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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 12/23/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 10/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 have been amended. Claims 2 and 6 have been canceled. Claim 10 maintains withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 3 and 5 have been amended to address the informality, thus the objection of claims 3 and 5 has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claims 1-9 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/23/2025 in pages 5 and 6, with respect to claim 1 under 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are addressed in the revised rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 3, Applicant has been advised to replace “a mold cavity” in line 4 to – in the mold cavity --; and
in claim 7, Applicant has been advised to replace “claim 6” in line 1 to – claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 the limitation “the mold cavity” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller et al. (US 2019/0143650) in view of Riepl (DE 102007004695 A1_ Machine translation) (All of record). Additional supporting evidence provided by APA (“Plywood”, https://www.apawood.org/plywood#:~:text=Plywood%20has%20been%20one%20of,economical%20grades%20used%20for%20sheathing., 04/12/2021).
With respect to claim 1, Moller teaches a method for the manufacture of a multilayer composite (Pa [0035]), the method comprising:
providing a multilayer composite component made of renewable raw materials (“(A) scattering OSB strands or a strand-like material so as to form a first layer”, “(B) applying a second layer to the first layer by scattering corrugated wooden elements”, “(C) applying a third layer to the second layer by scattering OSB strands or a strand-like material”, Pa [0035]),
producing the multilayer composite from the multilayer composite component by a forming process in a forming die (“(D) compressing the layers formed in steps (A), (B) and the optional step (C)”, Pa [0035]; “(Y) pressure-deforming the multilayer composite”, Pa [0036]; “deformed in a suitable pressing tool”, Pa [0159]).
wherein the multilayer composite component is made of wood veneer layers and/or wood chips made of renewable raw materials (“the corrugated wooden elements comprise or consist of OSB strands or a strand-like material.”, Pa [0029]).
Moller teaches that the multilayer composite or the core layer is used in the production of furniture, for shelving, for packaging for transport, for interior structures, in doors and gates, in or as chairs, and in the construction of vehicles and ships (Pa [0167]), but does not explicitly teach a method for the manufacture of a partition for an interior of a commercial or transport vehicle for separating a passenger compartment from a cargo compartment, wherein at least one additional insert art is inserted into the mold cavity together with the wood veneer layers and/or the wood chips to form the multilayer composite component, and wherein the at least one additional insert part is a fabric, a non-crimp fabric or a fleece that is inserted in a central region of the multiplayer composite component to provide a thermal and/or acoustic insulating effect.
In the same field of endeavor, a method for forming an edge region of a surface element, Riepl teaches that the surface element 1 can also be used as partition wall in the automotive industry (Pa [0042]), and the surface element is given its final shape by a forming process by a press die having at least one mold cavity (Pa [0001]). Riepl further teaches that cover layers 6 can vary depending on requirements (stability, rigidity, torsional stability, loadbearing capacity), it is also possible that further layers are arranged, such as: B. Intermediate layers, for example for reinforcement, such as: E.g. net-like, fabric-like, etc. (Pa [0044]), the material used for the cover layer(s) 6 can be leather, textiles, etc. made of natural materials or plastics, in particular a needle felt or a needle fleece, whereby these flat textiles are made of individual fibers that are held together by their own adhesive properties and can be strengthened by mechanical processes, and their advantages lie in their good thermal insulation properties and high sound absorption (Pa [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Moller with the teachings of Riepl to incorporate the forming process in the press die taught by Riepl to Moller’s method and provide the intermediate layers made of fabric or fleece in order to produce the partition wall having good thermal insulation and high sound absorption properties in the automobile with Moller’s multilayer composite.
With respect to claim 3, Moller as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that in a preparatory process step the wood veneer layers and/or the wood chips are coated with a binder (“OSB strands or strand-like material and corrugated wooden elements contacting one another can be fixedly interconnected in each case by an adhesive.”, Pa [0035]), and Riepl as applied in the combination regarding claim 2 above further teaches that in the forming process step, the wood veneer layers and/or the wood chips are inserted into a mold cavity of the forming die and then compressed under pressure and heat to form the partition (“the surface element is given its final shape by a forming process, in particular hot forming and/or pressing... with at least one mold cavity in which deformation elements, in particular press dies”, Pa [0001]).
With respect to claim 4, Moller as applied to claim 3 above further teaches that the wood veneer layers and/or the wood chips that are coated with the binder are loosely inserted into the mold cavity as bulk material, or that the wood veneer layers and/or the wood chips that are coated with the binder are pressed into a flat semi-finished product in a pressing step before the forming process step is carried out, and then the flat semi-finished product is inserted into the mold cavity of the forming die in order to perform the forming process step (“the corrugated wooden elements comprise or consist of OSB strands or a strand-like material.”, Pa [0029]; “(A) scattering OSB strands or a strand-like material so as to form a first layer”, “(B) applying a second layer to the first layer by scattering corrugated wooden elements”, Pa [0035]).
With respect to claim 5, Moller as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that for providing the partition with a multidirectional fiber orientation, the wood veneer layers are layered on each other so that fiber orientations of adjacent wood veneer layers are aligned differently with respect to each other (“first, second and/or third corrugated wooden elements comprise fibers having a preferred direction.”, Pa [0030]; “the first and the second direction are different from one another.”, Pa [0022]), and/or that the wood chips are arranged unoriented in a random orientation in relation to each other in the multilayer composite component (“second corrugated wooden elements are randomly arranged in the second layer.”, Pa [0023]; “third corrugated wooden elements are randomly arranged in the third layer.”, Pa [0026]).
With respect to claim 7, Moller as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one additional insert part further includes a top layer of the multilayer composite component (“a cover layer”) covering the core layer, thus it is inherently decorative (“the cover layer is arranged so as to at least partially cover the core layer and be fixedly connected thereto”, Pa [0034]), and wherein the top layer is a layer of wood veneer impregnated with a plastic (“plywood board”, Pa [0034]). Furthermore, the supporting evidence (APA, “Plywood”, 04/12/2021) teaches that plywood panels have superior dimensional stability and an excellent strength-to-weight ratio and are highly resistant to impacts, chemicals, and changes in environmental temperature and humidity (“Plywood Basics”).
With respect to claim 8, Riepl as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that for providing a partition reinforcement section a local compression is performed in which the partition reinforcement section is locally compacted in the forming process step by increased forming pressure as compared to other partition sections (The variant in which, in the original sense of the word “material displacement”, actually existing material, e.g. B. is compressed, is preferred, as this also allows a higher density in the area of the weakened zone and thus higher strength to be achieved.”, Pa [0009]).
With respect to claim 9, Riepl as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that for providing a partition reinforcement section, a local thickening is performed in which the partition reinforcement section is formed with increased material input, or with at least one additional wood veneer layer and/or with additional wood chips, as compared to other partition sections (“The weakened zone can also be created by material displacement, e.g. B. when providing an elevation, a projection, in the shape of the surface element, whereby material displacement may also be understood to mean that less material is filled into this area of the weakened zone during the filling process of the mold, i.e. a zone or area with a smaller thickness is formed.”, Pa [0009]; thus, for the other zone but the weakened zone, Riepl teaches a local thickening by filling more material in that area.).
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742