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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myard et al. (US 2007/0166526) (Myard) taken in view of evidence by Polyester Resins (Pepper) and Plastics Packaging – Properties, Processing, Applications, and Regulations (Plastic Packaging), and further in view of Mimura et al. (JP 2004-322345) (Mimura) and Effects of maleic anhydride-grafted ethylene-propylene rubber on the mechanical, rheological and morphological properties of organoclay reinforced polyamide 6/polypropylene nanocomposites (Chow).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2004-322345 with the Office Action mailed 11/06/2025. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1, 6 and 8-10, Myard teaches a sandwich structure comprising a structural layer, a lightweight layer of foam and a structural layer ([0001]). The foam is a polyamide-based foam ([0007]-[0010]) (corresponding to a polymer foam laminate structure; a first solid layer; a polymeric foam layer; a second solid layer; the polymeric foam layer comprising polyamide). The density of the foam of the structure is between 30 and 200 kg/m3 ([0017]) (corresponding to the polymeric foam layer has a density of 20 g/l to less than 1000 g/l).
The structural layers can be of metal such as aluminum sheet or plate ([0012]-[0013]) (corresponding to the first solid layer and/or the second solid layer is a metal layer). As evidence by Pepper, aluminum sheets have a density greater than 1000 g/l (Table 6) (corresponding to a first solid layer having a density of more than 1000 g/l; a second solid layer having a density of more than 1000 g/l). Alternatively, the structural layer can comprises a thermoplastic polymer matrix reinforced with fibers of glass, carbon, aramid, hemp or flax ([0042]) (corresponding to the first solid layer and/or the second solid layer is a solid polymer layer; the solid polymer layer as the first solid layer and/or the second solid layer comprises a polymeric material reinforced by carbon fibre, glass fibre, aramid fibre, basalt fibre, natural fibre, metal fibre, potassium titanate particles and mixtures thereof). The thickness of the structural layer is between 0.2 and 3 mm (i.e., 200-3000 µm) ([0016]) (corresponding to the first solid layer and/or the second solid layer having a thickness between 150 µm and 2000 µm; having a thickness between 1 mm and 10 mm). Myard further teaches the thermoplastic polymer matrix is nylon 6 and the fibers are carbon or glass ([0095]). As evidence by Plastic Packaging, nylon 6 has a density of greater than 1000 g/l. Thus it is clear a fiber reinforced nylon 6 layer will have a density greater than 1000 g/l (corresponding to a first solid layer having a density of more than 1000 g/l; a second solid layer having a density of more than 1000 g/l).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Myard does not explicitly teach at least one first functional layer and at least one second functional layer, as presently claimed.
Mimura teaches a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) with a foamed resin core characterized in that the surface of the formed resin core is covered with a nylon film ([0008]). When a foamed resin molding is covered with a nylon film, the purpose of the covering is to prevent thermosetting resin from permeating into the foamed resin molding, so it is preferable to adapt a covering method that can prevent permeation (p. 5, lines 14-17) (corresponding to at least one first functional layer; a polymeric foam layer provided on the at least one first functional layer; at least one second functional layer, the at least one second functional layer being in contact with the polymeric foam layer). Mimura further teaches the nylon film not only prevents infiltration of a resin into the core, but also provides excellent adhesion between the thermosetting resin and the nylon film and excels in both the lightweight properties that are the function of the foam and the durability of the FRP (p. 8, line 17- p. 9, line 2).
The thickness of the nylon film is 3 µm or more and 75 µm or less (p. 5, line 2) (corresponding to the at least one first functional layer and/or the at least one second functional layer have a thickness between 20 µm and 2000 µm). The nylon film comprises nylon 6, nylon 12, nylon 6-10 (p. 4, lines 17-19) (corresponding to the at least one function layer and/or the at least one second functional layer comprises a polyamide selected from PA6, PA6/6.36, PA12, PA610, PA6/66, PA6.12, or polyether block coployamide).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mimura does not explicitly teach the nylon film further comprises a homo polymer or copolymer of ethylene and/or α-olefins and/or acrylic acid esters and/or malic anhydride, as presently claimed.
Chow teaches adding maleic anhydride-grafted ethylene-propylene rubber (EPRgMA) to a polyamide 6/polypropylene blend (PA6/PP) (Abstract) (corresponding to a polyamide selected from PA6; further comprises a homo polymer or a copolymer of ethylene and/or α-olefins and/or acrylic acid esters and/or maleic anhydride; the homo polymer or the copolymer is grafted with maleic anhydride). The PA6/PP has a good balance of properties in the final product (p. 688, Introduction). The addition of EPRgMA to the PA6/PP-based nanocomposites increases the nanocomposites’ ultimate strength, stiffness and elongation at break (i.e., ductility) (Abstract; p. 692, Mechanical properties; p. 695, Conclusion).
In light of the motivation of Chow, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the nylon (i.e., polyamide) film include the PA6/PP including EPRgMA, in order to provide a film that has increased strength, stiffness and ductility.
Mimura in view of Chow teaches the film prevents permeation of resin into the foam core, thereby ensuring the weight reduction is not impaired, the surface of the foam core is even and not discolored (Mimura, p. 2, lines 16-20; p. 5, lines 14-17; p. 8, line 17-p. 9, line 2).
In light of the motivation of Mimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the film of Mimura in view of Chow on the foam core of Myard, in order to provide a barrier on the foam core preventing the permeation of resin or other weight increasing materials into the foam core, thus, ensuring the foam core remains lightweight and even at the surface, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
In reference to claim 2, Myard in view of Mimura and Chow teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the foam layer of Myard in view of Mimura and Chow is substantially identical to the present claimed polymeric foam layer in composition and structure, it is clear that the foam layer of Myard in view of Mimura and Chow intrinsically have a softening point of 100 ºC to 280 ºC.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 3, Myard in view of Mimura and Chow teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Myard further teaches the foam may include blow agents and can be prepared in a molten stated, for example in an extrusion device ([0022]-[0041]). However, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, even if Myard in view of Mimura and Chow did not teach the foam layer being obtainable by extruding a thermoplastic polymer in the presence of a blowing agent through a die, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Myard in view of Mimura and Chow meets the requirements of the claimed product, Myard in view of Mimura and Chow clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
In reference to claims 11 and 16, Myard in view of Mimura and Chow teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Myard further teaches the elements (i.e., structural layer/foam layer/structural layer) can be assembled simultaneously or successively by gluing with an adhesive film that is compatible with the material of the elements ([0078]).
Mimura further teaches laminating an adhesive on at least one side of the nylon film (p. 6, lines 1-2; p. 9, line 19-p. 10, line 9). The adhesive may be a polyester, acrylic, polyamide, polyolefin, copolymers thereof, modified products and ionomers (p. 6, lines 9-11).
In light of the disclosures by Myard and Mimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include an adhesive of an acrylic copolymer between the film and the structural layer, which is both disclosed by Myard in view of Mimura and Chow and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, in order to ensure the structure is assembled and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“Furthermore, the Office contends that a person skilled in the art is allegedly motivated to add the functional layers of Mimura to the disclosure of Myard. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office’s conclusion. First of all, the fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) disclosed in Mimura discloses molded products, where the foam is made of polyurethane, polystyrene and/or polyolefin. Mimura does not disclose a polymer foam laminate, where the polymeric foam layer is made from polyamide. Moreover, the problem to be solved by the disclosure of Mimura is to prevent thermosetting resin from permeating into the foamed resin molding. Moreover, Mimura does not disclose functional layers comprising homopolymer or copolymer of ethylene and/or α-olefins and/or acrylic acid esters and/or malic anhydride, as presently claimed.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above, Myard teaches a polyamide-based foam. Mimura is only used as teaching reference in order to teach nylon film in a sandwich structure, Mimura is not used to teach the foam feature.
Myard and Mimura are both drawn to polymer foam laminate structures. Further, Mimura provides motivation to include nylon film in a polymer foam laminate structure, namely in order to provide a barrier on the foam core preventing the permeation of resin or other weight increasing materials into the foam core, thus, ensuring the foam core remains lightweight and even at the surface.
While Mimura does not explicitly teach the nylon film further comprises a homo polymer or copolymer of ethylene and/or α-olefins and/or acrylic acid esters and/or malic anhydride, Chow is relied on to teach this claimed element.
Applicant further argues:
“There is nothing in any of the cited references that would motivate or guide a person to modify the disclosure of Myard to incorporate the disclosures of Mimura and Chow in the manner proposed by the Office.”
Remarks, p. 7
“The Office’s reasoning for combining the reference is not based on any factual evidence of record. Instead, it illustrates the hindsight approach in recreating what is claimed – an approach that begins with what is claimed and works backward to recreate it notwithstanding what the art as a whole actually teaches.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As discussed above, Myard and Mimura are both drawn to polymer foam laminate structures. Further, Mimura provides motivation to include nylon film in a polymer foam laminate structure, namely in order to provide a barrier on the foam core preventing the permeation of resin or other weight increasing materials into the foam core, thus, ensuring the foam core remains lightweight and even at the surface.
Further, Myard, Mimura and Chow are all drawn to polymeric materials. Additionally, Chow provides proper motivation to modify a nylon (i.e., polyamide) film to include PA6/PP including EPRgMA, namely to provide a film that has increased strength, stiffness and ductility. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it is the examiner’s position absent evidence to the contrary one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine Myard, Mimura and Chow to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784