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 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.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are 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.
Claim 3 dependent indirectly from claim 1 recites thermoplastic polyolefin. It is not clear if “a first polyolefin” of claim 1 is the same as the thermoplastic polyolefin of claim 3 or the thermoplastic polyolefin is another component of the first side.
Claim 4 dependent from claim 1 recites “at least one polyolefin.” It is not clear if the “at least one polyolefin” is the same as “a second polyolefin” of claim 1, or another component of the second side.
Claim 13 dependent indirectly from claim 11 recites thermoplastic polyolefin. It is not clear if “a first polyolefin” of claim 11 is the same as the thermoplastic polyolefin of claim 13 or the thermoplastic polyolefin is another component of the first side.
Claim 14 dependent from claim 11 recites “at least one polyolefin.” It is not clear if the “at least one polyolefin” is the same as “a second polyolefin” of claim 11, or another component of the second side.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DePue et al. (US 7014208 B2) (“DePue”), in view of Gallagher (US 5804121).
With respect to claim 1, DePue discloses a structure comprising a first side comprising a thermoplastic material – element 32 – comprising a first polyolefin (col. 3, lines 35-37) - and a second side – element 26 - comprising a resin material comprising a second polyolefin (abstr., col. 3, lines 3-54), the second side directly bonded to the first side at a bonded interface – the first and second sides are bonded at a bonded interface as DePue discloses that the materials of the sides are heated and melted to form a bond therebetween (col. 5, lines 17-20).
DePue is silent with respect to the bonded interface comprising a chemical bond between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin.
Gallagher discloses a structure comprising a first side – element 10 - comprising a first polyolefin (abstr., col. 4, lines 4-7) and a second side – element 50 - comprising a second polyolefin (col. 5, lines 18-22), wherein the first side and the second side are directly bonded during injection molding at a bonded interface, wherein the bonded interface comprises a chemical bond between the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin (col. 6, lines 39-59). Gallagher does not specify that the chemical bond is between polymer molecules of the first and second polyolefins, however, that is implied by the fact of a chemical bond between the polyolefins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bonded interface of DePue comprising a chemical bond between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin as both DePue and Gallagher disclose bonding the first side and the second side during injection molding (DePue, col. 3, lines 46-51).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 1. DePue teaches the thermoplastic material comprises a thermoplastic elastomer which comprises thermoplastic polyolefin (col. 3, lines 30-36).
Applicant is advised that should “a first polyolefin” of claim 1, and “thermoplastic polyolefin” of claim 3 be the same component of the first side, and should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
As to claims 4 and 5, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 1. DePue discloses the resin material comprises a polyolefin, wherein the polyolefin comprises polypropylene (col. 3, lines 16-21).
Applicant is advised that should “a second polyolefin” of claim 1, and “at least one polyolefin” of claim 4 be the same component of the second side, and should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
With respect to claim 6, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 1. Gallagher discloses the thermoplastic material comprises a tear seam – element 20A – located in a portion of the thermoplastic material that is exposed on the second side of the structure where the resin material does not cover the thermoplastic material – resin material does not cover the opening of element 20A (col. 5, lines 56-62, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 6. DePue teaches the tear seam comprises a molded portion of the thermoplastic material that is thinner than a surrounding portion of the thermoplastic material – at 20A, Fig. 2 (col. 5, lines 56-62).
As to claim 8, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 1. DePue discloses the first side comprises a textured outer surface (col. 3, lines 37-38).
With respect to claim 9, DePue and Gallagher teach the structure of claim 1. DePue teaches the structure wherein the second side comprises a surface feature – elements 66 and 68 - configured to interface with a vehicle component – an airbag (col. 6, lines 3-25, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, DePue and Gallager teach the structure of claim 9. DePue teaches the structure wherein the vehicle component comprises an airbag – element 23 - housed by the surface feature of the second side (col. 6, lines 3-25, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DePue et al. (US 7014208 B2) (“DePue”), in view of Gallagher (US 5804121).
With respect to claim 11, DePue discloses a method comprising providing a thermoplastic material comprising a first polyolefin (col. 3, lines 35-37), injection molding a resin material comprising a second polyolefin – material forming element 26 (col. 3, lines 16-21) - onto a thermoplastic material – material forming element 32 (col. 3, lines 45-50, col. 5, lines 3-18), thereby bonding the resin material to the thermoplastic material - the materials of the sides are heated and melted to form a bond therebetween (col. 5, lines 17-20), and forming a structure comprising a first side comprising the thermoplastic material – element 32 - and a second side comprising a resin material – element 26 – (col. 3, lines 3-54, Fig. 2).
DePue is silent regarding chemically bonding the resin material to the thermoplastic material, the chemical bond being between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin.
Gallagher discloses a structure comprising a first side – element 10 - comprising a first polyolefin (abstr., col. 4, lines 4-7), and a second side – element 50 - comprising a second polyolefin (col. 5, lines 18-22), wherein the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin are chemically bonded (col. 6, lines 39-59). Gallagher does not specify that the chemical bond is between polymer molecules of the first and second polyolefins, however, that is implied by the fact of a chemical bond between the polyolefins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chemically bond the resin material and the thermoplastic material of DePue, wherein a chemical bond between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin is formed as both DePue and Gallagher disclose bonding the first side and the second side during injection molding (DePue, col. 3, lines 46-51).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 11. DePue teaches the thermoplastic material comprises a thermoplastic elastomer which comprises thermoplastic polyolefin (col. 3, lines 30-36).
Applicant is advised that should “a first polyolefin” of claim 11, and “thermoplastic polyolefin” of claim 13 be the same component of the first side, and should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
As to claims 14 and 15, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 11. Gallagher discloses the resin material comprises a polyolefin, wherein the polyolefin comprises polypropylene (col. 3, lines 16-21).
Applicant is advised that should “a second polyolefin” of claim 11, and “at least one polyolefin” of claim 14 be the same component of the second side, and should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
As to claim 16, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 11. DePue discloses forming a texture on an outer surface of the thermoplastic material (col. 3, lines 37-38).
With respect to claim 17, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 11. DePue discloses forming a tear seam – element 20A – in a portion of the thermoplastic material that is exposed on the side of the structure the resin material does not cover the thermoplastic material – resin material does not cover the opening of element 20 A (col. 1, lines 57-59, col. 2, lines 66-67, col. 5, lines 56-62, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 17. DePue discloses forming the tear seam comprises molding a portion of the thermoplastic material to be thinner than a surrounding portion of the thermoplastic material – at 20A, Fig. 2 (col. 3, lines 46-48, col. 5, lines 6-13, 56-62).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePue, in view of Gallagher, and further in view of Sapak et al. (US 2012/0104784 A1) (“Sapak”).
With respect to claim 19, DePue and Gallagher teach the method of claim 11, but are silent regarding a step of trimming at least one of excess thermoplastic material and excess resin material after the molding. Sapak discloses a trim panel for a vehicle formed by injection molding, wherein the method includes trimming the excess material of the panel (0052, 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trim the excess thermoplastic material and/or excess resin material after the molding of the structure as disclosed by DePue and Gallagher as it is known in the art of vehicle structures formed by injection molding to trim excess materials.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schum et al. (US 2015/0367543 A1) (“Schum”), in view of Gallagher.
With respect to claim 20, Schum discloses a method (abstr.) comprising loading a sheet of a thermoplastic material comprising a first polyolefin into a frame (0011-0017, 0022, 0026, 0027), heating the thermoplastic material (0016, 0054), placing the frame into an injection tool (0026), injecting a resin material comprising a second polyolefin (0027, 0058) onto one side of the thermoplastic material (0015, 0054), thereby bonding the resin material to the thermoplastic material (0054), forming a structure comprising a first side comprising the thermoplastic material and a second side comprising the resin material (0018, 0054), and ejecting the structure from the injection tool (0054).
Schum discloses that a strong, form-fitting bond forms between the resin material and the thermoplastic material, the bond being manifested in the subsequent cooling or heating operation (0054), but Schum is silent with respect to the resin material being chemically bonded to the thermoplastic material, the chemical bond being between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin.
Gallagher discloses a structure comprising a first side – element 10 - comprising a first polyolefin (cabstr., col. 4, lines 4-7), and a second side – element 50 - comprising a second polyolefin (col. 5, lines 18-22), wherein the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin are chemically bonded (col. 6, lines 39-59). Gallagher does not specify that the chemical bond is between polymer molecules of the first and second polyolefins, however, that is implied by the fact of a chemical bond between the polyolefins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chemically bond the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin in the method of Schum, wherein a chemical bond forms between polymer molecules of the first polyolefin and polymer molecules of the second polyolefin forms as both Schum and Gallager disclose bonding the first polyolefin and the second polyolefin during injection molding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant did not present specific arguments in the Remarks. In view of the amendment upon further searching a new reference Gallagher was uncovered, as discussed above.
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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights