DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 14 and 15 are examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an expansion ratio of the foam layer is a factor of from 15 to 30” and “the expansion ratio of the foam layer is a factor of from 15 to 20”. The scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what expansion ratio is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, the examiner construes that the present claim recites “an expansion ratio of the foam layer is a factor of from 15 to 30”. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP H09193300 A), taken in view of evidence by Ohnishi et al. (US 2006/0167182 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Kobayashi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. disclose a laminate (skin material) consisting of a skin layer, an intermediate layer and a foam layer, in that order (see Abstract). Accordingly, the skin layer is in direct contact with the intermediate layer. The thickness of the skin layer is 0.01 to 1 mm, the thickness of intermediate layer is 0.1 to 3 mm and the thickness of the foam layer is 0.5 to 10 mm (see paragraph 0055).
The skin layer is made of a thermoplastic composition comprising 0 to 95 wt% of a thermoplastic elastomer A (olefin-based elastomer) and 5 to 100 wt% of poly-1-butene B (see Abstract). The thermoplastic elastomer A comprises a crystalline polyolefin resin (a) and a crosslinked olefin rubber (b) (see paragraphs 0010, 0011). The crystalline polyolefin resin (a) reads on a polyolefin as presently claimed. The crosslinked olefin rubber (b) can be made of ethylene-a-olefin copolymer (see paragraph 0011), which reads on an ethylene-a-olefin copolymer as presently claimed. As evidenced by Ohnishi (see paragraph 0005), poly-1-butene is a thermoplastic elastomer. Therefore, given that skin layer comprises 0 to 95 wt% of thermoplastic elastomer A that comprises crystalline polyolefin resin (a) (olefin-based resin) and crosslinked olefin rubber (b) (olefin-based resin) and 5-100 wt.% poly-1-butene which is an olefin thermoplastic elastomer, the amount of olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer based on both the total mass of the skin layer and the total resin components is 100%.
The intermediate layer is made of a thermoplastic elastomer A’ comprising a crystalline polyolefin resin (a’) and a crosslinked olefin-based rubber (b’) (see Abstract). The crystalline polyolefin resin (a’) can be same as crystalline resin (a) and includes crystalline polypropylene resin (see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0009). The crosslinked rubber (b’) can be same as the crosslinked olefin-based rubber (b’) and includes crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0011). Accordingly, given that thermoplastic elastomer A’ comprises crystalline polypropylene resin (polypropylene resin) and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (polypropylene resin), the thermoplastic elastomer A’ is polypropylene resin present in amount of 100 wt% based on both the total mass of the intermediate layer and the total resin components in the intermediate layer.
The foam layer can be made of polypropylene foam having expansion ratio of 10 to 50 times (see paragraphs 0050 and 0053).
In light of the overlap between the claimed skin material and that disclosed by Kobayashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a skin material that is both disclosed by Kobayashi et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi et al. disclose the skin material as set forth above. The skin layer, the intermediate layer and foam layer are identical to that presently claimed including resins identical to that presently claimed in amounts that overlap that presently claimed as well as thickness that overlap that presently claimed. Within the overlapping ranges, given that the skin layer and intermediate layer of Kobayashi et al. are identical to that presently claimed, a tensile elongation at break of a laminate of the skin layer and the intermediate layer of Kobayashi et al. would necessarily inherently be the same as that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi et al. disclose the skin material as set forth above. The skin material including the skin layer, the intermediate layer and the foam layer of Kobayashi et al. is identical to that presently claimed including resins identical to that presently claimed in amounts that overlap that presently claimed as well as thickness that overlap that presently claimed. Within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that when a stack consisting of two sheets of the skin material is prepared and measured, the stack would necessarily inherently have the same Shore A hardness as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi et al. disclose the laminate (skin material) is used to prepare an automobile interior part such as an instrument panel (see paragraphs 0001, 0062). Accordingly, Kobayashi et al. disclose an instrument panel as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi et al. disclose the laminate (skin material) is used to prepare an automobile interior part such as an airbag cover (see paragraphs 0001, 0062). Accordingly, Kobayashi et al. disclose a covering material as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi et al. disclose the skin material as set forth above. As set forth above, the olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer (thermoplastic elastomer A and poly-1-butene) in the skin layer is present in amount of 100 wt% and the amount of polypropylene resin (thermoplastic elastomer A’) in the intermediate layer is present in amount of 100 wt%.
Kobayashi et al. discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer A’ comprises crystalline polypropylene resin (polypropylene resin) and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (polypropylene resin) as noted above (also see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0011, 0009). The crystalline polypropylene can be random copolymer of polypropylene (see paragraph 0009). The crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber can be random propylene/a-olefin rubber (see paragraph 0011). That is, the polypropylene resin in the intermediate layer is random polypropylene.
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi et al. disclose the skin material as set forth above. Further, Kobayashi et al. disclose that the thickness of the laminate (skin material) is 0.5 to 13 mm (see paragraph 0055).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Applicants argue that notably, paragraph [0006] of Kobayashi explicitly describes that the object of Kobayashi is achieved by a specific laminate, and that, in the skin layer in the laminate, the weight ratio [(A)/(B)] of thermoplastic elastomer (A) to poly1-butene resin (B) is in the range of 95/5 to 0/100. Thus, poly1-butene resin (B) is an expressly included component of the skin layer in the laminate of Kobayashi. In contrast, amended claim 1 of the present application recites that the thermoplastic elastomer includes a polyolefin and an ethylene-α-olefin copolymer, and that a mass proportion of the olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer in the total resin components of the skin layer is 100% by mass. Kobayashi provides no teaching or suggestion that the rubber component may be eliminated, nor any disclosure of a skin layer or intermediate layer consisting entirely of a single resin component. Since the weight ratio [(A)/(B)] of thermoplastic elastomer (A) to poly1-butene resin (B) is in the range of 95/5 to 0/100 in Kobayashi, the skin layer of Kobayashi does NOT read on the skin layer specified in claim 1 of the present application, and there is no articulated reason with a rational underpinning or any motivation for those skilled in the art to modify the skin layer of the laminate of Kobayashi to remove the poly1-butene resin (B) so as to arrive at the skin material recited in claim 1 of the present application.
However, as evidenced by Ohnishi (see paragraph 0005), poly-1-butene is a thermoplastic elastomer. Therefore, given that skin layer comprises 0 to 95 wt% of thermoplastic elastomer A that comprises crystalline polyolefin resin (a) (olefin-based resin) and crosslinked olefin rubber (b) (olefin-based resin) and 5-100 wt.% poly-1-butene which is a thermoplastic elastomer, the amount of olefin-based thermoplastic elastomer based on both the total mass of the skin layer and the total resin components is 100%.
Applicants argue that moreover, Kobayashi does not disclose or suggest that polypropylene resin constitutes 100% of the total resin components of the intermediate layer.
Kobayashi et al. disclose that the intermediate layer is made of a thermoplastic elastomer A’ comprising a crystalline polyolefin resin (a’) and a crosslinked olefin-based rubber (b’) (see Abstract). The crystalline polyolefin resin (a’) can be same as crystalline resin (a) and includes crystalline polypropylene resin (see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0009). The crosslinked rubber (b’) can be same as the crosslinked olefin-based rubber (b’) and includes crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0011). Accordingly, given that thermoplastic elastomer A’ comprises crystalline polypropylene resin (polypropylene resin) and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (polypropylene resin), the thermoplastic elastomer A’ is polypropylene resin present in amount of 100 wt% in the intermediate layer.
Applicants argue that Kobayashi, by contrast, relies on an elastomeric intermediate layer that includes both polypropylene and crosslinked rubber. The present claims instead use an intermediate layer having a mass proportion of the polypropylene resin in the total resin components of the intermediate layer of 100% by mass, resulting in a different material system and different performance characteristics. This represents a different material system, not a routine variation.
However, Kobayashi et al. disclose that the crosslinked rubber includes crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber (see paragraphs 0049, 0019, 0011). Accordingly, Kobayashi et al. disclose both polypropylene and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber. Both of these components read polypropylene resin. The mass proportion of polypropylene and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber together is 100% by mass. Further, given that the present claim broadly recites polypropylene resin, any polypropylene resin including crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber reads on it.
Further, applicants have provided no evidence (i.e. data) to show that a combination of polypropylene and crosslinked propylene/a-olefin rubber in the intermediate layer results in a different material system and different performance characteristics compared to the present invention.
Applicants argue that the examples and comparative examples confirm the significance of the claimed configuration. Comparative Examples 1 and 2 show that, in conventional structures without an intermediate layer, increasing foam expansion improves cushion-like sensation but reduces delamination strength. See paragraphs [0080]. Comparative Example 3 introduces an intermediate layer, but uses polyethylene rather than polypropylene. Paragraph [0081] explains that this configuration still exhibits inferior rupture performance, demonstrating that the composition of the intermediate layer is critical. Comparative Examples 4 and 5 replace the thermoplastic elastomer skin layer with polypropylene-based materials and exhibit poor elongation and material failure. See paragraph [0082]. By contrast, Examples 1-8, which employ an intermediate layer including polypropylene resin, achieve both improved cushion-like sensation and acceptable rupture performance, even at higher expansion ratios. See paragraphs [0083]. These results demonstrate that the claimed configuration is not an arbitrary selection of parameters, but rather a specific material combination that solves a recognized technical problem.
Regarding the data, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of claim 1 given that (i) the examples recite a specific skin layer comprising specific olefin-based elastomer (8030NH) in a specific amount (90 wt.%) (see paragraph 0055 and Table 1), while the present claims have broad recitation of skin layer comprising any olefin-based elastomer including any polyolefin and any ethylene-α-olefin in broad amounts (80% by mass or more or 100% by mass), (ii) the examples recite a specific intermediate layer comprising specific polypropylene resin (PRIME POLYPRO E701G, block polypropylene or PRIME POLYPRO B211WA, random polypropylene) in a specific amount (90 wt%) (see paragraphs 0056 and 0064 and Table 1), while the present claims have broad recitation of intermediate layer comprising any polypropylene resin in broader different amount (95% by mass or more or 80% by mass or more), and (iii) the examples recite a specific foam layer comprising a specific polypropylene-based resin foam (see paragraph 0057 and Table 1), while the present claims have broad recitation of foam layer comprising any polypropylene-based resin foam.
Further, Comparative Examples 1-2 and 4-5 are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the closest prior art Kobayashi et al. given that Comparative Examples 1-2 and 4-5 do not comprise an intermediate layer; however, Kobayashi et al. requires the presence of an intermediate layer. That is, Kobayashi et al. already recognizes the criticality of the presence of the intermediate layer. With respect to Comparative Example 3, there is not a proper side-by-side comparison between Comparative Example 3 and any of the Inventive Examples given that Comparative Example 3 has a different skin layer thickness and different intermediate layer thickness and therefore, it is not clear if the difference in results is due to the polyethylene used in the intermediate layer or the difference in thicknesses.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights