DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: with respect to the thickness of the co-extruded sheets, it appears that the thickness should read “1 to 5 mm” and not “1 to 5 m”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 6492015) with evidence from Iupilon™ H-3000 and E-2000 Datasheets (Hereafter “Iupilon Datasheets).
Aoki discloses a composite sheet having a foamed polycarbonate layer and non-foamed polycarbonate foamed layers. Concerning claims 1-3, Aoki discloses the composite sheet comprises a core layer formed from a foamed polycarbonate with a first skin layer formed from a non-foamed polycarbonate disposed on one major surface and a second skin layer formed from a non-foamed polycarbonate disposed on the other major surface of the core, wherein the foamed polycarbonate core layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 15 mm and a density of 0.03 to 0.6 g/cm3 and the thickness of each non-foamed polycarbonate skin layer is 10 to 1500 microns with the thickness of the foam core and each non-foamed layer depending upon if the composite sheet is to be flexible or non-flexible (cols. 3-5). The total thickness of the composite sheet is from 520 microns to 18000 microns. The resulting thickness ratio is from about 0.001 to about 0.86, which overlap and include the claimed ratio. Given that the materials forming the non-foamed polycarbonate layer and foamed polycarbonate layer are the same as that claimed and the thickness value for each non-foamed polycarbonate layer overlaps and includes the disclosed range, the resulting density of the composite sheet would also include and encompass the claimed range in claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12. Regarding the swollen portion and average thickness after heating as claimed in claims 1 and 2, since the materials are the same, the swollen portion size, number, and thickness after heating would be within the claimed range.
In regards to the expansion ratio as claimed in claimed in claim 3, Aoki discloses the expansion ratio is dependent upon the specific blowing agent and content thereof, which affects the resulting density (col. 3, lines 20-55). As such, the expansion ratio can be any ratio, including the claimed expansion ratio, for the desired density. Conversely, the expansion ratio of the resulting composite sheet of Aoki would include and encompass the claimed range. With respect to claims 4 and 5, Aoki discloses the non-foamed polycarbonate layers have a melt tension of 2.45 cN to 30 cN, wherein specific polycarbonate resins of Iupilon™ H-3000 and E-2000 have MVR values of 28 cm3/10 min and 5.0 cm3/10 min and melt tension values of 0.49 cN and 2.55 cN respectively (Table 3; col. 9, lines 41-55). As such, the trend would be a lower MVR value would have a higher melt tension value. As such, IB2500 would have an MVR value lower than 5.0 cm3/10 min and at least Examples 5 and 7 would have an MVR value for the non-foamed polycarbonate layers that at least overlap and encompass the claimed range. Regarding claims 7 and 13-14, Examples 5 and 7 show a shrinkage of 4.5% and 3.5% and 5% and 3% respectively in the MD and TD directions (Table 1). Concerning claims 8-9 and 15-16, since the thicknesses overlap and the materials are the same as that disclosed and claimed, the resulting specific flexural modulus would include and encompass the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al. (US 6492015) with evidence from Iupilon™ H-3000 and E-2000 Datasheets (Hereafter “Iupilon Datasheets) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowles et al. (US 20170113445).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to further decorative layers.
Rowles discloses a polycarbonate foam sheet with decorative layers disposed with the polycarbonate foam sheet to form a decorative laminate (para. 0104). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a decorative layer to the laminate of Rowles to form a composite sheet with a decorative layer to form a laminate that is aesthetically pleasing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/574947 in view of Aoki et al. (US 6492015) and Groote et al. (US 9598577). Both sets of claims directed to a foam sheet with skin layers, each comprising an engineering plastic. However, the ‘947 claims are silent to the claimed filler and polycarbonate or polycarbonate-polysiloxane for each layer. Aoki discloses a laminate comprising a polycarbonate foam layer and skin layers each comprising a non-foamed polycarbonate layer, wherein such a structure allows for good workability and moldability. With respect to the fillers, Aoki discloses adding inorganic fillers wherein the addition of such fillers creates a nanocomposite material. Groote discloses polycarbonate-polysiloxane as a polycarbonate that has low temperature impact and chemical resistance. As such, the instant claims are not sufficiently obviated from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783