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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, there is no support in the initially filed Specification for ending the elastic modulus range of the foam material to 0.67 GPa. Thus, Claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10, 13, 14, and 16 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 9, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer et al. (US 2011/0293914 A1) in view of KG (NPL), Kondo et al. (US 2018/0044497 A1), eSheet (NPL), Dukess (US 4,206,165 A) and Jonza (US 2014/0349094 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Maurer teaches a composite foam article (Abstract) comprising a foam core that is covered with skin layers. (Abstract). Maurer teaches the foam core can have a density of less than 160 kg/m3. (Paragraph 0084). This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Maurer teaches the skin layers can be solid (non-foamed layers). (Paragraph 0169). Maurer teaches the skin layer can be high impact polystyrene (HIPS). (Paragraph 0035) KG teaches solid high impact polystyrene has a density of 1030 to 1060 kgm3. (Page 1). This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) Therefore, Maurer teaches where the foam core has a lower density than the skin layer, as taught by KG.
Maurer and KG do not specifically teach the flexural strength of the foam material or the Shore D hardness of the foam material.
Kondo teaches a foam to be used in vehicles should have a flexural/bending strength of 2.0 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0078, 0002) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) Kondo teaches bending strength ensures the foam can be used in vehicles to ensure it provides excellent properties to substituted for metals (Paragraph 0002). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the bending strength of Maurer to the claimed range to ensure it has sufficient strength to be used in vehicles and/or used as a metal substitute.
Maurer, KG, and Kondo do not specifically teach the Shore D hardness of the foam material. However, Maurer teaches the outer layer is HIPS, as discussed above. The outer surface will have the Shore Hardness for the foam material. eSheet teaches the Shore D hardness of high-impact polystyrene, the outer skin material of Maurer, of 60 to 75. This overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, the foam material will have the claimed Shore D Hardness, due to the use of HIPS as the outer skin layer.
Maurer, KG, Kondo and eSheet do not specifically teach the skin layer being co-extruded onto the foam core.
Dukess teaches co-extruding skin layers onto a foam core (Abstract). Dukess teaches this leads to better bonding between the skin and core layers and does not require an additional costly adhesive layer to ensure bonding. (Column 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form the foam article using coextrusion.
Maruer, KG, Kondo, eSheet, and Dukess do not specifically teach the ISO 178 E-modulus, flexural modulus, of the foam material. Maurer does teach the material can be used for doors, pallets, and automative articles. (Paragraph 0003).
Jonza teaches a foam material with a foam core and skin layers. (Abstract). Jonza teaches the flexural modulus of the foam material can be greater 0.3 GPa. Jonza teaches this flexural modulus ensures the foam composite material can be suitable for construction panels, furniture, and vehicles (Paragraph 0051, 0098). Thus, as Jonza teaches the claimed range for a foam material allows the foam material to be used in intended purposes of Maurer, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
Regarding Claim 2, Maurer teaches the foam core can have a density of less than 160 kg/m3. (Paragraph 0084). This lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Maruer teaches the foam core can be PS, HIPS, or ABS. (Paragraph 0065-0077).
Regarding Claim 6, Maurer teaches the skin layer can be high impact polystyrene. (Paragraph 0035) KG teaches solid high impact polystyrene has a density of 1030 to 1060 kgm3. (Page 1). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 7, Maurer teaches the skin layer can be high impact polystyrene. (Paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 8, Maurer teaches the skin layer can be a solid material. (Paragraph 0169).
Regarding Claim 9, Maurer teaches the skin layer can have a thickness of 100 microns or greater. (Paragraph 0058) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, Maurer does not teach the surface of the foam material does not show a visible impact in the Wegner test at 15 Newtons according to DIN 53799. However, Mauer teaches the same material and an overlapping thickness range for the skin layer as the Examples in the instant Specification, where the Wegner Test will impact. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the foam article taught by Maurer would also yield the same result as the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 14, eSheet teaches the Shore D hardness of high-impact polystyrene, the outer skin material of Maruer, of 60 to 75. This overlaps the claimed ranges as Shore 0 is a lower Shore range than Shore D. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 16, Maurer teaches foam composites can be used in product (Paragraph 0003), where the product comprises a decorative purpose element. (Paragraph 0035).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer, KG, Kondo, eSheet, Dukess, and Jonza in further view of Branch (WO 2004/104072 A2)
Regarding Claim 5, Maurer does not teach the foam material is at least partially obtained from at least 20 wt% of a recycled polymer.
Branch teaches making a foam article with a skin region (Abstract). Branch teaches forming the foam article with a 0 to 100% recycled polymer. (Page 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) This overlaps the claimed range. Branch teaches using recycled material is better for the environment. (Page 1-2). Thus, as Branch teaches using the claimed range of recycled polymer in a foam article provides the advantage of lower environmental cost, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed range of recycled polymer in Maurer for the lower environmental cost.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer, KG, Kondo, eSheet, Dukess, and Jonza in further view of NordTreat (NPL).
Regarding Claim 10, Maurer teaches foam composite can be used in doors (Paragraph 0003) or roofing (Paragraph 0174). Maurer does not teach the fire rating of the foam composite.
NordTreat teaches exterior and interior cladding for apartment buildings, nursing homes, and other public building should have a fire class of B-s1, d0 in order to be legal in Finland (Page 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the foam, which is to be used in buildings, meets the necessary fire class to ensure it can be used in buildings in Finland.
Claims 1-9, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonza et al. (US 2014/0349094 A1) in view of Kondo, Sybridge (NPL) and Dukess.
Regarding Claim 1, Jonza teaches a foam material with a foam core and skin layers (Abstract). Jonza teaches the density of the skin material is higher density than the foam core. (Paragraph 0032, 0042). Jonza teaches the foam core has a density of less than 500 kg/m3. (Paragraph 0042). Jonza teaches the skin material has a density of 1200 kg/m3 or greater. (Paragraph 0032). ISO 178 elastic modulus is flexural modulus. Jonza teaches the flexural modulus of the foam material is at least 0.3 GPa. These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Jonza teaches this material can be used in vehicles (Paragraph 0098), but does not teach the flexural strength.
Kondo teaches a foam to be used in vehicles should have a flexural/bending strength of 2.0 MPa or more. (Paragraph 0078, 0002) This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) Kondo teaches bending strength ensures the foam can be used in vehicles to ensure it provides excellent properties to substituted for metals (Paragraph 0002). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the bending strength of Jonza to the claimed range to ensure it has sufficient strength to be used in vehicles and/or used as a metal substitute.
Jonza and Kondo do not specifically teach the Shore D hardness of the foam material.
Jonza teaches the skin layer can be PET (Paragraph 0023-0024). Skybridge teaches PET has a Shore D hardness of 87. The Shore D hardness will be measured on the external surface, the skin layer of PET. Therefore, Jonza teaches a foam material with a Shore D hardness within the claimed range.
Jonza, Kondo and Skybridge do not teach the skin material is co-extruded onto the core.
Dukess teaches co-extruding skin layers onto a foam core (Abstract). Dukess teaches this leads to better bonding between the skin and core layers and does not require an additional costly adhesive layer to ensure bonding. (Column 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to form the foam article of Jonza using coextrusion.
Regarding Claim 2, Jonza teaches the foam core has a density of less than 500 kg/m3. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 3, Jonza teaches the overall density of the foam material range from 100 to 1200 kg/m3. (Paragraph 0051). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 4, Jonza teaches the foam core can be PET. (Paragraph 0023-0024).
Regarding Claim 5, Jonza teaches the recycled polyester can be used alone. (Paragraph 0022). Therefore, Jonza teaches 100 wt% of the foam material is recycled polymer.
Regarding Claim 6, Jonza teaches the skin material has a density of 1200 kg/m3 or greater. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 7, Jonza teaches the skin layer can be PET. (Paragraph 0023-0024).
Regarding Claim 8, Jonza teaches the skin layer can be a solid layer. (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 9, Jonza teaches the skin layer can be at least 10 microns thick. (Paragraph 0035). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 13, Jonza, Kondo, Skybridge, and Dukess teaches foam material with overlapping materials and ranges, then it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the resulting foam material would have the same physical properties including the Wegner test results, as the claimed invention. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. (MPEP §2112).
Regarding Claim 14, Jonza teaches the skin layer can be PET (Paragraph 0023-0024). Skybridge teaches PET has a Shore D hardness of 87. The Shore D hardness will be measured on the external surface, the skin layer of PET. Therefore, Jonza teaches a foam material with a Shore D hardness within the claimed range. This overlaps the claimed ranges as Shore 0 is a lower Shore range than Shore D. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding Claim 16, Jonza teaches a product comprising the foam material along with a decorative or structural element. (Paragraph 0096).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonza, Kondo, Skybridge, and Dukess, in further view of NordTreat (NPL).
Regarding Claim 10, Jonza teaches foam composite can be used in construction. (Paragraph 0098). Jonza does not teach the fire rating of the foam composite.
NordTreat teaches exterior and interior cladding for apartment buildings, nursing homes, and other public building should have a fire class of B-s1, d0 in order to be legal in Finland (Page 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the foam, which is to be used in buildings, meets the necessary fire class to ensure it can be used in buildings in Finland.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Jonza teaches an elastic modulus outside the claimed range. This argument is found unpersuasive. ISO 178 defines the modulus as flexural modulus, a type of elastic modulus (See ISO NPL). Jonza teaches the foam material can have a flexural modulus of greater than 0.3 GPa, which overlaps the claimed range.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights