DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimelak et al. (US 2006/0165972).
Regarding claim 1:
Chimelak discloses a high modulus, high stiffness composite for use with automotive applications such as panels [abstract; 0003; 0009; 0024]. The composite comprises a metallic layer 16, an adhesive 23, and a polyolefin foam core 12 [0015-0016; 0021]. The metallic layer is primed (coated) [0019].
Chimelak teaches the thickness of the metallic layer is “tailored for a particular application” wherein higher thicknesses can be selected when higher loads are anticipated [0019]. The reference is silent with regard to specific thicknesses in the claimed range of 0.3-0.5 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have been motivated to select a particular thickness needed for a particular application as taught by Chimelak. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the metallic layer, including values falling within the claimed range, to provide the desired physical dimensions, structural integrity, weight, etc. desired for a given end use.
As mentioned, Chimelak teaches the composite has high stiffness. The reference teaches the composite can be used as a load bearing structure “designed to carry a load of 200-lb (91-kg) that is evenly distributed on the top of the load floor at 23° C., 70° C. and −30° C. for seven (7) days at each temperature without functional damage or cracking” and further “designed to withstand a 150-lb (68.2-kg) knee form load at 23° C., 70° C. and −30° C. without any functional damage or cracking, and a maximum deflection set of 6 mm” [0022]. Chimelak is silent with regard to bending rigidity in units of N·mm2 as presently claimed. The reference, however, teaches increased stiffness is desired to provide a load bearing structure. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the bending rigidity of the foam core, including over values falling within the presently claimed range, to provide a level of dent resistance desired for a given end use, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Chimelak teaches rapidly curing thermoset adhesives or thermoplastic adhesives [0021]. Thermoplastics are considered to be cured at room temperature. Furthermore, the examiner notes the present claims are drawn to “a cured material” of the adhesive (i.e., a final adhesive product). Therefore, the examiner submits Chimelak meets the implied limitations of the final product of the present claim.
Regarding claim 2:
Chimelak teaches the foam core can be provided as a sheet or other shapes [0016]. The reference is silent with regard to the disposition area of the foam core relative to the metallic layer as presently claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the area covered by the foam would directly relate to the properties provided by the foam (i.e., a larger covered area would result in higher and more even resiliency provided by the foam). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the disposition area, including over values within the presently claimed range, to provide the properties desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 3:
Chimelak is silent with regard to the area of the adhesive relative to the foam core. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the function of the adhesive layer was to create a bond between adjacent layers and so would have been motivated to apply sufficient adhesive material to provide such a bond. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of adhesive, including over area amounts falling within the claimed range, to provide sufficient bonding between adjacent layers.
Regarding claims 6-7:
Chimelak discloses polyolefin foam (thermoplastic), but also discloses other foams such as polyurethane (thermosetting) [0016-0017].
Regarding claim 10:
Chimelak discloses an example foam core thickness is 15.875 mm [0016].
Regarding claim 11:
Chimelak does not require the foam core to be coated.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimelak et al. (US 2006/0165972) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2009/073406).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of JP ‘406 filed by Applicant on 1/30/2024.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Chimelak discloses an automotive panel as previously explained.
Chimelak is silent with regard to an inner member on the reinforcing layer as presently claimed.
Such members were known in the art to have utility. For example, Masuda discloses a panel for a vehicle body comprising a plurality of layers of fibers and resin [abstract; 0001; 0010-0011]. Additionally, the panel comprises a “bone member” 4 (frame member) that is embedded in the resin and extends along one direction of the panel to provide improved rigidity [0042-0046; 0050; Fig. 4].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a frame member to Chimelak’s panel such that frame member is at least partially embedded in the foam core and extends along one direction of the panel to provide improved rigidity.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chimelak et al. (US 2006/0165972) in view of Sawa et al. (WO 2020/0145293).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of WO ‘293 filed by Applicant on 11/20/2024.
Regarding claim 8:
Chimelak discloses an automotive panel as previously explained.
Chimelak is silent with regard to an acrylic adhesive.
Such adhesives were known in the art to have utility. For example, Sawa discloses a panel for an automobile comprising a steel plate, a first adhesive layer, an intermediate layer, a second adhesive layer, and a reinforcing layer [abstract; 0001; 0008]. Sawa teaches the adhesive is not particularly limited, which include thermoplastics (which are considered cured at room temperature) [0046-0050]. Additionally, the reference discloses an acrylic resin [0074].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known adhesives, including an acrylic adhesive, to provide an adhesive bond between the layers of the composite.
Regarding claim 9:
Chimelak is silent with regard to the tensile strength of the metallic layer.
Sawa teaches the steel plate is “high-tensile” and has an ultimate yield stress is 510 MPa or more, wherein the tensile strength is higher than the ultimate yield stress [0017; 0023; 0061; Fig. 6]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a high tensile strength material, such as the steel taught by Sawa, and further vary the tensile strength of the steel plate, including over values presently claimed, to provide the desired strength for a given end use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to require “the resin member is foam resin” overcomes the previous rejections based on Sawa (WO 2020/0145293) alone and Sawa in view of Masuda (JP 2009/073406). Sawa, which taught the previously claimed overall structure, is silent with regard to a foam resin. The claims remain rejected in view of the newly cited reference Chimelak for the reasons discussed above. Sawa is still used in combination with Chimelak in the current rejections of claims 8-9. Insofar as Applicant’s arguments refer to Sawa, while it does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, it is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely acrylic adhesive and high tensile metal layers, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights