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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 2/25/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
Claims 14, 15, 17, 19-24, and 26 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 7-20 of copending Application No. 19/244,237 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the steps, composition(s) and resultant structure of the method for producing custom product packaging of instant claims 14, 15, 17, 19-24, and 26 would have been suggested by or otherwise rendered obvious the insulated shipper and method for producing an insulated shipper of claims 1, 2, and 7-20 of copending Application No. 19/244,237.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al (JP 2016010953 A) in view of Kuwabara et al (US 2017/0144355 A1)
Regarding claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-28, and 31, Fukunaga teaches a method for producing custom product packaging (e.g., composite) comprising adhering at least one molded bead foam article (e.g., resin foam core material) to a surface by heating (e.g., heat fusion) the surface and pressing the at least one molded bead foam article against the surface (e.g., laminating); wherein the at least one molded bead foam article comprises a plurality of foam beads (e.g., particles) comprising polylactic acid (named thermoplastic resin species); wherein the at least one molded bead foam article and the surface are adhered together without using an adhesive (e.g., laminating); wherein heating the surface is performed using a heating element, wherein the heating element comprises a heated press or an infrared-emitting device (e.g., infrared heater); wherein the surface comprises at least one of metal (e.g., metal fibers), engineered plastic (e.g., fiber reinforced resin or fabric), glass (e.g., glass fibers), and ceramic (e.g., ceramic fibers) ( abstract, page 2-3, 5, 9-12, 15; 19).
Fukunaga fails to suggest wherein the at least one molded bead foam article is removable from the surface; wherein removal from the surface leaves no residue on the surface; and wherein the at least one molded bead foam article is an existing molded bead foam article having an initial intended use, and wherein adhering the at least one molded bead foam article to the surface enables use of the at least one molded bead foam article in a secondary use beyond the initial intended use.
Kuwabara teaches a method for producing custom product packaging (e.g., composite) comprising adhering at least one molded bead foam article (e.g., a polylactic acid bead expanded molded article) to temporarily (i.e., wherein the at least one molded bead foam article is removable from the surface) to a surface (e.g., fiber-reinforced resin sheet or fabric) for outer-shape processing to a predetermined size; wherein the surface comprises at least one of metal (e.g., metal fibers), engineered plastic (e.g., fiber reinforced resin), glass (e.g., glass fibers), and ceramic (e.g., ceramic fibers) (para 2, 4, 26, 56-62, 76, 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the method of making a composite of Kuwabara with the method of making a composite of Fukunaga for a method of making a composite with a core processed to a predetermined size by outer shape processing.
Kuwabara further teaches the pre-formed expanded sheet can be smoothed by rollers (i.e., wherein the at least one molded bead foam article is at least partially machined) (para 96, 110-112).
Kuwabara teaches the fiber-reinforced sheet is temporarily adhered to the surface of the pre-molded article which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the at least one molded bead foam article is an existing molded bead foam article having an initial intended use (e.g., be able to be shaped and sized as necessary), and wherein adhering the at least one molded bead foam article to the surface enables use of the at least one molded bead foam article in a secondary use beyond the initial intended use (used as a foam core).
The Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that in a hot laminating or heat pressing process that various variables or parameters such as pressure applied, surface temperature of the materials, and time of exposure to both affect the bonding strength or fusion of the two materials being joined (see also page 19 and 20 of Fukunaga), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pressure applied, surface temperature of the materials, and time of exposure to both of the hot pressing method of Fukunaga as modified by Kuwabara to optimize the temporary bond strength or fusion between the foam core and the fiber reinforced resin during the outer-shape processing as rendered obvious by Kuwabara.
Regarding the limitation “wherein removal from the surface leaves no residue on the surface;” Fukunaga as modified by Kuwabara would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the method and compositions for producing the custom product packaging of the instant claims. Therefore, it is deemed to meet the limitation of the instant claim.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 21 and 22, Fukunaga suggests the fiber reinforced resin material partially laminated on the surface of the resin foam, i.e., wherein only a portion of surface is heated to adhere the at least one molded bead foam article to the surface; and wherein a size of the portion of the surface is less than a surface area of a portion of the at least one molded bead foam article that is adhered to the surface (page 15).
Regarding claim 25, Fukunaga teaches the blowing agent used my be nitrogen or carbon dioxide gas (e.g., non-flammable gases), so wherein heating the surface of the at least one molded bead foam article is performed without producing flammable gas.
Regarding claim 29 and 30, Kuwabara teaches laminating techniques includes heat pressing (para 101), so fiber-reinforced resin sheet or fabric and the other side of the pre-molded foam sheet or core would be in contact with metal plates, which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the surface is a first surface, and wherein the method further comprises adhering the at least one molded bead foam article to a second surface, wherein the at least one molded bead foam article joins the first surface and the second surface together; and wherein the first surface and the second surface comprise different materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights