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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on January 28, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over WO 2006/066601 to Volker in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0162702 to Chaut and USPN 3,095,258 to Scott.
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-11, and 13-21, Volker teaches a thermoformable support element, preferably for use as molded parts for vehicles, which comprises at least one layer produced from a spunbonded nonwoven having a dry weight per unit area of 100-1500 g/m2 and a thickness of 1-100 mm, such as 3-15 mm (Volker, Abstract, claims 1-3). Volker teaches that the spunbonded nonwoven fabric includes mono- and/or bicomponent binding fibers (Id., paragraph 0019), wherein the binding fibers may be solid or hollow (Id., paragraphs 0022, 0037, 0044, claims 4 and 8). Volker teaches that for bicomponent binding fibers, the core is preferably polyester and the sheath is another polyester or copolyester (Id., paragraphs 0022-0023), having an exemplary melting point of 225ºC (Id., paragraph 0048). Volker teaches that layers of spunbonded nonwoven fabric can be constructed in multiple layers to adjust the mechanical properties of the carrier, including bonding the individual layers using an adhesive based on a polyester or copolyester (Id., paragraphs 0027-0028).
Since Volker establishes that the binding fibers may be multicomponent and hollow, wherein the polymer components comprise a polyester core and a copolyester sheath, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermoformable support element of Volker, comprising the claimed hollow multicomponent fibers, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermoformable support element based on the totality of the teachings of Volker.
Regarding the thickness and basis weight, note that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, note that absent evidence to the contrary, although the properties disclosed by Volker are not recited as being measured or determined according to the claimed manners, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that either the known properties are substantially similar and/or overlap in scope with the claimed properties.
Volker teaches a polyester core and a copolyester sheath for use in a thermoformable carrier part guaranteeing excellent acoustic effectiveness (Volker, paragraph 0010). Although Volker does not appear to specifically teach that the polyester and copolyester are polyethylene terephthalate, one of ordinary skill would readily choose a known polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate. For example, Chaut teaches a composite material including a plurality of discrete layers, such as one or more fibrous material layers, that is light weight and provides high acoustic performance (Chaut, Abstract, paragraph 0001). Chaut teaches that the fibrous layer may comprise polyester fibers, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and co-polyester/polyester (Co-PET/PET) adhesive bi-component fibers (Id., paragraph 0033), having a sheath-to-core ratio of about 15% or more or about 50% or less (Id., paragraph 0036). Note that since the core is polyester and the sheath is copolyester, the sheath-to-core ratio also correlates to the ratio of polyester to copolyester. Chaut suggests that hollow conjugate fibers improve lofting capability and resiliency to improve sound absorption (Id., paragraph 0064). Chaut teaches that the composite material may be thermoformed and overmolded (Id., paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermoformable support element of Volker, wherein the polyester core and copolyester sheath comprise polyethylene terephthalate and co- polyethylene terephthalate respectively in a ratio, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Chaut, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermoformable support element comprising bicomponent fibers known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar binding applications.
Volker teaches that the fibers are hollow but does not appear to teach the claimed hollowness. However, Scott teaches hollow-core filaments from synthetic polymers such as poly(ethylene terephthalate) (Scott, Abstract, column 1 line 10 to column 2 line 4, column 2 lines 28-41, column 5 line 74 to column 6 line 17). Scott teaches that the shape of the hollow core can be modified, wherein fibers having various combinations of cross sectional shapes, such as round fibers, triangular filaments, or any suitable shape (Id., column 3 lines 26-43, column 6 lines 67-75). Scott teaches that a void in the filament produced is at least 5% of the cross-sectional area of the filament (Id., claim 1), such as 10-15% (Id., Example V). As shown in at least Figs. 2 and 3, the filaments comprise a single void. Scott teaches that the fibers produced confer greater warmth and covering power than solid filaments at equivalent weights (Id., column 7 lines 1-10), and are of high quality and possess the advantage that they have equal outer diameters but much lighter weight than solid filaments, and greater bulk and greater heat insulation potential (Id., column 7 lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermoformable support element of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the single hollowness of the fibers, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Scott, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermoformable support element comprising a cross-sectional area hollowness known in the art to predictably result in high quality and lighter weight filaments having greater bulk and heat insulation properties.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 17, Volker teaches that multiple layers of spunbonded nonwoven fabric can be constructed to adjust the mechanical properties of the carrier, wherein the nonwovens can be bonded by an adhesive, thermofusion, chemical bonding, or a combination (Volker, paragraphs 0027-0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thermoformable support element of the prior art combination, comprising a plurality of spunbonded nonwovens bonded with an adhesive and thermofusion having a structure, such as claimed, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional thermoformable support element having the desired mechanical properties and bonded in a manner consistent with the totality of the teachings of Volker.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Volker teaches a sound absorption coefficient according to DIN EN ISO 105341 (Volker, paragraph 0051, Table 1). The prior art combination does not appear to specifically teach the claimed sound absorption coefficient and thermal insulation at 100 g/m2. However, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed properties are inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of Volker. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 18-21, the prior art combination teaches a thermoformable support element, preferably for use as molded parts for vehicles (Volker, Abstract, paragraph 0039).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights