DETAILED ACTION
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites “non-woven fabrics” attached to “both surfaces of a polyurethane sheet”. This limitation is firstly indefinite because it refers to “both surfaces” as if they have been previously recited to be present on the sheet, which is not the case. As such, the recitation of “both surfaces” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Additionally, given that a polyurethane sheet necessarily has a thickness, it necessarily has more than two surfaces because each edge, in addition to the two major, planar surfaces, is a surface. Therefore, it is not clear to which two of the likely six surfaces (i.e. two major, planar surfaces and four edges, if the sheet is rectangular) the recited “both surfaces” refers. For the sake of compact prosecution, the polyurethane foam sheet is interpreted herein as comprising two planar surfaces (e.g. a “first surface and a second surface”, an “upper surface and a lower surface”, etc.) that are opposite each other and “both surfaces” is interpreted herein as referring to two planar surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it recites a “vehicle headliner” in its preamble but then recites that a “skin member” is “attached to a surface that is exposed to an interior”, without making clear what structure (i.e. the headliner or something else) includes “the interior”. Further, as the claim is directed to a vehicle headliner, rather than a vehicle or other structure with an interior, the claim is indefinite as to if the positive recitation that the skin member is “attached to a surface that is exposed to an interior” is intended to require a specific structure with respect to an interior, in which case the interior could only refer to the headliner because a headliner is claimed, or if the recitation is a statement of intended use regarding how the skin member is to be positioned within a vehicle or other structure having an interior. If the latter is true, the limitation should be reframed as being “to be” exposed to an interior of a vehicle, or something similar. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, it appears that the skin layer (30) is the lowermost surface of the headliner (H), which would likely face the interior of a vehicle, rather than being attached to a surface that faces the interior of a vehicle (Figs. 3A, B). For the sake of compact prosecution and because “skin” implies that the member is an outermost layer, the recitation is interpreted herein as a statement of use, conveying that the skin member is intended to be positioned such that it is exposed to the interior of a vehicle or other structure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it recites that “the aluminum film” “is disposed on at least one surface of both surfaces of the polyurethane foam sheet”, but depends from claim 1, which recites that “aluminum films” are inserted between and attached to attached to the polyurethane foam sheet and the non-woven fabrics, which are previously recited to be attached to “both” surfaces of the polyurethane foam sheet. As such, it is unclear to which of the plural aluminum films that have been established to be present that “the aluminum film” refers. The claim also makes unclear if aluminum films are indeed required to be on both surfaces of the foam, as seemingly required by claim 1, or only on one surface. For the sake of compact prosecution, “the aluminum film” is interpreted herein as referring to any one aluminum film. Appropriate correction and explanation are required.
Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above, claim 3 recites the “the aluminum film” “is disposed on at least one surface of both surfaces of the polyurethane foam sheet”, but depends from claim 1, which recites that “aluminum films” are inserted between and attached to attached to the polyurethane foam sheet and the non-woven fabrics, which are previously recited to be attached to “both” surfaces of the polyurethane foam sheet. As such, it appears that dependent claim 3 does not incorporate all of the limitations of independent claim 1, because claim 1 appears to require aluminum films to be disposed on each of the “both” surfaces of the polyurethane foam, whereas claim 3 allows the structure to only include an aluminum film disposed on one surface of the foam sheet.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20190033722A), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation, in view of Onishi (WO2022085172A), cited herein according to US PG Pub. No. 2024/0001866, which is an English language translation.
Regarding claims 1-3, Cho teaches a headliner for a vehicle comprising a polyurethane foam sheet (110) including a top surface and a bottom surface, glass fiber layers (120) that are coated with an adhesive (G) and integrally attached to each of the top and bottom surfaces of the foam sheet, nonwoven fabric layers (130) integrally attached to the glass fiber layers, and a skin layer (200, which includes 210-230) integrally attached to the lower one of the nonwoven fabric layers (130) (Figs. 5, 6; par. 27-30, 63).
The teachings of Cho differ from the current invention in that his product does not include aluminum films located as claimed. However, as noted above, Cho does teach including glass fiber layers (120) in a headliner in the locations the instantly claimed aluminum films are recited to be present. Onishi also discloses a vehicle headliner and teaches substituting a metal films, such as an aluminum foil, for a glass fiber layers in vehicle headliners in order to reduce weight while maintaining a desired/required rigidity (par. 6, 9, 26, 29). Onishi also teaches that the metal foil can assist in heat shielding (par. 25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute metal films, such as aluminum foils, for the glass fiber layers in Cho’s product (i.e. wherein the aluminum films are coated with an adhesive on at least one side and are inserted between and integrally attached to the foam sheet and the nonwoven fabrics), because Onishi teaches that aluminum films may be used as a substitute for glass fiber layers in vehicle headliners, in order to reduce the weight of the headliner while maintaining the desired/required rigidity, and to provide the headliner with an enhanced heat-shielding property.
As just noted, Cho and Onishi’s headliner provides at least some heat-shielding capability due to its aluminum film layers. The structure is also capable of providing at least some heat insulating function because it is made of heat-insulating materials, like polyurethane foam and nonwoven fabrics.
As discussed above, the requirement that the skin member is attached to/located at a surface exposed to an interior is a statement of intended use. The headliner of the prior art meets this requirement because it is capable of being situated and used as claimed, wherein the skin layer faces the interior of a vehicle. Additionally, Cho teaches that the skin layer is intended to be exposed to the interior of a vehicle in which the disclosed headliner is installed (par. 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784