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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 16-22 and 31; TPU polymer carrier; chemical blowing agent; and silicone surfactant in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 2 recites “the reaction product” in line 2 and “the combined weight” in lines 3 and 4. It appears that the claim should recite “a reaction product” in line 2 and “a combined weight” in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 9 recites “from the combination” in line 5. It appears that claim 9 should recite “from a combination” in line 5.
Claim 22 recites “the steering wheel of claim 1”. Claim 1 does not comprise a second thermoplastic polyurethane material as required by claim 22. It appears that claim 22 should depend from claim 9. Claim 22 also recites “the reaction product” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a reaction product” in line 2. Further, claim 22 recites “the combined weight” in line 4. It appears that the claim should recite “a combined weight” in line 4.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0319925) in view of Jaehnigen et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0339735).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. teach a steering wheel for a vehicle comprising a steering wheel frame, wherein the steering wheel frame (page 10, paragraph [0091]) comprises a first thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0003]) having a flexural modulus of at least 100,000 measured according to ASTM D790 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 80,000 to 2,300,000 (page 1, paragraph [0008], page 7, paragraph [0071]).
Lu et al. do not disclose wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material has a Notched Izod Impact Strength (3.2mm/23°C) of 1.5 to 30 ft-lb/in measured according to ASTM D256; Instrumental Dart Impact (Total Energy at 23°C) of 100-900 in-lb measured according to ASTM D3763; and Tensile Modulus of 80,000 to 2,600,000 psi measured according to ASTM D638. However, Lu et al. teach wherein an impact modifier may optionally be added to the thermoplastic polyurethane compositions in an effective amount to improve impact resistance and low temperature toughness (page 5, paragraph [0050]). However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in impact strength, dart impact and tensile modulus involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the impact strength, dart impact and tensile modulus of Lu et al. in order to improve the impact resistance and low temperature toughness of the polyurethane (Lu et al., page 5, paragraph [0050]).
Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 350,000 Daltons. However, Jaehnigen et al. teach a steering wheel (page 11, paragraph [0160]) comprising a first thermoplastic polyurethane having a weight average molecular weight of at least 60,000 g/mol which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 50,000 to 350,000 Daltons (page 7, paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the molecular weight of the thermoplastic polyurethane of Lu et al. to that of Jaehnigen et al. in order to provide adequate processability and desired spectrum properties (Jaehnigen et al., page 7, paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al. teach wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises a reaction product of a first diisocyanate component, a first chain extender component and a fist polyol component, wherein the combined weight of the first diisocyanate component and the first chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the first thermoplastic material (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0013], [0014], page 2, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. teach wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises a reaction product of a first diisocyanate component, a first chain extender component and a fist polyol component, wherein the combined weight of the first diisocyanate component and the first chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the first thermoplastic material (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0013], [0014], page 2, paragraph [0027]), wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises at least 75% by weight hard segment content which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 60% (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Lu et al. teach wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises a reaction product of a first diisocyanate component, a first chain extender component and a fist polyol component, wherein the combined weight of the first diisocyanate component and the first chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the first thermoplastic material (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0013], [0014], page 2, paragraph [0027]), wherein the first diisocyanate component is an aromatic diisocyanate (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 2, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Lu et al. teach wherein the first thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises a reaction product of a first diisocyanate component, a first chain extender component and a fist polyol component, wherein the combined weight of the first diisocyanate component and the first chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the first thermoplastic material (page 1, paragraphs [0004], [0013], [0014], page 2, paragraph [0027]), wherein the first diisocyanate component is 4,4’-methylenebis(phenyl isocyanate) (page 2, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et al. teach wherein the first chain extender component is selected from 1,4-butanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, nonanediol or dodecanediol (page 3, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Lu et al. teach wherein the first polyol component is present (page 1, paragraph [0004]) and comprises a polyether polyol or polyester polyol (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Claims 9-12, 14, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0319925) in view of Jaehnigen et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0339735), in further view of Vonorcik et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0174818).
Lu et al. and Jaehnigen et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the steering wheel further comprises a foam cover for the steering wheel frame, wherein the foam cover comprises flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam, wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam is formed from the combination of (i) a second thermoplastic polyurethane material, wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 350,000 Daltons as measured by gel permeation chromatography and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.2 to 3.5 and (ii) and a chemical blowing agent and/or a cell opening surfactant. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 50,000 to 350,000 Daltons as measured by gel permeation chromatography (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 1.2 to 3.5 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam has: (i) a peak temperature of crystallization, as measured by DSC, of 25 °C to 205 °C; (ii) a peak temperature of melting, as measured by DSC, of 106 °C to 206 °C; and (iii) a difference between the peak temperature of melting and the peak temperature of crystallization, each as measured by DSC, between 1 and 137 °C. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006]) has a peak temperature of crystallization, as measured by DSC, of between 40 °C and 205°C which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 25°C to 205°C (page 1, paragraph [0007]); a peak temperature of melting, as measured by DSC, of between 106°C and 206°C (page 1, paragraph [0007]); and a difference between the peak temperature of melting and the peak temperature of crystallization, each measured by DSC, between 1 degree and 137 degrees (page 1, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam has: (i) a vertical rebound, as measured by ASTM D2632, of at least 30%; (ii) a compression set at room temperature, as measured by ASTM D395, of no more than 25%; (iii) a compression set at 50°C, as measured by ASTM D395, of no more than 50%; and (iv) an Asker C hardness, as measured by ASTM D2240, of 30 to 65. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) has a vertical rebound, as measured by ASTM D2632, of at least 30% (page 1, paragraph [0008]); a compression set at room temperature, as measured by ASTM D395, of no more than 25% (page 1, paragraph [0008]); a compression set at 50°C, as measured by ASTM D395, of no more than 50% (page 1, paragraph [0008]); and an Asker C hardness, as measured by ASTM D2240, of from 30 to 65 (page 1, paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claims 12, 14 and 16, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the blowing agent comprises a chemical blowing agent. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the blowing agent comprises a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the chemical blowing agent is delivered by a masterbatch comprising a polymer carrier and the chemical blowing agent. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the chemical blowing agent is delivered by a masterbatch comprising a polymer carrier and the chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraph [0026], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the flexible thermoplastic polyurethane foam is formed from the combination of 0.5% to 10% by weight of the masterbatch and 90 to 99.5% by weight of the second thermoplastic polyurethane material. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the chemical blowing agent is delivered by a masterbatch comprising a polymer carrier and the chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraph [0026], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]).
Vonorcik et al. do not disclose wherein the flexible thermoplastic polyurethane foam is formed from the combination of 0.5% to 10% by weight of the masterbatch and 90 to 99.5% by weight of the second thermoplastic polyurethane material. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of masterbatch and thermoplastic polyurethane material in Vonorcik et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the polymer carrier comprises a carrier thermoplastic polyurethane composition, wherein the carrier thermoplastic polyurethane composition may be the same or different from the first thermoplastic polyurethane material and the second thermoplastic polyurethane material. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the chemical blowing agent is delivered by a masterbatch comprising a polymer carrier and the chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraph [0026], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]), wherein the polymer carrier comprising a carrier thermoplastic polyurethane composition (page 2, paragraph [0026]), wherein the carrier thermoplastic polyurethane composition may be the same or different from the first thermoplastic polyurethane material and the second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 2, paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the cell opening surfactant comprises one or more silicones, siloxane copolymers, non-siloxane co-polymers, non-silicones, or any combination thereof. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the cell opening surfactant comprises silicones (page 1, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material comprises the reaction product of (a) at least one polyol component, (b) at least one diisocyanate component, and (c) at least one chain extender component, wherein the combined weight of the at least one diisocyanate component and the at least one chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the thermoplastic polyurethane material and wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane material has a hard segment content of 20% to 60% by weight. However, Vonorcik et al. teach an automotive interior component (page 8, paragraph [0095]) comprising a foam cover (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), is formed from the combination of a second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material has a weight average molecular weight of 120,000 to 500,000 (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) and a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.85 to 2.51 (page 1, paragraph [0006]) and a chemical blowing agent (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0071]) and/or a cell opening surfactant (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 6, paragraph [0068]), wherein the second thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraph [0057], claim 1) comprises a reaction product of at least one polyol component (page 1, paragraph [0006]), at least one diisocyanate component (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 5, paragraphs [0054], [0055]), and at least one chain extender component (page 1, paragraph [0006]), wherein the combined weight of the at least one diisocyanate component and the at least one chain extender component make up a hard segment content of the thermoplastic polyurethane material (page 2, paragraph [0029], page 5, paragraphs [0054], [0055]), and wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane material has a hard segment content of 23.5 to 45.0 percent by weight which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 20% to 60% by weight (page 2, paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible injection molded thermoplastic polyurethane foam of Vonorcik et al. with the steering wheel of Lu et al. in order to provide acceptable balances between the properties of vertical rebound, compression set at room temperature, compression set at elevated temperature and hardness (Vonorcik et al., page 1, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0319925) in view of Jaehnigen et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0339735), in further view of Grikschat et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0018343).
Lu et al. and Jaehnigen et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 31, Lu et al. fail to teach wherein the steering wheel frame comprises a steering wheel rim, a hub base and at least one spoke, wherein the hub base is arranged inside the steering wheel rim and the hub base is connected to the steering wheel rim by the at least one spoke. However, Grikschat et al. teach a steering wheel frame comprising a steering wheel rim, a hum base and at least one spoke (Abstract, page 1, paragraph [0008]), wherein the hub base is arranged inside the steering wheel rim and the hub base is connected to the steering wheel rim by the at least one spoke (Abstract, page 1, paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steering wheel frame of Grikschat et al. as the steering wheel frame of Lu et al. in order to serve as a structural component for absorbing steering forces and for support in the event of a crash (Grikschat et al., page 1, paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 9/15/2026
