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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagaki et al. (JP 2021-045942) (Shibagaki) in view of Ginovski et al. (US 2015/0273789) (Ginovski).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2021-045942 with the Office Action mailed 02/05/2026. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1 and 7, Shibagaki teaches a hollow structure made of a thermoplastic resin, which includes a plate-like core layer having a plurality of cells arranged side by side and a pair of skin layers bonded to both sides of the core layer ([0007]) (corresponding to a laminated hollow formed body comprising: a core layer that is made of resin; a front material layer that is provided on one surface of the core layer; and a back material layer that is provided on an other surface of the core layer). The core layer is made of a thermoplastic resin and has a plurality of cells arranged side by side, the cells are hollow and columnar ([0016]; [0021]; [0108]; FIG. 2) (corresponding to a core layer that is made of resin and in which hollow cells having a tubular shape are disposed along a plurality of rows).
The cells include a two-layer side wall portions between adjacent cells (FIGS. 5(b)-(c)) (corresponding to the core layer includes a double standing wall with two adjacent hollow cells, and the double standing wall is constituted by two cell standing walls). Shibagaki further teaches when the core layer is subjected to heat-welding, at a rear edge of the upper surface of the core layer and toward the inward side of the cells resin pools are formed by thermal melting, the resin pools form protrusions ([0053]; FIG. 3(d)) (corresponding to at least one of the first end portion and the second end portion is a lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted).
The hollow structure includes a recess formed in part of its upper surface, and the recess forms a thin-walled part that is thinner than other parts of the hollow structure ([0081]; [0089]) (corresponding to the core layer includes a first region having a first height, and a second region which is compressed in a height direction of the core layer, the second region having a second height lower than the first height). In the recess, the side wall portion extends continuously in the thickness direction without bending, and a protrusion is formed on its upper edge ([0083]) (corresponding to the two cell standing walls of the double standing wall of the core layer at the second region extend in a same direction as each other from a first end portion contacting with the front material layer to a second end portion contacting with the back material layer, and at least one of the first end portion and the second end portion is a lump portion). Fig. 9(c), provided below, shows in the recess 12, the side walls include protruding portions 25 at an upper edge of the side wall ([0025]). The protruding portions increase the thickness of the side wall from the portions of the side wall not having protruding portions. Thus, it is clear in a portion of the side wall between the upper edge and lower edge in the recess there is a varying thickness of the side wall because there is the protruding portion and non-protruding portions (corresponding to each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portions and the second end portion).
Shibagaki does not explicitly teach the lengths correspond to a compression ratio of the core layer at the recess, wherein the compression ratio is the second height divided by the first height, as presently claimed.
Ginovski teaches a panel including at least one core with a honeycomb structure sandwiched between a pair of boards ([0002]; [0007]). Sound-absorbing properties of the panel can be improved by compressing, especially in such a way that the thickness of the core is reduced by 5% to 50% ([0010]; [0015]).
In light of the motivation of Ginovski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the recess have a height reduced by 5% to 50% or the initial height of the structure, in order to improve sound-absorbing properties and maintain the strength of the panel.
The thickness of the core is reduced by 5% to 50% in the recessed region. Thus, it is clear a ratio relationship between the height of the recess (i.e., height of the second region, h2) and a height of the un-recessed core (i.e., height of the first region, h1) is 0.5 to 0.95 (i.e., h2/h1 = 1-(5%/100) = 0.95; 1-(50%/100) = 0.5) (corresponding to the lengths of correspond to a compression ratio of the core layer at the second region, wherein the compression ratio is the second height divided by the first height; a relationship between the first height h1 of the core layer at the first region and the second height h2 of the core at the second region satisfies the expression 0.2 < h2/h1 < 0.8).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that the protrusions of Shibagaki in view of Ginovski is substantially identical to the present claimed lump portion in structure and composition, the protrusions of Shibagaki in view of Ginovski would intrinsically not separate into the two cell standing walls, when a load of less than 20 N is applied to pull the protrusion apart.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Although Shibagaki in view of Ginovski does not explicitly teach the recess (i.e., second region) is compressed or the length of the cell walls in the recess are reduced because of shrinkage as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
259
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a second region having a height less than a height of the first region and a compression ratio of greater than 0.2 and less than 0.8, wherein the compression ratio is h2/h1. The Shibagaki in view of Ginovski suggests such a product.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Shibagaki in view of Ginovski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shibagaki teaches in the recesses 12, the side wall portions 23 extend continuously in the thickness direction without bending ([0083]; FIG. 6(b), provided below) (corresponding to the two cell standing walls of the double standing wall extend from the first end portion contacting the front material layer to the second end portion contacting the back material layer in a linear shape or a curve shape).
In reference to claim 3, Shibagaki in view of Ginovski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIG. 9(c), provided below, shows at the recess the thickness of the skin layer is only the thickness of skin layer 30 (Shibagaki, [0099]). Thus, it is clear a thickness of the back material (i.e., skin layer 30 at the recess) is less than a thickness of the front material layer (i.e., skin layer 40 and wall portion 22) (corresponding to a thickness of the back material layer is less than a thickness of the front material layer). FIG. 9(c) further shows the protrusions 25 are contacting the skin layer 30 (corresponding to the second end portion contacting with the back material layer is the lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
1112
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 5, Shibagaki in view of Ginovski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Shibagaki teaches in the recess and extending inward of the cell a resin pool is formed at the edge of the cells which are removed to form the recess ([0088]). The resin pool forms a protrusion when the hollow structure cools ([0088]). Given that the protrusions are formed only on the cells in the recess, it is clear at least in the region of the protrusions the cells in the recessed portion of the hollow structure have a wall thickness greater than a wall thickness of the cells not present in the recessed portion (corresponding to each thickness of the two standing walls that constitute the double standing wall of the core layer at the second region and that extend from the first end portion to the second end portion in a linear shape of a curved shape is greater than a thickness of each cell standing wall of the double standing wall of the core layer at the first region).
In reference to claim 8, Shibagaki in view of Ginovski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the hollow structure of Shibagaki in view of Ginovski is substantially identical to the present claimed laminated hollow formed body in structure and composition, the hollow structure of Shibagaki in view of Ginovski would intrinsically have a tensile strength of the core layer at the recess is 20 N or greater, in a direction that is a planar direction of the core layer and in which the double standing wall overlaps in a same direction, in accordance with JIS K 7127-1999.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (US 2018/0361725) (Fukushima) in view of Osawa (JP 2021-045946).
The Applicant has provided a machine translation of JP 2021-045946 with the IDS filed 02/02/2024. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1, 4 and 6-7, Fukushima teaches a laminates structure including a hollow plate made of a thermoplastic resin ([0002]) (corresponding to a laminated hollow formed body). The hollow plate is made of a resin and includes a plurality of cells formed inside the hollow plate ([0011]) (corresponding to a core layer that is made of resin and in which hollow cells having a tubular shape are disposed along a plurality of rows). Metal plates are bonded to opposite surfaces of the hollow plate ([0012]) (corresponding to a front material layer that is provided on one surface of the core layer; and a back material layer that is provided on an other surface of the core layer). At least one surface of the lamination structure to which the metal plates are bonded includes a recess formed by thermal deformation ([0012]). The recess is formed by compressing and deforming the hollow plate ([0153]). FIG. 13B, provided below, shows the recess has a height less than a height of the un-recessed portion of the lamination structure (corresponding to the core layer includes a first region having a first height, and a second region which is compressed in a height direction of the core layer, the second region having a second height lower than the first height).
FIGS. 13A-13C show the cell walls in the recess extend in a same direction (corresponding to the walls at the second region extend in the same direction as each other from a first end portion contacting with the front material layer to a second end portion contacting with the back material layer). Fukushima further teaches the thickness of the recess section is less than or equal to one-half the overall thickness of the hollow plate ([0141]). Thus, it is clear a relationship between the first height and the second height is 0.5 or less (corresponding to a relationship between the first height h1 of the core layer at the first region and the second height of the core layer at the second region satisfies the expression 0.2 < h2/h1 < 0.8).
Fukushima does not explicitly teach at least of the first end portion and the second end portion of a double standing wall includes a lump portion, as presently claimed.
Osawa teaches a hollow structure including a hollow thermoplastic resin plate-shaped core layer in which a plurality of cells are partitioned by side wall portions extending in the thickness direction are arranged side by side ([0006]). A protruding portion protruding inward of the cell is formed on the side wall portion of the core layer ([0006]). The protruding portion is integrally formed with the side wall portion by compressing the side wall portion in the thickness direction and partially hot-melting the wall at the edge ([0008];[0045]) (corresponding to at least one of the first end portion and the second end portion is a lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted).
Osawa further teaches the protruding portion improves strength of the side wall portion, improves the bonding strength between the core layer and the skin layer and improves the bending strength of the hollow structure ([0008]-[0012]). The cells include a first cell and a second cell, the upper end of the first cell is blocked by an upper wall and the lower end thereof is open without being blocked. At a lower end edge of the side wall portion of the first cells a protruding portion protruding inward of the first cell so as to extend along the lower surface of the core layer is formed ([0021]). The lower end of the second cells is blocked by a lower wall portion and the upper end thereof is open upward without being blocked. On the upper end edge of the side wall portion of the second cells, which is the open end of the second cell a protruding portion protruding inward of the second cell so as to extend along the upper surface of the core layer is formed ([0022]) (corresponding to both the first end portion and the second end portion are the lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted; each of the hollow cells of the core layer includes a closed surface at one end and includes an open end at an other end; the closed surfaces and the open ends of the hollow cells are disposed alone ever other row on both surfaces of the core layer, and the closed surfaces of the adjacent hollow cells fuse with each other). The first and second cells are formed of a two-layer structure including first and second side wall portions ([0026]) (corresponding to a double standing wall with two adjacent hollow cells, and the double standing wall is constated by two cell standing walls).
FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), provided below, show that the protruding portions increase a thickness of the side wall. Therefore, given that the side wall in a region between an upper end and lower end of the hollow structure includes the increased thickness protruding portion and the remaining un-protruding side wall portion, it is clear the thickness of the side wall varies in an intermediate portion between a first end of the core layer and a second end of the hollow structure (corresponding to each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second enc portion).
In light of the motivation of Osawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the core layer of Fukushima be the core layer including the plurality of first and second cells including the protruding portion, in order to provide improved strength of the side wall of the cells, improved bonding strength between the core layer and the metal plates and improved bending strength of the laminated structure.
Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the walls of the recess portion are compressed and melt to form protruding portion, wherein the height of the recess section is less than or equal to one-half the overall height of the hollow plate (Fukushima, [0141]). Thus, it is clear the length of the cell walls extending in the same direction as each other at the recessed section are reduced corresponding to a compression ratio, wherein the compression ratio is the height of the recess section to the overall height of the laminate structure.
Given that the protruding portion of Fukushima in view of Osawa is substantially identical to the present claimed lump portion in structure and composition, the protruding portion of Fukushima in view of Osawa would intrinsically not separate into the two cell standing walls, when a load of less than 20 N is applied to pull the protruding portion apart.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d
PNG
media_image4.png
742
1113
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
217
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 2, Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIGS. 13A-13C, provided above, show the cell walls in the recess section extend in a linear or cured shape (corresponding to the two cell standing walls of the double standing wall extend from the first end portion contacting the front material layer to the second end portion contacting the back material layer, in a linear shape or a curved shape).
In reference to claim 3, Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the protrusions are located on the lower and upper surface of the core (Osawa, Figs. 1(b)-(c)) (corresponding to the second end portion contacting with the back material layer is the lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted). Fukushima further teaches superficial skin layers bonded to the upper and lower surface of the core layer ([0050]). One or both of the superficial layers may be omitted ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to not include a superficial layer on the lower surface of the core layer, in order to limit bulging or shrinking of the bonded metal plates (Fukushima, [0083]). Given that the lower surface of the laminate structure includes one less layer, it is clear the thickness of the back material layer is less than a thickness of the front material layer (corresponding to a thickness of the back material layer is less than a thickness of the front material layer).
In reference to claim 5, Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the recess section of the core layer includes cells with protruding portions, it is clear at least in the region of the protrusions the cells in the recessed section of the laminate structure have a wall thickness greater than a wall thickness of the cells not present in the recessed portion (corresponding to each thickness of the two standing walls that constitute the double standing wall of the core layer at the second region and that extend from the first end portion to the second end portion in a linear shape of a curved shape is greater than a thickness of each cell standing wall of the double standing wall of the core layer at the first region).
In reference to claim 8, Fukushima in view of Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the laminate structure of Fukushima in view of Osawa is substantially identical to the present claimed laminated hollow formed body in structure and composition, the laminate structure of Fukushima in view of Osawa would intrinsically have a tensile strength of the core layer at the recess is 20 N or greater, in a direction that is a planar direction of the core layer and in which the double standing wall overlaps in a same direction, in accordance with JIS K 7127-1999.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Shinkai et al. (WO 2020/162590) (Shinkai).
The Applicant has provided a machine translation of WO 2020/162590 with the IDS filed 02/02/2024. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translation.
In reference to claims 1, 4 and 6-7, Fukushima teaches a laminates structure including a hollow plate made of a thermoplastic resin ([0002]) (corresponding to a laminated hollow formed body). The hollow plate is made of a resin and includes a plurality of cells formed inside the hollow plate ([0011]) (corresponding to a core layer that is made of resin and in which hollow cells having a tubular shape are disposed along a plurality of rows). Metal plates are bonded to opposite surfaces of the hollow plate ([0012]) (corresponding to a front material layer that is provided on one surface of the core layer; and a back material layer that is provided on an other surface of the core layer). At least one surface of the lamination structure to which the metal plates are bonded includes a recess formed by thermal deformation ([0012]). The recess is formed by compressing and deforming the hollow plate ([0153]). FIG. 13B, provided above, shows the recess has a height less than a height of the un-recessed portion of the lamination structure (corresponding to the core layer includes a first region having a first height, and a second region which is compressed in a height direction of the core layer, the second region having a second height lower than the first height).
FIGS. 13A-13C show the cell walls in the recess extend in a same direction (corresponding to the walls at the second region extend in the same direction as each other from a first end portion contacting with the front material layer to a second end portion contacting with the back material layer). Fukushima further teaches the thickness of the recess section is less than or equal to one-half the overall thickness of the hollow plate ([0141]). Thus, it is clear a relationship between the first height and the second height is 0.5 or less (corresponding to a relationship between the first height h1 of the core layer at the first region and the second height of the core layer at the second region satisfies the expression 0.2 < h2/h1 < 0.8).
Fukushima does not explicitly teach at least of the first end portion and the second end portion of a double standing wall includes a lump portion, as presently claimed.
Shinkai teaches a hollow structure having efficiently improved impact resistance (p. 1, line 9-10). The hollow structure includes a thermoplastic resin core layer having a plurality of cells including a plurality of first cells and a plurality of second cells arranged alternately (p. 1, lines 11-14; p. 6, lines 6-7; p. 3, line 1; Figs. 1a-1c) (corresponding to a core layer that is made of resin and in which hollow cells having a tubular shape are disposed along a plurality of rows). The first cells have a closed surface at one end and an open surface at the other end, while the second cells have an open surface at the one end and a closed surface at the other end (Figs. 1(a)-1(c), 8, 9) (corresponding to each of the hollow cells of the core layer includes a closed surface at one end and includes an open end at an other end, internal spaces of the hollow cells communicate with the front material layer or the back material layer through the open ends of the hollow cells, the closed surfaces and the open ends of the hollow cells are disposed alone ever other row on both surfaces of the core layer, and the closed surfaces of the adjacent hollow cells fuse with each other). The plurality of cells include a plurality of partition walls having a two-layer structure (p. 1, lines 18-20) (corresponding to a double standing wall with two adjacent hollow cells, and the double standing wall is constituted by two cell standing walls).
Shinkai further teaches a thickness of the partition wall near the first wall is thicker than the thickness near the second wall which can improve impact resistance and bending strength of the hollow structure (p. 5-6; Figs. 8 and 9) (corresponding to each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion). Shinkai further teaches convex protrusions are provided on both an upper and lower end of the side wall when the core is heated and pressed (p. 7-8). The convex protrusion increases bonding strength between the side wall and a second skin layer (p. 7-8) (corresponding to a lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted; both the first end portion and the second end portion are the lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted).
In light of the motivation of Shinkai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the core layer of Fukushima be the core layer including the plurality of first and second cells including the convex protruding portion and varying thickness, in order to provide improved impact resistance of the structure, improve bending strength of the structure and increase bonding strength between the core layer and the metal plates.
Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the walls of the recess portion are compressed and melt to form protruding portion, wherein the height of the recess section is less than or equal to one-half the overall height of the hollow plate (Fukushima, [0141]). Thus, it is clear the length of the cell walls extending in the same direction as each other at the recessed section are reduced corresponding to a compression ratio, wherein the compression ratio is the height of the recess section to the overall height of the laminate structure.
Given that the protruding portion of Fukushima in view of Shinkai is substantially identical to the present claimed lump portion in structure and composition, the protruding portion of Fukushima in view of Shinkai would intrinsically not separate into the two cell standing walls, when a load of less than 20 N is applied to pull the protruding portion apart.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claim 2, Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIGS. 13A-13C, provided above, show the cell walls in the recess section extend in a linear or cured shape (corresponding to the two cell standing walls of the double standing wall extend from the first end portion contacting the front material layer to the second end portion contacting the back material layer, in a linear shape or a curved shape).
In reference to claim 3, Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the protrusions are located on the lower and upper surface of the core (Shinkai, Figs. 8 and 9) (corresponding to the second end portion contacting with the back material layer is the lump portion made of the two cell standing walls integrally melted). Fukushima further teaches superficial skin layers bonded to the upper and lower surface of the core layer ([0050]). One or both of the superficial layers may be omitted ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to not include a superficial layer on the lower surface of the core layer, in order to limit bulging or shrinking of the bonded metal plates (Fukushima, [0083]). Given that the lower surface of the laminate structure includes one less layer, it is clear the thickness of the back material layer is less than a thickness of the front material layer (corresponding to a thickness of the back material layer is less than a thickness of the front material layer).
In reference to claim 5, Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the recess section of the core layer includes cells with protruding portions, it is clear at least in the region of the protrusions the cells in the recessed section of the laminate structure have a wall thickness greater than a wall thickness of the cells not present in the recessed portion (corresponding to each thickness of the two standing walls that constitute the double standing wall of the core layer at the second region and that extend from the first end portion to the second end portion in a linear shape of a curved shape is greater than a thickness of each cell standing wall of the double standing wall of the core layer at the first region).
In reference to claim 8, Fukushima in view of Shinkai teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the laminate structure of Fukushima in view of Shinkai is substantially identical to the present claimed laminated hollow formed body in structure and composition, the laminate structure of Fukushima in view of Shinkai would intrinsically have a tensile strength of the core layer at the recess is 20 N or greater, in a direction that is a planar direction of the core layer and in which the double standing wall overlaps in a same direction, in accordance with JIS K 7127-1999.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagaki in view of Ginovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osawa.
In reference to claim 6, Shibagaki in view of Ginovski teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Shibagaki in view of Ginovski does not explicitly teach each cell of the core layer includes a closed surface at one end and an open end at an other end, the closed surfaces and the open ends of the cells are disposed along every other row on both surface of the core layer, as presently claimed.
Osawa teaches a hollow structure including a thermoplastic resin hollow plate-shaped core layer ([0001]; [0006]). The hollow plate includes a plurality of cells partitioned by side wall portions extending in a thickness direction and arranged side by side ([0006]). The cells include a first cell and a second cell. The upper end of the first cell is blocked by an upper wall portion, and the lower end thereof is opened downward without being blocked. The lower end of the second cell is blocked by the lower wall portion and the upper end thereof is opened upward without being blocked ([0021]-[0022]) (corresponding to each of the hollow cells of the core layer includes a closed surface at one end and includes an open end at an other end). The first cells and the second cells are arranged so that a first cell or a second cell are adjacent each other in the X direction to from a row and the rows of first cells or second cells are alternately arranged in the Y direction ([0025]) (corresponding to the closed surfaces and the open ends of the hollow cells are disposed along every other row on both surfaces of the core layer).
FIGS. 1(b)-(c), provided below, show the upper wall portion or lower wall portion blocking the upper or lower end of the cell are fused with each other (corresponding to the closed surfaces of the adjacent hollow cells fuse with each other). Osawa further teaches a core layer substantially identical to the core layer disclosed in Shibagaki (Osawa, [0071]-[0103]).
In light of the disclosure of Osawa of the equivalence and interchangeability of using the core layer having the cellular structures as disclosed in Shibagaki, with the core layer having the cellular structures as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to use alternating open and closed cellular structure as the core layer of Shibagaki in view of Ginovski, in order to provide a lightweight core with improved strength, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 5, the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion, it is noted that the amendment changes the scope of the claims and therefore necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“As in Figs. 6(a) and 8(a), the side wall portions 23 in the recess 12 do not have thickness that vary along their length as required by amended independent Claim 1. Thus, Shibagaki describes a method or removing an upper portion of the side wall portions 23 of the core layer 50 to form a recess 12, but according to this method, the thicknesses of the side wall portions 23 in the recess 12 intermediate portion do not vary.”
Remarks, p. 9
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
259
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shibagaki teaches the recess 12 includes a core having protruding portions 25 joined to the skin layer ([0009]; Fig. 9(c), annotated below). The protruding portions are formed on the upper edge of the side wall and protrude from the side wall ([0025]). Given that the claimed intermediate portion is between the first end and the second end of the core layer, it is clear the intermediate portion includes the protruding portion (i.e., portions of the side wall having a greater thickness) and parts of the side wall not including the protruding portions (i.e., portions of the side wall having no change in thickness). Therefore, given that the side wall in the intermediate portion of Shibagaki includes the increased thickness protruding portion and the remaining un-protruding side wall portion, it is clear the thickness of the side wall varies in an intermediate portion between a first end of the core layer and a second end of the core layer.
Applicant further argues:
“Fig. 13A of Fukushima shows that the two cell standing walls 623 are melted together to form molten resin pools R, which subsequently solidify. (Fukushima, paragraph [0160].) As such, there are no longer two separate cell standing walls, each with a varying thickness along its length. Figs. 13B and 13C show that the two cell standing walls 623 collapse. In Fig. 13B, the side walls 623 collapse in the same direction (Fukushima, paragraph [0161]), and in Fig. 13C, the side walls 623 collapse irregularly (Fukushima [0162]). As such, Fukushima further fails to teach or suggest ‘each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion,’ as recited in amended independent Claim 1.
The secondary reference, Osawa, fails to rectify the deficiencies of Fukushima. Figs. 1(b) and 1(c) from Osawa are set forth below.
The lower end edge of the side wall part 23 is partially thermally melted, and a protruding part 24 which is a burr-like projection extending toward the inside of the first cell S1 is formed. Similarly, in a second cell S2 in which the upper part 21 is not formed, the upper end of the side wall part 23 is heated and melted and is press in the vertical direction. As a result, the upper end edge of the side wall part 23 is partially thermally melted, and a protruding part 25 being a burr-like projection extending toward the inside of the second cell S2 is formed. (Osawa, paragraph [0022]). The Examiner appears to equate these protruding parts 24, 25 with the ‘lump portion’ recited in Claim 1.
However, it is clear that each side wall part 23 does not have a thickness that varies in an intermediate portion thereof. Each side wall part 23 has a constant thickness in an intermediate portion, as clearly shown above. As such, Osawa fails to teach or suggest ‘each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion,’ as recited in amended independent Claim 1.”
Remarks, p. 10-11
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above, Fukushima does not explicitly teach at least one of a first end portion and a second end portion of a double standing wall includes a lump portion as presently claimed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Fukushima does not expressly teach the claimed each of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region has a varying thickness in an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which admits that Fukushima does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Osawa is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Fukushima, as discussed in the rejection set forth above.
Further, while Fukushima teaches when the upper metal plate is heated and pressed against the hollow plate, the thermoplastic resin forming the hollow plate melts and forms molten resin pools in the cells, there is no disclosure in Fukushima that this means that the standing walls are required to fuse completely into a single wall, rather than being two separate cell standing walls having fused portions.
With respect to Osawa, Osawa teaches the cell walls include protruding portions at an upper end and lower end of the hollow structure ([0008]-[0012]; [0021]; [0022]). FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), annotated below, show that the protruding portions increase a thickness of the side wall. Therefore, given that the side wall in a region between an upper end and lower end of the hollow structure includes the increased thickness protruding portion and the remaining un-protruding side wall portion, it is clear the thickness of the side wall varies in an intermediate portion between a first end of the core layer and a second end of the hollow structure.
PNG
media_image6.png
651
991
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is the examiner position absent evidence to the contrary, Fukushima in view of Osawa meets the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights