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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated May 11, 2026 was submitted with the request for continued examination on September 11, 2026. Claims 1, 9 and 19 were amended. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the objection of this claim (¶ 6 of the Office Action). The objection to claim 1 has therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 9 and 19 have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 1-19 (¶¶ 8-11 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 9 and 19 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-19 (¶¶ 16-45 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
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, 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,366,803, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Pellacani et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0189838 A1) and Kim et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR 10-2174301 B1, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa discloses a method comprising: positioning a rolled material in a roll-material preparation module (FIG. 3, 6:57-59 of Nakazawa, roll of metal sheet #5 uncoiled by means of uncoiler #21); unrolling the rolled material partially so as to form a flat portion of the rolled material (FIG. 3 of Nakazawa, flat portion of rolled metal sheet #5); processing at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material (FIG. 3, 6:57-62 of Nakazawa, uncoiled metal sheet #5 coated with paint and cured in oven #9 in uncoiled state); and rolling the flat portion to form a processed rolled material with a flat portion (FIG. 3, 6:62-63 of Nakazawa, cured and coated sheet taken up on product roll by recoiler #12; coated sheet would necessarily have a “size”); applying a surface treatment material on the flat portion, wherein the surface treatment material is configured to enhance a characteristic of the flat portion (8:7-9 of Nakazawa, aluminum sheet primed on one surface with a polyester primer and primed on the other surface with an epoxy primer; the primers would necessarily enhance a characteristic of the surface).
Nakazawa does not specifically disclose the flat portion of the processed rolled material having a first size and heat-pressing the processed rolled material as a whole by an upper mold and a bottom mold, wherein the bottom mold has a second size the same as the first size. Nakazawa, however, discloses a metal-resin composite laminate wherein a resin core is positioned between two layers of the coated metal sheets (FIG. 2, 6:39-44 of Nakazawa). Pellacani discloses metal-resin sandwich laminates (Abstract, [0010] of Pellacani) made by a method comprising cutting the facings to size, prepositioning the facings in a mold and pouring or injecting the resin material into the mold ([0028] of Pellacani). According to Pellacani, the mold is heated ([0046] of Pellacani) and the resin is poured into the heated mold which is then closed ([0047] of Pellacani) and the resin expands to fill the space between the facings ([0006] of Pellacani). Kim discloses heat pressing sandwich panels in a mold ([0001], [0059] of Kim) wherein the facings have the same dimensions as the interior dimensions of the upper and lower molds (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Kim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a sandwich panel from the coated metal plates of Nakazawa by heat pressing using a mold having the same dimensions as the facings since Pellacani and Kim establish that it was known to use such methods at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Pellacani discloses the method further comprising positioning the flat portion of the rolled material on a bottom mold ([0028] of Pellacani).
Regarding claim 5, Nakazawa discloses the method further comprising forming a layer on the at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material (FIG. 3, 6:57-62 of Nakazawa, uncoiled metal sheet #5 coated with paint).
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa discloses that the layer includes epoxy (3:30-34 of Nakazawa, surface of metal sheet coated with epoxy).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa discloses that the layer includes Polyvinylidene Fluoride or Polyvinylidene Difluoride (3:25-28 of Nakazawa, surface of metal sheet coated with PVDF).
Regarding claim 8, Nakazawa does not specifically disclose that the layer includes an oxidation layer (i.e., a layer that inhibits oxidation). Nakazawa, however, discloses coating the metal sheet with a PVDF paint (3:25-28 of Nakazawa) which coating would necessarily inhibit oxidation of the underlying metal surface.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view Pellacani and Kim as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bralia et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 2023/222894 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa does not specifically disclose the method of further comprising cleaning the at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material by a chemical agent. Bralia, however, discloses washing and chemically pre-treating a metal substrate prior to bonding (3:10-22 of Bralia). According to Bralia, chemical pre-treatment provides a tightly bonded finish with reduced effort (3:24-27 of Bralia). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to chemically pretreat the surface of the metal plate in the method of Nakazawa. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a tightly bonded finish with reduced effort as taught by Bralia (3:24-27 of Bralia).
Regarding claim 4, Bralia does not specifically disclose the method further comprising removing undesirable particle from the at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material. The chemical pre-treatment of Bralia, however, includes a washing step (3:10-13 of Bralia) which would necessarily remove particles from the surface.
Claims 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongming in view of Nakazawa, Ashida et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2006-51857 A, machine language translation provided in previous Office Action and cited below), Pellacani and Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Yongming discloses a method (Abstract of Yongming, process for manufacturing metal laminboard) comprising: unrolling and cutting a processed rolled material to form a bottom flat position (FIG. 2, [0033] of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 which is cut by cutting device #2); positioning the bottom flat portion on a bottom large sized mold (FIG. 2 of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 positioned on bottom of compound machine #8) ; applying a first sealant in a first predetermined pattern on an upper surface of the bottom flat portion ([0016] of Yongming, glue applied to surface of lower plate; FIG. 3, [0018] of Yongming, glue applied using gluing device comprising a plurality of spaced nozzles which would necessarily apply the glue in a pattern); positioning an insulation layer on the upper surface of the bottom flat portion (FIG. 2 of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 coated with glue brought into contact with lower surface of core material #6); applying a second sealant in a second predetermined pattern on an upper side of the insulation layer (FIG. 2, [0035] of Yongming, glue applied to lower surface of upper steel plate #1 which is then contacted with upper surface of core material #6; glue would necessarily be applied in some type of pattern to upper surface of core material by transfer from upper steel plate #1); unrolling and cutting the processed rolled material to form an upper flat portion (FIG. 2, [0006] of Yongming, upper steel plate #1 unrolled and cut by coil cutting device #2); positioning the upper flat portion on the upper side of the insulation layer (FIG. 2 of Yongming, upper steel plate #1 brought into contact with upper surface of core material #6 in flat form); pressing the upper flat portion, by an upper large sized mold, against the insulation layer and the bottom flat portion (FIG. 2 of Yongming, upper and lower plates #1 #7 with core layer #6 sandwiched therebetween are pressed in compounding device #8); and forming a large-sized sandwich panel by the upper flat portion, the insulation layer and the bottom flat portion, wherein the first sealant and the second sealant provide structural support to the large sized sandwich panel (FIG. 2, [0022] of Yongming, sandwich panel formed has increased strength; glue bonds plates to core and therefore would necessarily provide structural support to the panel).
Yongming does not specifically disclose applying a surface treatment material to the bottom flat portion, wherein the surface treatment material is configured to enhance a characteristic of the bottom flat portion. Nakazawa, however, discloses a method of making a metal sandwich panel wherein a coiled aluminum sheet is primed on one surface with a polyester primer and primed on the other surface with an epoxy primer (8:7-9 of Nakazawa). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the surfaces in the method of Yongming with a primer since Nakazawa establishes that it was known to apply a primer to the surfaces of metal sheets for use in sandwich panels. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Yongming does not specifically disclose that the layers of the panel are heat pressed together under a predetermined temperature profile during a predetermined time period. Pressing in the compounding machine of Yongming, however, would necessarily be conducted at a temperature and for a period of time. In addition, Ashida discloses a method of molding sandwich panels wherein the panel is bonded at temperatures of from 6 to 120 C for times of 10 minutes to several hours (Abstract, [0059]-[0061] of Ashida). According to Ashida, the curing time and temperature is affected by the properties of the adhesive ([0060] of Ashida). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the adhesive in the method of Yongming under a predetermined temperature profile during a predetermined time period. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to properly cure the adhesive given the curing characteristics of the adhesive as taught by Ashida ([0060] of Ashida).
Yongming also does not specifically disclose the upper mold having a first size, wherein the sandwich panel has a second size generally the same as the first size. Pellacani, however, discloses metal-resin sandwich laminates (Abstract, [0010] of Pellacani) made by a method comprising cutting the facings to size, prepositioning the facings in a mold and pouring or injecting the resin material into the mold ([0028] of Pellacani). According to Pellacani, the mold is heated ([0046] of Pellacani) and the resin is poured into the heated mold which is then closed ([0047] of Pellacani) and the resin expands to fill the space between the facings ([0006] of Pellacani). Kim discloses heat pressing sandwich panels in a mold ([0001], [0059] of Kim) wherein the facings have the same dimensions as the interior dimensions of the upper and lower molds (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Kim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a sandwich panel from the coated metal plates of Nakazawa by heat pressing using a mold having the same dimensions as the facings since Pellacani and Kim establish that it was known to use such methods at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since the cut metal facings are formed into a sandwich panel in the mold by the expanding resin material, the upper mold would necessarily be the same size as the sandwich panel (i.e., the expanding resin would fill the mold resulting in a sandwich panel having the same dimensions as the mold).
Regarding claim 10, Yongming does not specifically disclose that the processed rolled material includes an aluminum layer, an epoxy, and a Polyvinylidene Difluoride layer. Nakazawa, however, discloses a metal sandwich panel (FIG. 2 of Nakazawa) wherein the metal sheets are aluminum sheets (3:25-26 of Nakazawa) including an epoxy layer (3:30-34 of Nakazawa, surface of metal sheet coated with epoxy) and a polyvinylidene difluoride layer (3:25-28 of Nakazawa, surface of metal sheet coated with PVDF). According to Nakazawa, the laminates exhibit excellent weathering resistance (7:30-33 of Nakazawa). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coated aluminum sheets in the method of Yongming. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a laminate exhibiting excellent weathering resistance as taught by Nakazawa (7:30-33 of Nakazawa).
Regarding claim 11, Yongming does not specifically disclose that the large-sized sandwich panel has a dimension of 40 feet x 10 feet x 2 inches. As set forth in the MPEP, however, limitations relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Moreover, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Ashida does not specifically disclose that the predetermined temperature profile includes a temperate range from 40 degrees Celsius to 50 degrees Celsius or that the predetermined time period ranges from 3 hours to 5 hours. Ashida, however, discloses curing temperatures of 6 to 120 °C and curing times of a 10 minutes to a dozen hours ([0060] of Ashida). Ashida therefore clearly teaches curing temperature and curing time ranges range (i.e., 6 to 120 °C and 10 minutes to a dozen hours) that overlap with those recited in claims 13 and 14 (i.e., 40-50 °C and 3-5 hours) which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that 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) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 15, Yongming does not specifically disclose that the first predetermined pattern is vertically aligned with the second predetermined pattern. Yongming, however, discloses that the upper and lower plates are coated with the same type of gluing device in the same manner (FIG. 2, [0016]-[0018] of Yongming). The patterns of glue applied to each of the surface would therefore be aligned with one another. With respect to the alignment being “vertical”, it is noted that a frame of reference is not provided. Accordingly, vertical alignment is being construed broadly to include alignment in any direction.
Regarding claim 16, Yongming discloses that the first predetermined pattern includes sealant lines in parallel with one another (FIG. 3 of Yongming, gluing device includes a plurality of nozzles which would produce a pattern of parallel lines).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongming in view of Nakazawa, Ashida, Pellacani and Kim as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Chen (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 110305615 A, cited in previous Office Action, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 12, Yongming discloses that the first sealant and the second sealant include a two-component polyurethane (PU) adhesive ([0021] of Yongming, two-component urethane glue) but does not disclose that the glue is solvent-free. Chen, however, discloses a two-component solvent-free polyurethane adhesive for use as an adhesive for sandwich panels (Abstract., [0006] of Chen). According to Chen, the adhesive has a low viscosity, short press time and is sprayable ([0006] of Chen). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a two-component solvent-free polyurethane (PU) adhesive as the adhesive in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to use a low viscosity sprayable adhesive having a short press time as taught by Chen ([0006] of Chen).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongming in view of Nakazawa, Ashida, Pellacani and Kim as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Karlsson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0126676 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yongming does not specifically disclose that the first predetermined pattern includes sealant lines perpendicular to one another as recited in claim 17 or that the first predetermined pattern includes curved sealant lines as recited in claim 18. Karlsson, however, discloses a method of making sandwich panels wherein the adhesive bonding the layers together is applied in patterns including cross patterns (i.e., perpendicular lines) and patterns comprising curved lines such as spiral, serpentine and curved patterns ([0050] of Karlsson). According to Karlsson, the adhesive can be applied in patterns to reduce the amount of adhesive material used ([0051] of Karlsson). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesive in a cross or curved pattern in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the amount of adhesive material used as taught by Karlsson ([0051] of Karlsson).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yongming in view of Ashida, Nakazawa and Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Yongming discloses a method (Abstract of Yongming, process for manufacturing metal laminboard), comprising: unrolling and cutting a rolled material to form a bottom flat position (FIG. 2, [0033] of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 which is cut by cutting device #2); positioning the bottom flat portion on a bottom large sized mold (FIG. 2 of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 positioned on bottom of compound machine #8); applying a first sealant in a first predetermined pattern on an upper surface of the bottom flat portion ([0016] of Yongming, glue applied to surface of lower plate; FIG. 3, [0018] of Yongming, glue applied using gluing device comprising a plurality of spaced nozzles which would necessarily apply the glue in a pattern); positioning an insulation layer on the upper surface of the bottom flat portion (FIG. 2 of Yongming, lower steel plate #7 coated with glue brought into contact with lower surface of core material #6); applying a second sealant in a second predetermined pattern on an upper side of the insulation layer (FIG. 2, [0035] of Yongming, glue applied to lower surface of upper steel plate #1 which is then contacted with upper surface of core material #6; glue would necessarily be applied in some type of pattern to upper surface of core material by transfer from upper steel plate #1); unrolling and cutting the rolled material to form an upper flat portion (FIG. 2, [0006] of Yongming, upper steel plate #1 unrolled and cut by coil cutting device #2); positioning the upper flat portion on the upper side of the insulation layer (FIG. 2 of Yongming, upper steel plate #1 brought into contact with upper surface of core material #6 in flat form); pressing the upper flat portion, by an upper large sized mold, against the insulation layer and the bottom flat portion (FIG. 2 of Yongming, upper and lower plates #1 #7 with core layer #6 sandwiched therebetween are pressed in compounding device #8); and forming a large-sized sandwich panel by the upper flat portion, the insulation layer and the bottom flat portion, wherein the first sealant and the second sealant provide structural support to the large sized sandwich panel (FIG. 2, [0022] of Yongming, sandwich panel formed has increased strength; glue bonds plates to core and therefore would necessarily provide structural support to the panel).
Yongming does not specifically disclose applying a surface treatment material to the bottom flat portion, wherein the surface treatment material is configured to enhance a characteristic of the bottom flat portion. Nakazawa, however, discloses a method of making a metal sandwich panel wherein a coiled aluminum sheet is primed on one surface with a polyester primer and primed on the other surface with an epoxy primer (8:7-9 of Nakazawa). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the surfaces in the method of Yongming with a primer since Nakazawa establishes that it was known to apply a primer to the surfaces of metal sheets for use in sandwich panels. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Yongming does not specifically disclose that the layers of the panel are pressed together under a predetermined temperature profile during a predetermined time period. Pressing in the compounding machine of Yongming, however, would necessarily be conducted at a temperature and for a period of time. In addition, Ashida discloses a method of molding sandwich panels wherein the panel is bonded under pressure at temperatures of from 6 to 120 °C for times of 10 minutes to several hours (Abstract, [0059]-[0061] of Ashida). According to Ashida, the required curing time and temperature is affected by the properties of the adhesive ([0060] of Ashida). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure the adhesive in the method of Yongming under a predetermined temperature profile during a predetermined time period. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to properly cure the adhesive given the curing characteristics of the adhesive as taught by Ashida ([0060] of Ashida).
Yongming also does not specifically disclose that the rolled material is a processed rolled material and the method further comprising: positioning a rolled material in a roll-material preparation module; unrolling the rolled material partially so as to form a flat portion of the rolled material; processing at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material; and rolling the flat portion to form a processed rolled material. Nakazawa discloses a method of treating a metal plate for use in a sandwich panel (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Nakazawa) comprising: positioning a rolled material in a roll-material preparation module (FIG. 3, 6:57-59 of Nakazawa, roll of metal sheet #5 uncoiled by means of uncoiler #21); unrolling the rolled material partially so as to form a flat portion of the rolled material (FIG. 3 of Nakazawa, flat portion of rolled metal sheet #5); processing at least one surface of the flat portion of the rolled material (FIG. 3, 6:57-62 of Nakazawa, uncoiled metal sheet #5 coated with paint and cured in oven #9 in uncoiled state); and rolling the flat portion to form a processed rolled material (FIG. 3, 6:62-63 of Nakazawa, cured and coated sheet taken up on product roll by recoiler #12). According to Nakazawa, the laminates exhibit excellent weathering resistance (7:30-33 of Nakazawa). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the processed metal sheets of Nakazawa as the metal sheets in the method of Yongming. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sandwich panel laminate exhibiting excellent weathering resistance as taught by Nakazawa (7:30-33 of Nakazawa).
Yongming also does not specifically disclose the upper mold having a first size, wherein the sandwich panel has a second size generally the same as the first size. Pellacani, however, discloses metal-resin sandwich laminates (Abstract, [0010] of Pellacani) made by a method comprising cutting the facings to size, prepositioning the facings in a mold and pouring or injecting the resin material into the mold ([0028] of Pellacani). According to Pellacani, the mold is heated ([0046] of Pellacani) and the resin is poured into the heated mold which is then closed ([0047] of Pellacani) and the resin expands to fill the space between the facings ([0006] of Pellacani). Kim discloses heat pressing sandwich panels in a mold ([0001], [0059] of Kim) wherein the facings have the same dimensions as the interior dimensions of the upper and lower molds (Abstract, FIG. 2 of Kim). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a sandwich panel from the coated metal plates of Nakazawa by heat pressing using a mold having the same dimensions as the facings since Pellacani and Kim establish that it was known to use such methods at the time the invention was made. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since the cut metal facings are formed into a sandwich panel in the mold by the expanding resin material, the upper mold would necessarily be the same size as the sandwich panel (i.e., the expanding resin would fill the mold resulting in a sandwich panel having the same dimensions as the mold).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Nakazawa fails to disclose or suggest applying a surface treatment material on the flat portion configured to enhance a characteristic of the flat portion (pg. 8 of the amendment). Nakazawa, however, discloses the aluminum sheet primed on one surface with a polyester primer and primed on the other surface with an epoxy primer (8:7-9 of Nakazawa). The primers disclosed in Nakazawa would necessarily enhance a characteristic of the surface (i.e., priming the surface for application of paint).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights