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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 8-25 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 Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 21-25 are rejected.
The rejection over Yamazaki in view of Smiecinski has been maintained.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered references to Dehni et al. (US 2015/0128335).
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 21-25 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 CN 102264790 to Smiecinski et al. (hereinafter “Smiecinski”).
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 honeycomb core material has continuous geometrical cells of a hexagonal shape, or a circular shape with a cell size of 3 to 100 mm, and a porosity of 92 to 99.5 % (column 2, lines 45-65). The honeycomb core is made of polymer (column 5, lines 40-45).
The honeycomb structure is comprised of an array of hollow cavities and made of a polymeric material. The polymeric foam material is also comprised of multiple air-filled cells surrounded by a polymeric matrix. The examiner equates the hollow cavities of the honeycomb structure to the multiple cavities extending from an upper to a lower surface of the first polymeric foam. Accordingly, the honeycomb structure of Yamazaki reads on the claimed first polymeric foam.
In order to differentiate the structure of the claimed invention from the honeycomb core of Yamazaki, additional limitations should be incorporated in the claim: the first polymeric foam including a polymeric matrix and multiple foam cells randomly dispersed within the polymeric matrix.
Given that a thickness and a weight of 40 mm and 2.0 kg/m2, respectively (example 1), the foam-filled honeycomb material has a density of 3.1 pcf. This is within the claimed range.
2.0 kg/m2 : 0.04 m = 50 kg/m3 = 3.1 pcf
As indicated in table 1, the composite structure has a compressive strength of 4.6 kgf/cm2 (65 psi) and 15.2 6 kgf/cm2 (216 psi), within the claimed range.
Yamazaki discloses a flexible urethane prepolymer comprising NCO groups, which is derived from 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 does not explicitly disclose the urethane foam wherein the polyisocyanate is derived from a mixture of monomeric MDI and polymeric MDI.
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 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.
As to claim 9, Yamazaki discloses that the honeycomb core material is made of a polyvinyl chloride polymer which is a hydrophobic material. 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). As a phosphoric acid is a hydrophobic, flame-retardant material, the composite foam would inherently be a hydrophobic material.
As to claims 10 and 21, Yamazaki discloses that the honeycomb core material is made of a polyvinyl chloride polymer while 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). Hence, the honeycomb core material and the composite foam are compositionally different.
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 22, Yamazaki discloses that the honeycomb core has a thickness of 40 to 50 mm (column 3, lines 15-20).
As to claim 23, Yamazaki discloses that the foam filler comprises an inorganic filler (column 11, lines 30-35).
As to claim 24, Yamazaki discloses that the honeycomb cell has a circular shape or a polygonal shape (column 2, lines 45-50).
As to claim 25, Yamazaki discloses that the composite structure is useful as an interior or exterior panel for a building material such as a door (column 1, lines 10-15). The composite structure has a thickness of 40 to 50 mm (column 3, lines 15-20). The door has a general rectangular shape and so does the composite structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges that Yamazaki’s composite structure made of a honeycomb core material with a plurality of cavities and each cavity being filled with a composite foam that comprises a phosphoric acid and a urethane foam (abstract). The honeycomb core is made of a polymer which is different from the claimed first polymeric foam.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The honeycomb structure is comprised of an array of hollow cavities and made of a polymeric material. The polymeric foam material is also comprised of multiple air-filled cells surrounded by a polymeric matrix. The examiner equates the hollow cavities of the honeycomb structure to the multiple cavities extending from an upper to a lower surface of the first polymeric foam. Accordingly, the honeycomb structure of Yamazaki reads on the claimed first polymeric foam.
The amendment filed on 03/27/2026 did not include structural limitations of the foam cells as discussed in the telephone interview on March 9, 2026. The structural limitations of the cavities alone are not found sufficient to overcome the rejection over Yamazaki.
In order to differentiate the structure of the claimed invention from the honeycomb core of Yamazaki, additional limitations should be incorporated in the claim: the first polymeric foam including a polymeric matrix and multiple foam cells randomly dispersed within the polymeric matrix.
Claims 8-12, and 21-25 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”)
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_image1.png
347
635
media_image1.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. Dehni discloses the polyurethane foam 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 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 claims 22 and 25, Dehni discloses that the bumper has a general rectangular shape having a width of 3 inches, corresponding to the claimed thickness of 3 inches (paragraph 100; and figure 2).
As to claim 23, Dehni discloses that the soft foam or the claimed second polymeric foam comprises carbon black as an inorganic filler (paragraph 60).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones (US 2011/0244213) discloses a composite laminated article comprising an open grid of a first foam material having cavities, the cavities being filled with a second material having different density than the first foam material (paragraph 28; and figures 11-16).
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