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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 2010/0264680 A1) in view of Sasaki (JP 2014/080488 A) and Bian (CN 110835400 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa teaches a composite article, an arm rest, (Abstract; Fig. 2) comprising a first member (Item 122) and a molded second member including a plate-shaped portion and a plurality of protrusion, a first set of ribs extending and inclined in a first direction, protruding from a back surface of the plate-shaped portion and having protruding ends contacting the first member (Item 121, 121; Claim 1 of Ishikawa). Ishikawa teaches a cushioning property is imparted to the composite article by elastic deformation of the second member. (Fig. 6A-6C; Paragraph 0007). Ishikawa teaches the plate-shaped portion and the plurality of protrusion are integrally made (Fig. 4, 6A-6C; Paragraph 0028, 0030). Ishikawa teaches the angle of inclination can be 15 to 30 degrees. (Paragraph 0028). This overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 40 degrees. 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).
Ishikawa teaches the protrusions can made of plastics, such as TPO, PVC, TPU, and any other material that allows for plastic deformation or collapse. (Paragraph 0032) As Ishikawa shows the protrusions and the plate-shaped portion are integral (Fig. 4, 6A-6C; Paragraph 0028, 0030), then the plate-shaped portion is also made of same plastics, such as TPO, PVC, TPU, and any other material that allows for plastic deformation or collapse. TPO and TPU are considered solid thermoplastic elastomers, as Ishikawa does not require the plate-shaped portion or the protrusions to be foamed.
Ishikawa does not specifically teach the thermoplastic elastomer has the claimed impact resilience modulus.
Sasaki teaches a thermoplastic elastomer for use in automobiles (Paragraph 0001, 0066). Sasaki teaches the thermoplastic elastomer has a resilience modulus at 25 degrees C measured in accordance with JIS K6255 of 60% or less. (Paragraph 0073). While Sasaki does not specifically teach the modulus is measured at 23 degrees, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art to expect the modulus difference from 23 to 25 degrees would not cause the range taught by Ishikawa to no longer overlap the claimed range. Sasaki teaches this resilience modulus range ensures excellent vibration damping properties for the molded article. (Paragraph 0073). In addition, Sasaki teaches this thermoplastic elastomer has excellent moldability and flexibility. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the thermoplastic elastomer taught by Sasaki as the plastic in Ishikawa for its vibration-dampening effect and improved processing.
Ishikawa and Sasaki do not specifically teach the elastomer has the claimed hysteresis loss rate.
Bian teaches elastic polymer for vehicle interior parts where the polymer has a low hysteresis loss rate of 13 to 17%. (Abstract; Paragraph 0014, 0024). Bian teaches high hysteresis loss rate leads to low fatigue resistance, while low hysteresis rates lead to a better cushioning effect. (Paragraph 0006). In other words, the hysteresis loss rate of the thermoplastic elastomer of Ishikawa and Sasaki could have been optimized through routine experimentation to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Since the cushioning effect and fatigue resistance of an arm rest is important part of the design of an arm rest, the calculation of workable or optimum hysteresis loss rate using the claimed measurement methodology, a results-effective variable, to obtain a permissible arm rest is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP §2144.05, IIB). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the hysteresis loss rate of Ishikawa and Sasaki to the claimed range as taught by Bian.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Ishikawa teaches the composite article is an arm rest, a vehicle interior component. (Paragraph 0012, 0034; Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Ishikawa teaches a plurality of protrusions angled in two different directions. This argument is found unpersuasive, as the “comprising of” transition phrase does not prevent the claimed composite article from having two different groups of plurality of protrusions oriented in different directions. Thus, Ishikawa teaches the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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.
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