (US 2019/0010692 A1).
Modified Aoki teaches the lightweight plate according to claim 1. Aoki does not teach a lightweight panel comprising: the lightweight plate and a frame positioned on a side of the lightweight plate, wherein the frame contains fiber-reinforced resin.
Aoki teaches applications such as interior construction materials (Aoki, col. 1, lines 11-14) and that the lightweight plates (composite sheets) are suited as raw materials for the production of receptacles and panels that substitute for plywood (Aoki, col. 6, lines 10-15), but does not teach how implement the composite sheets in the noted applications.
Segall demonstrates using foam panels as a construction material. Segall teaches a relocatable habitat unit (RHU) that is assembled using a plurality of substantially flat panels, designed to be modular, scalable, reconfigurable, and relocatable (Segall, [0011]). The panel is made of a light-weight composite polymer foam type material (Segall, [0059]). An example of the components of a frame and panel assembly is shown below (Segall, figure 8):
PNG
media_image2.png
920
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the two long beams 130 and two short beams 132, each connected at the corners with corner fittings 134 make up the frame and the inner material 136 is foam (Segall, [0092]). The beams are formed of pultruded fiberglass reinforced plastic (Segall, [0094]), reading on fiber-reinforced resin.
Based on the disclosure of Segall, the use of fiber-reinforced frames to support foams and make modular, scalable, reconfigurable, and relocatable structures was known prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have supported the lightweight plate with a fiber-reinforced resin frame in order to carry out the intended use of using the plate as a construction material. Such a configuration would have the advantages of enabling modular, scalable, reconfigurable, and relocatable construction. Aoki in view of Segall therefore teaches a lightweight panel comprising: the lightweight plate and a frame positioned on a side of the lightweight plate, wherein the frame contains fiber-reinforced resin, as recited in claim 8.
Because Segall also teaches a frame to support a plurality of panels (Segall, [0015]), it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have included a two or more lightweight plates within a frame when using the plates as construction materials. Aoki in view of Segall therefore teaches wherein the lightweight panel includes two or more lightweight plates arranged within the frame, as recited in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDRA DESTEFANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/AUDRA J DESTEFANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766