Claims 8-26 are pending in the application. Claims 1-7 have been cancelled. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 8-12, and 21-26 are rejected.
The rejection over Yamazaki in view of Smiecinski has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Dehni in view of Grassini, and Zabik has been maintained.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Dikeman et al. (US 2018/0194917).
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.
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.
Claims 8-12, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,673,415 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter “Yamazaki”) in view of US 2018/0194917 to Dikeman et al. (hereinafter “Dikeman”) and CN 102264790 to Smiecinski et al. (hereinafter “Smiecinski”).
As to claims 8, 9, 22, and 24-26, Yamazaki discloses a composite structure for use as a building material, comprising a honeycomb core material with a plurality of cavities extending through a thickness of the honeycomb core material, and each cavity being filled with a composite foam that comprises a phosphoric acid and a urethane foam (abstract).
The composite foam comprises a phosphoric acid and a urethane foam with a mixing ratio of 5:1 to 30:1 (abstract; and column 4, lines 60-65). As a phosphoric acid is a hydrophobic, flame-retardant material, the composite foam would be a hydrophobic material. The urethane foam is obtained from a urethane prepolymer comprising polyisocyanate and a polyol wherein the polyisocyanate comprises polymeric MDI, monomeric MDI, TDI, HDI, mIPDI, and any combinations thereof (column 7, lines 50-55). Yamazaki discloses that the composite foam comprises an inorganic filler including fly ash, and silica (column 11, lines 30-40).
Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose (i) the core material comprising a foam structure having a plurality of cavities extending between an upper and a lower surface, and (ii) the composite foam comprising a polyisocyanate that is derived from a mixture of monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI.
Dikeman, however, disclose a reinforced foam structure including a thermoplastic foam body having first and second major surfaces, and apertures extending through the foam body (abstract, figures 1B and 1C). Each aperture defined by a first wall 302a, and a reinforcement wall 302b, is surrounded by a second wall 304 (paragraph 40). The reinforcement wall 302b is defined as a portion of the first wall 302a that has been modified by an application of heat (paragraph 42). The density of the reinforcement wall 302b is greater than the second wall 304 and a permeability of the reinforcement wall 302b is less than permeability of the second wall 304 (paragraph 42). The reinforced foam structure is resistant to moisture absorption (paragraph 3). The reinforced foam structure is thus a hydrophobic material. The reinforced foam structure comprises polyetherimide, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, polyimide, polyvinylchloride or any combinations thereof (paragraphs 35 and 83). The reinforced foam structure has a thickness of 1 to 25.4 mm (paragraph 67), including the apertures with a wall thickness of 1.4 to 1.5 mm (table 2). Each aperture is formed in the shape of a hexagon, a circle, a square, a pentagon or an octagon (paragraph 44). The reinforced foam structure has a density of 50 kg/m3 (3 pcf), and a compressive strength of 1356 kPa (197 psi) (table 2). These are within the claimed ranges.
Dikeman also discloses a panel assembly includes a first layer of laminate 402 a and a second layer of laminate 402b on each side of the reinforced foam structure 300 (figures 5A and 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dikeman mentions that an aramid-based honeycomb structure picks up moisture easily and thus increase in weight overtime and the risk of mold growing in the interior panels (paragraph 55). Substitution of the reinforced foam structure for the aramid-based honeycomb structure of the panel assembly would obtain improved compressive strength, great resistance to moisture absorption without compromising the weight of the panel assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a reinforced foam structure disclosed in Dikeman for the honeycomb structure of Yamazaki, motivated by the desire to obtain improved compressive strength, and great resistance to moisture absorption without compromising the weight of the composite material.
Smiecinski, however, discloses a flexible polyurethane foam having a density of less than 100 kg/m3, and formed from a reaction of a polyisocyanate and a polyol (abstract). The polyisocyanate is comprised of a mixture of monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI (paragraphs 15 and 16). Said poyisocyanate facilitates the flame- retardant properties by providing a carbonized barrier to flame propagation and suppressing the steam formation when the polyurethane foam is exposed to fire (paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyisocyanate disclosed in Yamazaki/Dikeman comprising a mixture of monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI as disclosed in Smiecinski, motivated by the desire to facilitate the flame-retardant properties to the foam by providing a carbonized barrier to flame propagation and suppressing the steam formation when the polyurethane foam is exposed to fire.
Dikeman discloses that the reinforced foam structure has a density of 50 kg/m3 (3 pcf), and a compressive strength of 1356 kPa (197 psi) (table 2).
Smiecinski discloses that the filling polyurethane foam has a density of less than 100 kg/m3 or 6 pcf (abstract).
The combined disclosures of Yamazaki, Dikeman and Smiecinski result in a composite structure having a density of less than 20 pcf and a compressive strength of greater than 60 psi.
As to claims 10 and 21, Yamazaki discloses that the composite foam comprises a phosphoric acid and a urethane foam with a mixing ratio of 5:1 to 30:1 (abstract; and column 4, lines 60-65). Dekeman discloses that the reinforced foam structure comprises polyetherimide (paragraph 35). Hence, the reinforced foam structure and the composite foam are compositionally different.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a reinforced foam structure disclosed in Dikeman for the honeycomb structure of Yamazaki, motivated by the desire to obtain improved compressive strength, and great resistance to moisture absorption without compromising the weight of the composite material.
As to claim 11, Yamazaki discloses that the honeycomb core has a thickness of 40 mm. The composite foam is occupied about 80% of the thickness of the honeycomb core (example 1). The composite foam has a density of 46 kg/m3 (2.87 pcf) based on the thickness of 32 mm and the weight of 1.5 kg/m2 (column 4, lines 50-55).
1.5 kg/m2: 0.032 m = 46 kg/m3
As to claim 12, Yamazaki discloses that a composite structure further includes a facing material bonded to the foam-filled honeycomb material wherein the facing material is a plastic plate comprising a vinyl chloride plate, an acrylic plate (column 13, lines 30-40).
As to claim 23, Yamazaki discloses that the composite foam comprises an inorganic filler including fly ash, and silica (column 11, lines 30-40).
Response to Arguments
Yamazaki does not disclose a composite structure comprising a foam structure having a plurality of cavities extending through the thickness of the foam structure. However, new combination of Yamazaki, Dikeman and Smiecinski suggests the claimed invention.
Claims 8-12, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0128335 to Dehni et al. (hereinafter “Dehni”) in view of US 2021/0017324 to Grassini et al. (hereinafter “Grassini”) and US 2008/0048462 to Zabik (hereinafter “Zabik”).
As to claim 8, Dehni discloses a composite structure useful as a bumper 200 comprising a foam block of a hard foam material 202 having a plurality of cavities extending through a thickness of the foam block, and each cavity being filled a soft foam material 204 (paragraph 100; and figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dehni discloses that the soft foam filler is a polyurethane foam having a density of 4 pcf while the hard foam block is a polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam having a density of 10 pcf (paragraph 49). As such, the bumper would have a density below 20 pcf. The soft foam filler further includes fumed silica corresponding to the claimed inorganic filler (paragraph 37). The polyurethane foam of the soft foam filler is formed from a polymer mixture comprising methylene diphenyl isocyanate (MDI) monomer (paragraph 36).
Dehni fails to disclose (i) the polyurethane foam formed from a polymer mixture comprising MDI monomer and MDI polymer, and (ii) a compressive strength of at least 60 psi.
Grassini, however, discloses a polyurethane foam useful in bumper applications, made of a polymer mixture comprising monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI (paragraphs 15 and 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyurethane foam disclosed in Grassini for the soft foam disclosed in Dehni, motivated by the desire to provide fast demolding time, good flow and low emissions according to VDA 278 (2015) emission test.
Zabik, however, discloses a bumper beam for a vehicle comprising an outer skin formed of a polymeric material, and a foam core provided within the outer skin (abstract). The foam core has an average compressive strength of 0.3 to 1.5 MPa, or 44 to 218 psi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composite structure disclosed in Dehni having a compressive strength as disclosed in Zabik, motivated by the desire to effectively resist deformation in a vehicle collision.
None of the references: Dehni, Grassini and Zabik discloses a building material. However, it appears the composite structure of Dehni, Grassini and Zabik meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims. The composite structure comprises a foam block of a hard foam material having a plurality of cavities extending through the thickness of the hard foam block, and each cavity being filled a soft foam material. The soft foam filler is a polyurethane foam having a density of 4 pcf while the hard foam block is a polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam having a density of 10 pcf. The modified polyurethane foam is formed from a polymer mixture comprising monomeric and polymeric MDI. The composite structure has a compressive strength from 44 to 218 psi.
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that a building material would inherently be present as like material has like property.
As to claim 9, Dehni discloses that the polyurethane foam and polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam are infused with all weather-water repellant (paragraph 94). Therefore, the foam materials are hydrophobic.
As to claims 10 and 11, Dehni discloses that the soft foam filler is a polyurethane foam having a density of 4 pcf while the hard foam block is a polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam having a density of 10 pcf (paragraph 49). The polyurethane foam and the polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam are thus made of different chemical compositions.
As to claim 12, Dehni discloses a composite structure useful as a bumper 200 comprising a foam block of a hard foam material 202 having a plurality of cavities extending through the thickness of the foam block, and each cavity being filled a soft foam material 204 (paragraph 100; and figure 2). Dehni discloses that the soft foam filler is a polyurethane foam having a density of 4 pcf while the hard foam block is a polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam having a density of 10 pcf (paragraph 49). As such, the bumper would have a density way below 20 pcf. Dehni discloses the polyurethane foam is formed from a polymer mixture comprising methylene diphenyl isocyanate (MDI) monomer (paragraph 36).
Dehni fails to disclose the composite structure further including a polymeric facer.
Zabik, however, discloses a bumper beam for a vehicle comprising an outer skin formed of a polymeric material and a foam core provided within the outer skin (abstract). The foam core has an average compressive strength of 0.3 to 1.5 MPa, or 44 to 218 psi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to encapsulate the composite structure disclosed in Dehni with an outer polymeric skin as disclosed in Zabik, motivated by the desire to effectively resist deformation in a vehicle collision.
As to claim 21, Dehni discloses that the soft foam filler is a polyurethane foam having a density of 4 pcf while the hard foam block is a polyurethane/polyorganosiloxane foam having a density of 10 pcf (paragraph 49). The hard foam corresponds to the claimed first polymeric foam.
As to claim 23, Dehni discloses that the soft foam or the claimed second polymeric foam comprises fumed silica as an inorganic filler (paragraphs 37 and 41).
As to claim 24, Dehni discloses that the cavity has a circular shape or a triangular shape corresponding to the claimed polygonal shape (paragraphs 96, and 100).
As to claims 22, 25 and 26. Dehni discloses that the bumper is a hard foam block having rectangular shape having a length of 4 ft, a height of 2 inches and a width of 3 inches (paragraph 100; and figure 2). In particular, an 1 inch wide hard foam on the outer edges that are interconnected by column 206 every 8 inches, with an inner layer of the soft foam (paragraph 100). The column could read on the claimed wall of the cavity.
Dehni also teaches that the hard foam block is cut in different geometric shapes and size including circle or X shapes to allow room for the soft foam (paragraph 100). The hard foam and the soft foam can be created in varying length, width and shape to fit as a cushion within doors of a vehicle or around the exterior of watercraft. These foams function as a cushion in the event of a collision (paragraph 100).
Dehni does not explicitly disclose the wall thickness of the cavities from 0.1 to 5 mm, and the thickness of the foam block from 20 to 50 mm.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the wall thickness of the cavities and the thickness of the foam block will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the wall thickness of the cavities and the thickness of the foam block are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wall thickness of the cavities and the thickness of the foam block in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to the wall thickness of the cavities and the thickness of the foam block in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain desired weight while optimizing impact absorption performance. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that Dehni fails to teach the second polymeric foam comprising an inorganic filler as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Dehni discloses a composite structure useful as a bumper 200 comprising a foam block of a hard foam material 202 having a plurality of cavities extending through a thickness of the foam block, and each cavity being filled a soft foam material 204 (paragraph 100; and figure 2).
The soft foam filler further includes fumed silica corresponding to the claimed inorganic filler (paragraph 37).
As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Dehni, Grassini and Zabik, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cagle et al. (US 2021/0323263)
Gupta et al. (US 2019/0111658), and
Maurer et al. (US 2011/0293914).
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights