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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 11-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "The support plate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “The support plate with cellular core structure” in the first line and then “the load-bearing plate with cellular structure in the last two lines. Not only is there a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations, but also it is unclear whether Applicant is using two different names for the same plate or what Applicant is intending to claim two different plates.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the upper solid surface (2), lower solid surface (3) and cellular core structure”, “the surfaces of the components”, “the melted thermoplastic material”, and “the load-bearing plate” in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for any of these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-10 recite “The invention” in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the load-bearing plate” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the load-bearing plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 5, and 6 each recite “the cellular structure (4)”. However, claim 1 had introduced “cellular core structure (4)” and “cellular structure (1)”. It is unclear how many cellular structures there are, and to which one Applicant is referring. Applicant needs to write the claims using terminology consistently for each element to minimize confusion. Additionally, the claims should be written with enough clarity so as to not rely on reference numerals.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-200581 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “JP ‘581”) in view of Rogers, US 7,370,452 B2.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘581 teaches a support plate with cellular core structure characterized in that it comprises the upper solid surface (upper 70; Figure 7), a lower solid surface (lower 70; Figure 7) and cellular core structure (middle layer of honeycomb structure; Figure 7) constructed with energy directors (side walls adjacent to honeycomb structure as shown in Figure 7 that can direct energy/forces to the upper and lower solid surfaces).
While JP ‘581 fails to disclose the materials and the remaining limitations of the claim, Rogers teaches a mat assembly comprising exterior cap layers and interior cellular structure layers can be made of a plastic such as polyethylene or polypropylene (column 3 lines 6-8) and that the components can be connected together with “plastic welding” (column 4 lines 10-13, column 5 lines 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JP ‘581’s plate to have the components be made of a plastic whereby the surfaces of the components are inseparably bonded together by plastic welding in view of Rogers’s disclosure of using plastic and inseparably bonding the components together since it can bear very high loads while being resistant to decay (Abstract). The resulting combination makes obvious that the plastic welding would be done under controlled temperature and pressure as is commonly understood to be required for proper welding, and the resulting combination makes obvious that the components are made of the same material (“a plastic material”; Rogers’s Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, in view of Rogers’s suggestion that the plastic material could be polyethylene (column 3 lines 6-8), the resulting combination makes obvious the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, in view of Rogers’s suggestion that the plastic material could be polypropylene (column 3 lines 6-8), the resulting combination makes obvious the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination includes the cellular structure being constructed with directional hollow cells in such a way that the axis of the hollow cells is perpendicular to the planes of the upper solid surface and the lower solid surface (as shown in JP ‘581’s Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘581 further discloses an alternate embodiment in which the cellular structure is constructed with directional hollow cells in such a way that the axis of the hollow cells is parallel to the planes of the upper solid surface and the lower solid surface (Figures 9A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the cellular structure be constructed with directional hollow cells in such a way that the axis of the hollow cells is parallel to the planes of the upper solid surface and the lower solid surface in view of JP ‘581’s further disclosure of this alternate embodiment based on engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 6, the inclusion of both claims 4 and 5 prove a lack in criticality of the orientation of the hollow cells. JP ‘581 further discloses an alternate embodiment in which the cellular structure is constructed with directional hollow cells in such a way that the axis of the hollow cells is parallel to the planes of the upper solid surface and the lower solid surface (Figures 9A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination from claim 1 to have the cellular structure be constructed with directional hollow cells in such a way that the axes of the hollow cells are perpendicular to the planes of the upper solid surface and the lower solid surface in certain parts and parallel in other parts as a mix of both embodiments if there are leftovers from previous different projects, to use the leftovers together since there is a lack in criticality of the orientation of the hollow cells.
Regarding claim 7, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the density of the thermoplastic material ranges between 900 and 1100 kg/m3, polyethylene (having a density in the range of 910-970 kg/m3) and polypropylene (having a density in the range of 900-920 kg/m3) have densities that fall within this range. Since the resulting combination includes the thermoplastic material being polyethylene or polypropylene, it appears the density would be within the range between 900 and 1100 kg/m3. Additionally, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is an obvious modification to have the density of the thermoplastic material ranging between 900 and 1100 kg/m3 based on engineering design choice and routine experimentation since density affects the weight and durability of the support plate.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the thermoplastic material is in powder form, this appears to be a matter of product-by-process, which is not germane in an apparatus claim. The resulting combination yields the structures, which are the lower solid surface and the upper solid surface.
Regarding claim 9, Rogers further discloses that the mat can have grooves or other designs on the upper and lower surfaces for skid resistance and traction (column 4 lines 36-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface of the upper solid surface of the resulting combination from claim 1 to have structural designs (such as grooves) in view of Rogers’s further disclosure of providing such structural designs for traction when a vehicle is traversing the mat (column 4 lines 36-48) if the plate of the resulting combination is to be used as a vehicle mat.
Regarding claim 10, Rogers further discloses that the mat can have grooves or other designs on the upper and lower surfaces for skid resistance and traction (column 4 lines 36-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external surface of the lower solid surface of the resulting combination from claim 1 to have structural designs (such as grooves) in view of Rogers’s further disclosure of providing such structural designs for skid resistance to better grip the ground when a vehicle is traversing the mat (column 4 lines 36-48) if the plate of the resulting combination is to be used as a vehicle mat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Multiple references are cited for plates comprised of upper and lower solid surfaces and a cellular middle layer, such as Polk, Jr. et al., US 8,091,314 B1 and Needham, US 5,776,582.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671