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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 5, “the double standing wall of the core layer at the first region” is recited in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 on which claim 5 depends only recites a double standing wall (i.e. a singular double standing wall) and the double standing wall is at the second region. Therefore, it is suggested to either amend claim 1 to include a plurality of double standing walls and specify the double standing wall of the first region as a double standing wall of the plurality of double standing walls of the first region or amend “the double standing wall of the core layer at the first region” to “a double standing wall of the core layer at the first region”, in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claim language.
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. 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).
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.
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_image1.png
460
672
media_image1.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_image2.png
276
1112
media_image2.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).
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
950
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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).
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.
PNG
media_image4.png
210
327
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 8, the previous Claim Objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record are withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which now requires “lengths of the two cell standing walls extending in the same direction as each other at the second region are reduced”, it is noted that Osawa (JP 2021-045946) and Ginovski et al. (US 2015/0273789) (Ginovski), alone or in combination, no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Osawa in view of Ginovski are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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