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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 17 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4 – 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 16 – 20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0105877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a sandwich panel (“sandwich panel”: e.g. Fig. 1 – 4; ¶¶ [0009] – [0114]) for an automobile (“cars”: e.g. ¶¶ [0046], [0070], [0114]), comprising:
a core layer that defines a sheet form (“core layer”, e.g. “core layer” 10: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0011] – [0026], [0029], [0031] – [0038], [0045] – [0102], [0105], [0106], [0108], [0110], [0113], [0114]), the core layer comprising a glass fiber (e.g. ¶ [0080]) and a thermoplastic resin (“binder”: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0022], [0033], [0045], [0047], [0057], [0058], [0060] – [0062], [0065], [0073], [0075], [0079], [0096]);
a surface layer disposed on at least one surface of the core layer (“skin layer”, e.g. “skin layer” 20: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0015], [0016], [0026], [0027], [0029], [0033], [0034], [0045], [0048] – [0050], [0052] – [0055], [0103] – [0105], [0108], [0110], [0112], [0113]); and
an adhesive layer that attaches the core layer and the surface layer to each other (“adhesive layer”: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0015], [0016], [0028], [0029], [003], [0034], [0045], [0049] – [0052], [0054], [0055], [0105], [0107], [0108], [0111] – [0113]),
wherein the thermoplastic resin surrounds the glass fiber (e.g. ¶¶ [0058], [0065], [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses the thermoplastic resin comprises, e.g., polyethylene (e.g. ¶ [0061])
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses the surface layer comprises, e.g., aluminum (e.g. ¶¶ [0027], [0103]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses the adhesive layer comprises, e.g., polyethylene (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0030], [0107] – [0109]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solenicki (US 2019/0291393 A1).
Regarding claim 4, although Kim is not explicit as to the core layer being configured to be converted into a non-combustible layer based on the thermoplastic resin being carbonized upon ignition, this feature would have been obvious in view of Solenicki.
Solenicki discloses a core layer used to make panels (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0071]), wherein the core layer is configured to be converted into a non-combustible layer based on the thermoplastic resin being carbonized upon ignition in order to inhibit or delay the spread of fire (“intumescent”: e.g. ¶ [0044]).
Solenicki relates to uses with mass transit vehicles (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0030], [0039]) but also recognizes equivalent efforts are made for an automobile (use understood from Solenicki’s background discussion: e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0008]) or other road applications such as buses (e.g. ¶ [0039]) which the examiner finds to be substantially similar to automobiles.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure Kim’s core layer to be converted into a non-combustible layer based on the thermoplastic resin being carbonized upon ignition as Solenicki suggests, the motivation being to inhibit or delay the spread of fire.
Regarding claim 6, although Kim is not explicit as to each of the glass fiber and the thermoplastic resin amounts to 40 wt% to 60 wt% of a total weight of the core layer, this feature would have been obvious in view of Solenicki.
Solenicki discloses a core layer used to make panels (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0071]), wherein glass fiber amounts to 50 wt% to 80 wt% of a total weight of the core layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0010] – [0013], [0016], [0045]), and thermoplastic resin amounts to, e.g., 25 wt% or more of the core layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0010] – [0012], [0016], [0043]).
Solenicki discloses such amounts are advantageous for meeting structural requirements of mass transit vehicles (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0030], [0039]) but also recognizes equivalent efforts are made for an automobile (use understood from Solenicki’s background discussion: e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0008]) or other road applications such as buses (e.g. ¶ [0039]) which the examiner finds to be substantially similar to automobiles.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for glass fiber to amount to 50 wt% to 80 wt% of a total weight of Kim’s core layer and thermoplastic resin to amount to, e.g., 25 wt% or more of Kim’s core layer as Solenicki suggests, the motivation being to meet structural requirements in the intended use.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solenicki and Rose (US 2002/0056713 A1).
Regarding claim 5, although Kim is not explicit as to the core layer being configured to expand by 200% or more in a thickness direction of the sandwich panel upon ignition, this feature would have been obvious in view of Solenicki.
Solenicki discloses a core layer used to make panels (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0071]), wherein the core layer is configured to be converted into a non-combustible layer based on the thermoplastic resin being carbonized upon ignition in order to inhibit or delay the spread of fire (“intumescent”: e.g. ¶ [0044]). From Rose, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood an intumescent material is one which expands in a thickness direction when exposed to elevated temperature (e.g. ¶ [0018]). Given the function of the intumescent material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine a suitable expansion rate, e.g. by adjusting the compositions Solenicki discloses (e.g. ¶ [0044]) which provides the requisite minimum inhibition or delay of fire spreading
Solenicki relates to uses with mass transit vehicles (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0030], [0039]) but also recognizes equivalent efforts are made for an automobile (use understood from Solenicki’s background discussion: e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0008]) or other road applications such as buses (e.g. ¶ [0039]) which the examiner finds to be substantially similar to automobiles.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure Kim’s core layer to be converted into a non-combustible layer based on the thermoplastic resin being carbonized upon ignition as Solenicki suggests, the motivation being to inhibit or delay the spread of fire.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the core layer to be configured to expand by 200% or more in a thickness direction of the sandwich panel upon ignition in order to meet design requirements for inhibiting or delaying fire spread.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above. The rejection of claim 14 further relies on Branagan (US 2011/0108166 A1) as an evidentiary disclosure.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a weight per unit area of the core layer is 0.05 kg/m2 to 8 kg/m2
More specifically, Kim discloses the “core layer” has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0098], [0102]) at a density of 0.5 to 0.8 g/cm3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0033], [0045], [0047], [0057], [0066]).
Accordingly, the minimum weight is
0.5
g
c
m
3
0.1
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
=
0.05
k
g
m
2
using minimum values for density and thickness as the basis for this calculation. A similar calculation can be performed using maximum values for density and thickness to arrive at the cited upper endpoint:
0.8
g
c
m
3
10
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
=
8
k
g
m
2
Kim’s weight per unit area of the core layer encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a thickness of the core layer is 0.1 to 10 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0098], [0102]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a thickness of the surface layer is 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0104]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “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). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a thickness of the adhesive layer is 20 μm to 300 μm (e.g. ¶ [0111]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a thickness of the sandwich panel is 0.22 mm to 10.8 mm (0.1 to 10 mm for the “core layer”, 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm for the “skin layer”, and 20 µm to 300 µm for the “adhesive layer”: e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0098], [0104], [0111]), which encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kim discloses a weight per unit area of the sandwich panel is, e.g., 0.3412 kg/m2 to 9.6545 kg/m2.
More specifically, Kim notes the “core layer” has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 mm at a density of 0.5 to 0.8 g/cm3, the “skin layer” has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm and uses aluminum, and the “adhesive layer” has a thickness of 20 µm to 300 µm at a density of 0.910 to 0.965 g/cm3 (e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0026], [0027], [0033], [0045], [0057], [0066], [0098], [0103], [0104], [0109], [0111], [0134], [0137]). As the aluminum, Kim gives an example of using Al 3003 (e.g. ¶¶ [0134], [0137]), which Branagan notes has a density of 2.73 g/cm3 (e.g. Table 9).
Accordingly, the minimum weight per unit area is
0.5
g
c
m
3
0.1
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
+
2.73
g
c
m
3
0.1
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
+
0.910
g
c
m
3
20
μ
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
6
μ
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
=
0.05
k
g
m
2
+
0.273
k
g
m
2
+
0.0182
k
g
m
2
=
0.3412
k
g
m
2
using minimum values for density and thickness as the basis for this calculation. A similar calculation can be performed using maximum values for density and thickness to arrive at the cited upper endpoint:
0.8
g
c
m
3
10
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
+
2.73
g
c
m
3
0.5
m
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
3
m
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
+
0.965
g
c
m
3
300
μ
m
1
k
g
10
3
g
1
m
10
6
μ
m
100
3
c
m
3
1
3
m
3
=
8
k
g
m
2
+
1.365
k
g
m
2
+
0.2895
k
g
m
2
=
9.6545
k
g
m
2
Given Kim’s disclosure of other materials useful for the skin layers (e.g. ¶¶ [0027], [0103]), one of ordinary skill in the art the contribution by the skin layer to the weight per unit area can be above or below the cited range as some of the cited materials like steel would be understood as denser. Moreover, Branagan shows aluminum alloys have different densities (e.g. Table 9), so Kim’s generic disclosure to aluminum (e.g. ¶¶ [0027], [0103]) would have been understood as confirmation of this.
Kim’s weight per unit area of the sandwich panel encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baum (EP 3,493,293 A1, referencing a machine translation provided with the Office Action mailed 17 December 2025).
Regarding claim 15, Baum discloses an upper cover for an automobile battery pack, the upper cover comprising a panel (e.g. Fig. 1 – 9; pp. 2 – 6) but does not specify a sandwich panel having a core layer, a surface layer, and an adhesive layer as specified in claim 1 (i.e. the base claim of claim 15)
The sandwich panel Kim discloses as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 having such features is advantageous for its high flexural strength, tensile strength, and adhesion between the core layer and the surface layers, thus preventing peeling under external loads or impacts to the sandwich panel (e.g. ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0048], [0049]). Thus, the properties of a surface layer as Kim discloses, notably protection from external loads and impacts (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0011], [0048]), are therefore better maintained.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the upper cover
discloses to comprise the sandwich panel Kim discloses, the motivation being to impact desirable impact and load protection to the upper cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 17 March 2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5 – 6, filed 17 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 (as appropriate) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Kim fails to disclose thermoplastic resin surrounding glass fiber as required of claim 1. In particular, Applicant asserts Kim discloses polyester-based fibers are fused by a binder. Applicant further asserts Kim discloses glass fiber as a filler and does not describe the binder surrounding the glass fiber.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes neither the claims nor the instant specification places a particular limitation as to how thermoplastic resin surrounds glass fiber.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01, II.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not limited to embodiments, e.g. that of Fig. 1 in the instant specification, as to how a thermoplastic resin can surround a glass fiber.
To clarify the examiner’s position as to how Kim in fact teaches thermoplastic surrounding glass fibers as required of claim 1, Kim discloses embodiments wherein the polyester-based fibers Applicant references comprise a sheath, and this sheath is the same resin as the binder (e.g. ¶ [0073]). Given such fibers and binder are mixed together before application of heat to fuse (e.g. ¶¶ [0033], [0065], [0079], [0084] – [0088]), it is understood that the thermoplastic resin of the binder and that of the sheath are indistinguishable from one another in the resulting sandwich panel. By adding glass fibers as filler to the core layer (e.g. ¶ [0080]), it is also understood such fibers are added to the polyester-based fibers during mixing such that a non-woven structure for a core layer is obtained (consistent with Kim’s process order: e.g. ¶¶ [0085] – [0101]).
Accordingly, by mixing glass fibers before heat is applied to melt thermoplastic resin, the glass fibers are incorporated within the core layer, and the melted thermoplastic resin which forms a part of other fibers or binder prior to mixing will be understood to surround the glass fibers due to the containment within the core layer.
Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejections consistent with the present amendments.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights