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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claims are confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively ascertained what comparative control is being set forth by the claims in order to ascertain what relevant limitation is being set forth by the recited comparable capabilities as set forth by the claims as they currently stand. Though the claims set forth that the “consolidated, porous core layer” of the claims is at least 25% less on a basis weight than a “control specimen” that it is compared to, the claims do not offer any definition as to the make-up and/or any other effects that constitute the make-up requirements of the “control specimen” in order to give these recitations of the claims any relevance as a limitation in any patentable sense.
Claims are further confusing as to intent because it can not be definitively be ascertained how the claims are intended to be limited by the recitations of the claims when conditions for determining the “average flexural slope”, “average flexural stiffness” and “average tensile modulus” properties/values referred to by the claims are not set forth by the claims. As such the intended metes and bounds of the claims as they currently stand can not be definitively ascertained.
Claims are still further confusing as to intent because the term “comparable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comparable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicants’ claims and patentably defining aspects of applicants’ supporting disclosure offer no criteria for determining what “average flexural slope”, “average flexural stiffness” and “average tensile modulus” values may be considered “comparable” as opposed to “non-comparable” in order to render determination of the intended metes and bounds of applicants’ claim definite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2 and 14 are additionally confusing as to intent because the basis for the recited ranges of ratio values can not be definitively determined. In that the claims do not establish a standard upon which the recited ranges of ratio values are based, the relevance of this range of ratio values as a limitation in any patentable sense can not be definitively determined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al.(2020/0114839).
Cheng et al. discloses thermoplastic composite articles comprising a porous, open-celled core layer that may comprise polypropylene and include glass fibers and expandable microsphere as lofting agents {see paras [0005], [0075]-[0083] and the Examples}. To the degree required by the claims, through their inclusion, the microspheres of Cheng et al. are inherently contained in the open cell structure of the composites of Cheng et al. Though flexural and tensile effects as described by the claims are not specifically recited by Cheng et al. Owing to the closeness of the material make-ups of the composites disclosed by Cheng et al. and good flexural, strength and stiffness effects disclosed, along with the noted ambiguities associated with the recited effects of applicants’ claims {see, again, rejection(s) under 35USC112 above}, it is held that the composites of Cheng et al. inherently possess the recited flexural and tensile effects to any degree that they may be defined by applicants’ claims. Regarding claims 5-10 and 19 and 20, flex peak load and stiffness values as claimed are disclosed {see Figures 29-31}. Regarding claims 11-13 and 17-20, inclusion of additional layers as set forth by these claims are allowed for by Cheng et al.{see paras [0080]-[0083]}.
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) 2-4 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al.(2020/0114839) as applied to claims 1, 5-13 and 17-20 above.
Claims 2 and 14 differ from Cheng et al. in that ratios as claimed are not specifically disclosed. However, overlap in proportions of the requisite materials are set forth for purposes of forming acceptable articles for use {see para [0078]}. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have utilized any proportional ratios of thermoplastic and reinforcing materials provided for by Cheng et al. in forming the composites of Cheng et al. for the purpose of forming acceptably developed structural and reinforcing composite articles in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results. Further, regarding claims 3 and 16, though densities as claimed are not specifically expressed, owing to closeness of material make-ups of composites involved, it is held that densities as claimed would necessarily follow. However, to the degree that difference based on density may be made evident, it is held that it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have varied the amounts of the critical, combined compositional effects that give rise to the density of articles formed, including fibers, resin and microspheres, for the purpose of forming acceptably developed articles having any density as suited to desired space, strength and/or weight requirements for articles formed in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
Claims 4 and 14 differ from Cheng et al. in that thicknesses as claimed are not specifically disclosed. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have prepared composites of any thickness within the practice of the invention of Cheng et al. in forming the composites of Cheng et al. for the purpose of forming acceptably developed structural and reinforcing composite articles to fit any application and fit desired, as well as balancing size and desired strength in order to arrive at the products of applicants’ claims with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of new or unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. and Inoue et al. are cited for their disclosure of relevant composites in the related arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Cooney whose telephone number is 571-272-1070. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/JOHN M COONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights