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 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/20/2025. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 have been rejected as follows. Claims 3-5 and 9-14 are objected to.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a first adhesive film” and “means of a second adhesive film” in claims 8 and 10.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dodworth (US 2021/0023830).
Regarding claim 1, Dodworth discloses a body part (300, Fig. 3) for a road vehicle (body panels, [0091], lines 4-5) comprising an outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) configured to be disposed outwardly of a road vehicle (para. 0074, lines 1-8) and defining a first side of the body part; an inner portion (140; Fig. 3) configured to be disposed, with respect to the outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3), towards a passenger compartment of the road vehicle, and defining a second side of the body part; wherein the outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) comprises one or more first composite material layers (see annotated Fig. 3 below); and wherein the inner portion (140; Fig. 3) comprises at least one or more second composite material layers (see annotated Fig. 3 below); the body part further comprising an intermediate portion (120; Fig. 3) arranged between the inner portion (140; Fig. 3) and the outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3); wherein the intermediate portion further comprises a layer (120; Fig. 3) of sound- absorbing material (para. [0066]); and wherein the inner portion (140; Fig. 3), the intermediate portion (120; Fig. 3) and the outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) are integrally coupled together forming a single multilayer body (300; Fig. 3); wherein the outer portion comprises an odd number (three) (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) of first composite material layers (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3); wherein the outer portion comprises at least two first composite material layers (110, 130; Fig. 3) having at least a first grammage (layer 110 has a grammage of 80 gsm; para. [0059], and layer 130 has a grammage in the range of 80-300 gsm (para. [0102])), therefore they can both have a grammage of 80 gsm or a “first grammage”) and at least one first composite material layers (310; Fig. 3) having a second grammage (80 gsm para. [0076]), which are arranged alternately (as shown in Fig. 3).
Note that the value of the first grammage can be the same as the value of the second grammage as evidenced by the following from the last two lines of page 13 of the specification of applicant’s invention to the first line of page 14 thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
173
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
164
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
753
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dodworth further discloses wherein the outer portion (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) comprises at least three first composite material layers (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Dodworth further discloses wherein the sound-absorbing material (120; Fig. 3) is a closed cell foam (para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Dodworth discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the layer of sound-absorbing material (120; Fig. 3) has a thickness of 8 mm or less (para. [0067], lines 9-11).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodworth (US 2021/0023830) in view of Myoung et al (KR 2020 0030772 A).
Regarding claim 8, Dodworth discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Dodworth does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate portion and the inner portion are coupled to each other by means of a first adhesive film disposed therebetween; and wherein the intermediate portion and the outer portion are coupled to each other by means of a second adhesive film disposed therebetween.
Myoung et al teaches that it is known to use adhesive layers for coupling skin layers and a foam core layer in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle composite panels. Referring to FIG. 1, the sandwich structure (100) includes a first skin layer (10), a second skin layer (20), and a core layer (30). The sandwich structure (100) may further include an adhesive. An adhesive is present between (disposed therebetween) the first skin layer (10) and the core layer (30) and between the second skin layer (20) and the core layer (30), thereby providing a sandwich structure during thermal bonding (100) and improve the bonding strength between each layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single multilayer body of Dodworth by incorporating the type of adhesive coupling as taught by Myoung et al. Doing so would provide a sandwich structure during thermal bonding and improve the bonding strength between each layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitations “wherein the first grammage is lower than the second grammage, wherein the outermost layer has the first grammage”. Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter in that the limitations of claim 4 also include the relationship wherein the first grammage is lower than the second grammage and the outermost layer has the first grammage in the recitation “the first grammage is from 200 g/m2 to 300 g/m2 and the second grammage is from 300 g/m2 to 500 g/m2.” The closest prior art of Dodworth does not disclose a layered arrangement with this relationship. Applicant’s first grammage is smaller than the second grammage so that it is possible to obtain, by means of the second grammage, structural performances that would not be possible with the first grammage, whereas the first grammage meets the aesthetic requirements set for these composite materials. Therefore, advantageously, the outer layers of the outer portion have the first grammage.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 5 is the limitation of the inner portion being multilayered by the inclusion of “wherein the inner portion comprises at least two second composite material layers having a grammage of from 200 g/m2 to 300 g/m2 .” For symmetry and aesthetic related reasons, the inner portion comprises at least two second composite material layers. The closest prior art of Dodworth does not disclose a multilayered inner portion (140 thermoset layer, 410 thermoplastic layer; Fig. 4) in combination with the limitations of claim 1 requiring the outer portion comprising an odd number (three) (130, 310, 110; Fig. 3) of first composite material layers; wherein the outer portion comprises at least two first composite material layers having at least a first grammage and at least one first composite material layers having a second grammage, which are arranged alternately. The first grammage has an aesthetic and aerodynamic function and is visible from outside the vehicle; whereas the second grammage has a structural, performance-related function and faces the inside of the passenger compartment to stiffen and improve the rigidity of the roof panel. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 9 is the inclusion of the method limitations, in particular, of “a second forming phase, following the coupling phase, during which the single multilayer body is formed by placing in an autoclave the previously coupled outer portion, the intermediate portion and the inner portion.” The combination of high temperature and high pressure of autoclave forming or curing of the multilayer body improves structural integrity and surface quality of the body part while allowing a lighter weight. The closest prior art of Dodworth does not disclose an autoclave but rather cures at low pressure in a heated mold, kiln, or oven. Claims 10-14 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency from claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-26, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the prior art of Zhao discloses a multilayer panel comprising "nonwoven film, GMT enhancement layer, nonwoven film, PU foam, nonwoven film, GMT enhancement layer, nonwoven film" in which there is only a single reinforcing composite ply (the "GMT enhancement layer") on each face. Zhao defines the GMT enhancement layer as the fiber-reinforced composite ("thermoplastic resin fiber and reinforcing fiber), while the nonwoven films are bonding/skin layers. It is agreed that Zhao lacks an outer portion comprising three or more composite plies as Zhao's nonwoven films are distinguishable from the fiber-reinforced GMT composite material layers for creating the multilayer panel. Claims 2-14 depend from the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made as set forth above.
On page 14 of Applicant’s response, with respect to claim 8, applicant argues that Myoung does not disclose the specific configuration of two discrete adhesive films disposed therebetween the intermediate and inner/outer portions as recited in claim 8. Instead, Myoung's preferred manufacturing approach is to avoid adhesives by heat bonding. Regarding applicant’s arguments, claim 8 does not recite two discrete adhesive films nor does the claim preclude the adhesive from heat bonding. Broadly interpreted, Myoung's adhesive is a “film” (coating) present between the first skin layer (10) and the core layer (30) and between the second skin layer (20) and the core layer (30). It is presumed that the adhesive layers are “disposed therebetween” the intermediate (30) and inner/outer portions (10, 20) since the adhesives serve the purpose of coupling the intermediate and inner/outer portions together to improve the bonding strength between each layer. Applicant’s specification has not disclosed that the adhesive film has any criticality or purpose other than coupling. Myoung's adhesive is a functionally equivalent way to connect two structural elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612