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. Election/Restrictions Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 14, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-21 in the reply filed on November 14, 2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claim (s) 12 -1 5 and 17- 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-1162058 to Sekido . Regarding Claim s 12 -1 5 and 17- 20 Sekido teaches a composite component comprising a sandwich formed of a bottom mat and a top mat of reinforcing fibers such as polyamide fibers provided above and below a foam core and impregnated by a matrix resin such as nylon (polycaprolactam) ( Sekido , abstract, paragraph [0023]-[0028] , [0077]-[0078], [0089] ). Sekido teaches that the core is provided on upper and lower sides with raised portions which contribute to resin distribution in the core portion (spacer nubs) and larger raised portions which contribute to resin distribution in fiber reinforcing substrate and therefore would partially penetrate into the mat layers (fixing nubs) (Id., fig. 23c, paragraphs [0118]-[0121]). The core comprises apertures filed by the plastics matrix (Id.). Sekido teaches that the spacer nubs have a height x width of between 100 and 1 square mm, which would necessarily result in a potential height of between greater than 1 and less than 100 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.5 and 2.5 mm (Id.). It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Regarding the limitation of “formed by reaction injection molding,” this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even 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 , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi , 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness , Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. Regarding Claim 21 Regarding the limitations of the composite component being a gliding board, roller board or skateboard, this limitation is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekido as applied to claims 12-15 and 17-21 above, in view of US Pub No. 2012/0119402 to Desbois . Regarding Claim 16 Sekido does not appear to teach that the foamed core is specifically foamed polycaprolactam. However, Desbois teaches a composite component comprising a foamed core comprising polycaprolactam which is sandwiched between non-foam layers such as non-foamed polycaprolactam ( Desbois , abstract, paragraphs [0011], [0013], [0019], [0028], [0034], [0049] and [0054]). Desbois teaches that the resulting composite has reduced density/weight and improved stiffness (Id., paragraph [0017], [0065]). Debois and Sekido both teache that the composite materials are suitable for use as structural elements ( Sekido , paragraph [0020] , Desbois , abstract ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of Sekido , and to utilize as the foamed component, the foamed polycaprolactam of Debois , motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite suitable for use with polycaprolactam outer layers and as a structural component having improved density and stiffness properties. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5198 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Chriss can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712727783 . 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. /VINCENT TATESURE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786