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
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-346898 A with a machine translation (submitted 27 May 2025) (hereinafter “Hiroki”) being used as the English language equivalent translation.Regarding claim 1 Hiroki teaches a foamed resin molded product or door trim lower (resin molded product) 30 comprising a general portion (main body) 32 comprising a design face and an opposite face opposite to the design face and having a cell-structured foam layer (first foamed layer) 30b formed inside the general portion (main body) 32, and a flange portion (protruding portion) 33 located at a periphery of the general portion (main body) 32, having a cell-structured foam layer (second foamed layer) 30b formed inside the flange portion (protruding portion) 33, and protruding to a thickness direction of the general portion (main body) 32 and a side opposite to the design face, wherein the flange portion (protruding portion) 33 comprises a thin portion (tip end portion) 34 disposed so that a protruding tip portion on the design face extends to a protruding direction of the flange portion (protruding portion) 33 more than a protruding tip portion on the opposite face (abstract, paragraph [0025], and Annotated Figure 3, shown below). Hiroki teaches a thickness d3 of the thin portion (tip end portion) 34 may be 1.0 mm (paragraph [0025] and Figure 3), which falls within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiroki teaches the cell-structured foam layer (first foamed layer) 30b, having a thickness A1, formed inside the general portion (main body) 32 is covered with a pair of first skin layers, having a total thickness of B1, covering both sides of the cell-structured foam layer (first foamed layer) 30b formed inside the general portion (main body) 32 (Annotated Figure 3, shown above). Hiroki also teaches the cell-structured foam layer (second foamed layer) 30b, having a thickness A2, formed inside the flange portion (protruding portion) 33 is covered with a pair of second skin layers, having a total thickness of B2, covering both sides of the cell-structured foam layer (second foamed layer) 30b (Annotated Figure 3, shown above). Hiroki teaches the foamed resin molded product is made by providing a foaming space with a predetermined thickness and inducing a foaming reaction to form a foamed resin molded product composed of a solid layer and a foamed layer into a required shape (paragraph [0018]). Hiroki does not explicitly teach: a thickness A1 of the first foamed layer is thicker than a total thickness B1 of the pair of first skin layers; a thickness A2 of the second foamed layer is thinner than a total thickness B2 of the pair of second skin layers; a ratio (A1/B1) between the thickness A1 of the first foamed layer and the total thickness B1 of the pair of first skin layers is from 1.3 to 2.3; and a ratio (A2/B2) between the thickness A2 of the second foamed layer and the total thickness B2 of the pair of second skin layers is from 0.6 to 0.9.Supporting Rationale #1: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine: an appropriate thickness A1 for the cell-structured foam layer (first foamed layer) relative to the total thickness B1 of the pair of first skin layers; an appropriate thickness A2 for the cell-structured foam layer (second foamed layer) relative to the total thickness B2 of the pair of second skin layers; and the resulting ratios therebetween (A1/B1 and A2/B2) using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve a desired balance between weight reduction and deformation resistance for each of the general portion (main body) 32 and the flange portion (protruding portion) 33 constituent parts of the foamed resin molded product. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Supporting Rationale #2: Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine: an appropriate thickness A1 for the cell-structured foam layer (first foamed layer) relative to the total thickness B1 of the pair of first skin layers; an appropriate thickness A2 for the cell-structured foam layer (second foamed layer) relative to the total thickness B2 of the pair of second skin layers; and the resulting ratios therebetween (A1/B1 and A2/B2), since such a modification would have involved nothing more than a mere change in the relative dimensions of the foamed resin molded product. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the foamed resin molded product having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the foamed resin molded product disclosed in the prior art; therefore, the claimed foamed resin molded product is not patentably distinct from the foamed resin molded product from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Regarding claim 2 In addition, Hiroki teaches the thin portion (tip end portion) 34 is formed only of a solid layer 30a (paragraph [0025]), which corresponds to an inside of the tip end portion is not foamed.
Response to Arguments
Due to their cancellation, the rejection of claims 4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroki have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC §103, as detailed in the updated rejection of record.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments as presented in pages 4-5 are not commensurate in scope with the updated rejection of record because the examiner relies on a different rationale to reject the claims. Additionally, the dimensions taught by Hiroki, as relied upon in the previous Office action, are disclosed as being part of a particular embodiment. Therefore, the totality of Hiroki’s teachings is not considered to be limited by the dimensions disclosed in paragraph [0025].
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783