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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 -15 are currently pending.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 15, in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a minor typographical error in the phrase “as measure according”. The phrase should read “as measured according” 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2019/0152212 A1) in view of van der Mee et al. (US 2018/0127567 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8,
Tseng teaches a composite sheet (an article) comprising: a discontinuous fiber layer (122, a first layer) and a thermoplastic continuous fiber layer (124, a second layer) (Tseng: abstract; Fig. 4; par. 0052).
The first layer (122) and the second fiber layer (124) both comprises a first thermoplastic composition that may be polypropylene (Tseng: claim 1; abstract; par. 0010-0014, 0022, 0045, and 0047). Thus, the first layer may be considered to comprise a first polypropylene composition and the second layer may be considered to comprise a second polypropylene composition. The first layer may comprise dispersed glass fibers having an average length of 3 to 20 mm, which overlaps with the claimed 0.3 to 6.3 mm, and the narrower range of 0.5 to 5.8 mm, and the second layer may comprise a second polypropylene with continuous glass fibers (Tseng: par. 0022, 0026, and 0045). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I. The second layer may have continuous glass fibers which are shown to be formed from cloth in the examples that are described to have fibers that are unidirectional (substantially parallel) and thus one of ordinary skill would be motivated to utilize unidirectional fibers for the compositions listed for said fibers (Tsung: par. 0022, 0026, and 0047, and 0068-0072).
Tseng is silent towards the amount of glass fibers in the first and second layers being in the claimed weight percent ranges.
van der Mee teaches a flame-retardant glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composite for use in vehicles (van der Mee: abstract). The glass fibers may be continuous, that are arranged substantially parallel to each other, or discontinuous fibers, with a length of from 5 to 40 mm, which overlaps with that disclosed by Tseng and the claims, and thus may correspond to either the discontinuous or continuous fibers of Tseng (van der Mee: par. 0043-0049). The glass fibers may be present from 10 to 40% by total weight of the fiber reinforced polypropylene composition which overlaps with the claimed 14.7 to 67.2 wt% of discontinuous fibers in the first layer and 18.8 to 63.4 wt% of continuous fibers in the second layer to provide suitable mechanical reinforcement (van der Mee: par. 0042-0043). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the discontinuous fibers in the first layer and the continuous fibers in the second layer of Tseng to be within the claimed amounts to provide suitable mechanical reinforcement to the polypropylene composite as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 2,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng does not explicitly teach wherein the first layer has a first flame retardant composition in the range from 13.2 to 43.1 wt% based on the first propylene composition.
Van der Mee further teaches a flame-retardant composition may be added in an amount of 10-35 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed 13.2 to 43.1 wt% on the total amount of said polypropylene composition (Van der Mee: par. 0024). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art add a flame-retardant composition in the claimed amount to the first layer of Tseng to provide improved flame-retardant properties as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 3,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. does not explicitly teach wherein the second layer has a second flame retardant composition in the range from 12.2 to 32.1 wt% based on the second propylene composition.
Van der Mee further teaches a flame-retardant composition may be added in an amount of 10-35 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed 12.2-32.1 wt% on the total amount of said polypropylene composition (Van der Mee: par. 0024). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art add a flame-retardant composition in the claimed amount to the second layer of Tseng to provide improved flame-retardant properties as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 4,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the thickness of the first layer being in the range of from 0.6 to 2.4 mm.
Van der Mee further teaches the fiber reinforced polypropylene composite layer has a thickness in the range of from 2.0 to 3.2 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 to 2.4 mm, to provide a desired thickness while having the necessary flame-retardant properties for use in vehicles (van der Mee: par. 0074). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the thickness for the first layer of Tseng to be within the claimed range to provide a desired thickness while having the necessary flame-retardant properties for use in vehicles as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 5,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the thickness of the second layer being in the range of from 0.3 to 3.2 mm.
Van der Mee further teaches the fiber reinforced polypropylene composite layer has a thickness in the range of from 2.0 to 3.2 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 to 3.2 mm, to provide a desired thickness while having the necessary flame-retardant properties for use in vehicles (van der Mee: par. 0074). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the thickness for the second layer of Tseng to be within the claimed range to provide a desired thickness while having the necessary flame-retardant properties for use in vehicles as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 6,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the polypropylene MFI for the first propylene being in the range of 23 to 85 g/10 min, as measured according to ISO1133 at 230°C, 2.16 kg.
Van der Mee further teaches the propylene preferably has an MFI of 5 to 100 g/10 min as measured according to ISO 113 at 230°C, 2.16 kg, which overlaps with the claimed 23 to 85 g/10 min, to provide improved mechanical properties (van der Mee: par. 0030). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the thickness for the second layer of Tseng to be within the claimed range to provide a desired thickness while having the necessary flame-retardant properties for use in vehicles as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 7,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the dispersed glass fiber diameter being from 5 to 50 µm.
Van der Mee further teaches the glass fibers preferably have a diameter of from 5 to 50 µm to provide the correct balance of fiber aspect ratio and ease of manufacturing (van der Mee: par. 0044).
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the glass fiber diameter of the dispersed glass fiber of Tseng, to be within the claimed range, to provide a suitable aspect ratio while maintaining ease of manufacture as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 9,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the second layer having an area density in the range from 1125 to 5600 g/m2.
However, Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the second layer has the claimed thickness and is made of the claimed continuous glass fiber, in the claimed amount, the claimed diameter, and the flame retardant additive amounts as required by the claims above. Thus, it would follow that it would result in the same area density.
Regarding claims 10-12,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng further teaches a third layer (122) disposed on the other side of the second layer (124), opposite the surface of the first layer (122) resulting in the second layer being between said first and third layer (Tseng: Fig. 4). The third layer is identical to the first layer. Thus, the third layer would have a third polypropylene composition comprising a third polypropylene and dispersed glass fibers with overlapping lengths as explained in the rejection of claim 1 for the first layer.
Tseng is silent towards the amount of glass fibers in the third layer being in the claimed weight percent ranges.
van der Mee teaches a flame-retardant glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composite for use in vehicles (van der Mee: abstract). The glass fibers may be continuous, that arranged substantially parallel to each other, or discontinuous fibers, with a length of from 5 to 40 mm, which overlaps with that disclosed by Tseng and the claims, and thus may correspond to either the discontinuous or continuous fibers of Tseng (van der Mee: par. 0043-0049). The glass fibers may be present from 10 to 40% by total weight of the fiber reinforced polypropylene composition which overlaps with the claimed 14.7 to 67.2 wt% of discontinuous fibers in the third layer to provide suitable mechanical reinforcement (van der Mee: par. 0042-0043). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the discontinuous fibers in the third layer of Tseng to be within the claimed amounts to provide suitable mechanical reinforcement to the polypropylene composite as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 13,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng is silent towards the first layer and the second layer having UL94 rating of V0.
Van der Mee teaches the addition of the flame-retardant compositions for said first and second layers and the glass fiber weight percents as explained in the claims above. Van der Mee further teaches achieving a UL94 rating of V0 at the desired thicknesses to provide suitable flame retardancy at the desired thickness (van der Mee: par. 0074).
Tseng and van der Mee are in the corresponding field of glass fiber reinforced polypropylene composites for use in vehicles. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second layers of Tseng to have a UL94 rating of V0 to provide suitable flame retardancy to the polypropylene composite as taught by van der Mee.
Regarding claim 15,
Tseng in view of van der Mee teaches the article required by claim 1. Tseng further teaches the article is part of a vehicle (Tseng: par. 0003) in addition to van der Mee teaching use in vehicles (van der Mee: abstract).
The phrase requiring the article is “part of a battery enclosure in a vehicle does not impart any additional structure behind being “a part of” an enclosure. As the article of Tseng and van der Mee is part of a vehicle, which inherently encloses many things, it meet the structural requirements of the claim as the battery is not positively recited structure of the claimed article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights