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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 1, in line 10 it is suggested to amend “comprises a plurality of linear rib patterns arranged in parallel that is a straight pattern” to “comprises of a straight pattern, wherein the straight pattern consist of a plurality of linear ribs arranged in parallel to each other”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parat Beteiligungs GMBH (DE 10 2013 008 592) (Parat) in view of Fujimori et al. (JP 2021-49692) (Fujimori), with claim 3 taken in view of evidence by Partusch et al. (US 2002/0160204) (Partusch).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of DE 10 2013 008 592 with the Office Action mailed 04/09/2025. The Applicant has provided a machine translation of JP 2021-49692 with the IDS filed 10/21/2024. The citation of prior art in the rejection refers to the provided machine translations.
In reference to claims 1 and 11, Parat teaches a multi-layer lightweight component which has a first layer consisting of a deep-drawn plastic film and which is back-foamed by a second layer of a cured foam mass, in particular of LFI foam material ([0008]) (corresponding to a plastic composite, a face sheet layer; a long fiber injection (LFI) layer disposed on a lower surface of the face sheet layer). The deep-drawn plastic film is made up of several layers such as a PMMA layer followed by a ABS layer, wherein the softer ABS layer is between the PMMA layer and second layer ([0028]; [0091]; Fig. 7) (corresponding to a face sheet layer consisting of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA); an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene copolymer (ABS) layer disposed between the face sheet layer and the LFI layer). The curable foam consists of polyurethane foam reinforced with fibers ([0011]) (corresponding to a LFI layer consisting of polyurethane foam including reinforcing fibers).
The second layer has a thickness of between 1 and 30 mm ([0037]). Parat further teaches the second layer includes reinforcing sections with a greater wall thickness, these reinforcement sections are designed as ribs ([0037]).
Parat does not explicitly teach the ribs have a height of 20 mm or more, a width of 15 to 22 mm and the height of the ribs are 3 to 8 times a height of the second layer, as presently claimed. However, Parat teaches the reinforcement section (i.e., ribs) can enable a further increase in the bending stiffness of the structural component ([0042]).
Fujimori teaches a fiber-reinforced composite panel including a base sheet and a skin-rib sheet having a plurality rib portion provided on at least one surface of the base sheet and extending in a surface direction of the base sheet (Abstract; p. 4). The multiple rib portions are arranged in a first direction along the base sheet. Each rib portion extends linearly in a second direction along the sheet, perpendicular to the first direction. Between two rib portions adjacent to each other in the arrangement direction, there is a layer of the base portion in which no rob portion exists (p. 4) (corresponding to a rib pattern layer; the rib pattern layer comprises a plurality of linear rib patterns arranged in parallel that is a straight pattern). The height of the rib portion is 0.1 cm or more and 10 cm or less (i.e., 1 to 100 mm) and the width of the rib portion is 0.3 cm or more and 5.0 cm or less (i.e., 3 to 500 mm) (p. 5) (corresponding to the plurality of ribs have a height of 20 mm or more and have a width of 15 to 22 mm; the height of the plurality of ribs is 20 mm and the width of the plurality of ribs is 20 mm).
Fujimori teaches when the height and width of the rib portions are within the above range, the rib-skin sheet has high bending strength against stress in a direction perpendicular to the second direction (p. 5).
In light of the motivation of Fujimori, 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 reinforcing sections of Parat be ribs arranged linearly and parallel to each other with a height of 0.1-10 cm and a width of 0.3-5.0 cm, in order to provide the second layer with high bending strength against stress in a direction perpendicular to a second direction of the second layer, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Parat in view of Fujimori teaches the second layer has a thickness of between 1 and 30 mm and the height of the rib portion is 0.1 cm or more and 10 cm or less (i.e., 1 to 100 mm) (Parat, [0037]; Fujimori, p.5). Therefore, when the height of the rib portion is within the overlapping portion with the claimed height (i.e., 20 mm or more) the thickness of the second layer can also be selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Parat in view of Fujimori, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
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).
In reference to claim 2, Parat in view of Fujimori teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Parat further teaches the LFI foam material, consists of glass fiber reinforced polyurethane, where the fiber content is about 10 to 40% ([0033]). Thus, it is clear the LFI foam consists of 10 to 40% fibers and 90 to 60% polyurethane (corresponding to the LFI layer consists of 15 to 60 weight % of the reinforcing fiber and 40 to 85 weight % of the polyurethane foam).
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).
In reference to claim 3, Parat in view of Fujimori teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Parat teaches the LFI foam material consists of glass fiber reinforced polyurethane ([0033]) (corresponding to the reinforcing fiber is glass fiber). Parat further teaches the log fiber injection refers to fibers of a given length. As evidence by Partusch, long fiber injection technique use fibers having a length of 5 mm to 10 cm ([0031]). Therefore, it is clear the glass fibers in the LFI foam material will have a length of 5 mm to 10 cm (corresponding to the reinforcing fiber is glass fiber having a length of 2 to 80 mm).
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).
In reference to claim 8, Parat in view of Fujimori teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Parat in view of Fujimori does not explicitly disclose the distance between ribs as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to vary the distance between ribs of Parat in view of Fujimori including over the presently claimed, in order to provide a rib pattern that has the desired ductility and strength, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
In response to amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 10, the previous 35 USC 112(d) rejection of record is withdrawn.
In response to amended claim 1, which no requires the rib pattern layer comprises a straight pattern where the straight pattern consists of a plurality of linear ribs arranged parallel to each other, it is noted that Parat and Buehlmeryer (US 2009/0311362) no longer meet the presently claimed limitations. Rather, Buehlmeryer teaches the ribs have a rectangular shape, to have three or more corners or a honeycomb design. Therefore, it is clear the rib pattern of Buehlmeryer includes not only linear ribs arranged in parallel but include linear ribs arranged in perpendicular. Thus, the previous 35 USC 103 rejections over Parat in view of Buehlmeryer are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitates a new set of rejections as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/04/2026 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
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