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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102018113888 to Quesnel et al. (hereinafter “Quesnel”).
As to claim 1, Quesnel discloses a composite panel for a vehicle interior, comprising: a first composite layer 4 comprising first fibers and a first thermoplastic polymer, a second composite layer 6 comprising second fibers and a second thermoplastic polymer, and a third composite layer 8 comprising third fibers and a third thermoplastic polymer (figure 1, and paragraphs 6 and 7). The second fibers are natural fibers and so are the third fibers (paragraph 6). The second natural fibers are shorter in length than the third natural fibers (paragraph 6).
The second composite layer reads on the claimed first layer while the third composite layer reads on the claimed second layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the second fibers are oriented in a substantially random orientation with respect to one another (figures 1 and 2).
As to claim 3, the second composite layer further includes granules of recycled composite material comprising natural fibers (paragraph 26). The granules read on the claimed filler particles.
As to claim 7, the first composite layer of the composite panel reads on the claimed support layer.
As to claim 8, the second composite layer comprises polypropylene and natural fibers including bast fibers, wood fibers, hemp fibers, flax fibers, kenaf fibers and jute fibers (paragraphs 23 and 24).
As to claim 9, the second composite layer comprises a recycled thermoplastic polymer (paragraph 23).
As to claim 10, Quesnel discloses a method for producing a composite panel for a vehicle interior, the method comprising:
providing a first composite layer;
providing a second composite layer comprising second natural fibers and a second thermoplastic polymer; and
providing a third composite layer comprising third natural fibers and a third thermoplastic polymer;
wherein the second natural fibers are shorter in length than the third natural fibers (paragraphs 6, 7, and 44).
Quesnel discloses the method further including: grinding or milling a recycled composite material into ground composite material wherein the recycled composite material is made of a thermoplastic polymer and natural fibers (paragraph 26). The thermoplastic polymer of the ground composite material is equated to the second thermoplastic polymer while the natural fibers of the ground composite material are equated to the second natural fibers. The average length of the ground composite material’s second natural fibers is smaller than the average length of the recycled composite material’s natural fibers due to recycling process.
The second composite layer is formed from a composition comprising second natural fibers, the second thermoplastic polymer, and the ground composite material which is made of recycled natural fibers and recycled thermoplastic polymer.
As to claim 12, the method comprises: joining the first composite layer, the second composite layer and the third composite layer by a calendering process (paragraph 49).
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.
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesnel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0385905 to Good et al. (hereinafter “Good”).
As to claims 3-6, Quesnel does not explicitly disclose the second composite layer comprising (i) a plurality of filler particles including at least one of glass beads or wood flour; and (ii) one or more gas bubbles embedded in the second thermoplastic polymer.
Good, however, discloses a composite sheet for an automotive interior component, comprising a porous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin; and one or more skin layer materials (abstract). The porous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin comprises a thermoplastic polymer and reinforcing fibers dispersed therein (paragraph 16). The reinforcing fibers include mineral fibers and natural fibers (paragraph 16). The porous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin also includes glass microspheres, polymeric expandable microspheres, and each of which having a low bulk density of from 0.1 to 0.5 g/cc (paragraphs 22-25). The microspheres reduce weight and production cost while providing dimensional stability (paragraph 23). The microspheres provide a means of introducing controlled, small voids in a closed-cell configuration (paragraph 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include glass microspheres and polymeric expandable microspheres disclosed in Good in the second composite sheet of Quesnel motivated by the desire to reduce weight and production cost while providing dimensional stability for the composite panel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesnel as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2006/0270762 to Noel. III (hereinafter “Noel”).
Quesnel does not explicitly disclose the second composite layer formed by extrusion.
Noel, however, discloses a plastic composite reinforced by cellulosic material and talc, obtained using extrusion process (abstract). The cellulosic talc-filled plastic composite is useful as an automotive panel (paragraph 15). Noel discloses a method for extruding a composite comprising: (i) introducing the composite into an extruder wherein the composite comprises 20-40% by weight of the talc, 10-60 % by weight of cellulosic material, and 20-70% by weight of a thermoplastic polymer (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second composite layer disclosed in Quesnel using extrusion process because calendaring and extruding processes have been shown in the art to be recognized equivalent processes for forming a fiber-reinforced polymer materials and the selection of these known equivalents to be used as the method for forming a fiber-reinforced polymer materials will be within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788