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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa et al. (WO 2020/0145293).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of WO ‘293 filed by Applicant on 11/20/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
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]. The reinforcing layer comprises plastic/resin (corresponds to the present resin member) [0037-0038]. The steel plate is coated [0055-0056] and has a thickness of 0.3-0.45 mm [0036].
Sawa teaches the bending stiffness ΔEI per unit width in the in-plane direction is 45 N·mm or more, more preferably 1000 N·mm or more [0024-0028]. Sawa is silent with regard to bending rigidity in units of N·mm2 (i.e., ΔEI not per unit width) as presently claimed. The reference, however, teaches increased stiffness is desired to provide improved dent resistance [0028]. 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 reinforcing layer, 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.
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, which is the same material as used in the present invention (present claim 8) [0074]. 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 Sawa meets the implied limitations of the final product of the present claim.
Regarding claim 2:
Sawa teaches the reinforcing layer covers more than 50% of the area of the panel [0019; 0095; Figs. 2, 8, and 9].
Regarding claim 3:
Sawa is silent with regard to the area of the adhesive relative to the reinforcing layer. Figure 3, however, suggests at least one embodiment wherein the adhesive layers (122, 124) cover 100% of the area of reinforcing layer 125 [0020; 0098]. Alternatively, 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:
Sawa teaches thermosetting and thermoplastic resins [0044].
Regarding claim 9:
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 vary the tensile strength of the steel plate, including over values presently claimed, to provide the desired strength for a given end use.
Regarding claim 10:
Sawa is silent with regard to a general teaching of the thickness of the reinforcing layer. The reference, however, provides Examples wherein the reinforcing layer is 0.2 mm or 1.0 mm, wherein the thicker reinforcing layer provides improved dent resistance [0074; 0077-0079]. 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 reinforcing layer, including over values falling within the claimed range, to provide the desired degree of rigidity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
Sawa does not disclose the reinforcing layer is coated.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa et al. (WO 2020/0145293) in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2009/073406).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of WO ‘293 filed by Applicant on 11/20/2024 and the machine translation of JP ‘406 filed by Applicant on 1/30/2024.
Regarding claims 4-5:
Sawa discloses an automotive panel as previously explained.
Sawa 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 Sawa’s panel such that frame member is at least partially embedded in the reinforcing layer and extends along one direction of the panel to provide improved rigidity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Franken (US 2003/0207116) discloses sandwich elements for use in automobiles having high flexural rigidity [abstract; 0001-0009]. Examples have values in the range of 72.3x106 to 84.3x106 N·mm2 [0041].
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