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 .
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 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “a first adhesive layer between the second layer and the third layer and second adhesive layer between the second layer and the third layer”. It is not clear if both first and second adhesive layers are present between the second layer and the third layer or one of the first and second adhesive layer is present in the other location of the multilayer sheet.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maas et al. (US 2013/0280535) in view of Sybert et al. (US 2015/0175802).
Regarding claim 1, Maas discloses multilayer sheet comprising first cap layer 14 comprising polyetherimide such as ULTEM®, i.e. a first plastic, (0033), second cap layer 18 comprising a polymer composition, i.e. plastic material, (0036, 0039), core layer 12 having multiwall (0029) and comprising polycarbonate resin such as Lexan® resin, i.e. third layer, (0028) and cap layer 16 comprising a polycarbonate, i.e. a fourth layer comprising third plastic, (0033), wherein the first layer, the second layer, the third layer and the fourth layer are stacked along a y-axis (figs. 2-3, 0026, 0036). Maas discloses that the multilayer sheet can include additional cap layers including greater than or equal to three cap layers (0043) where having additional cap layers between the first cap layer 14 and the second cap layer 18, would result in the first cap layer and second cap layer being spaced apart. Given that the first layer and the third layer of Maas discloses same polymers as disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the first layer and the third layer of Maas would inherently have the same density as claimed in present claim.
Maas does not disclose density of the second layer and the fourth layer. Further, Maas discloses the multilayer sheet having intumescent and flame retarding properties (0001) and is used in aircraft application (0002).
Sybert discloses flame retardant polycarbonate composition in one or more layers of a multilayer article used in aircraft (0003) comprising polycarbonate composition having density of 1.31 g/cc or less wherein the composition provides excellent impact strength, low brittleness and low smoke properties (0014, 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific polycarbonate composition of Sybert in the polycarbonate based layers such as second and fourth layers of Maas to provide excellent impact strength, low brittleness and low smoke properties.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, Maas in view of Sybert discloses multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises glass fiber, i.e. glass, (0032, 0039). Maas discloses the thickness of each layer is depending upon the desired end use of the multilayer sheet (0038).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of each layer in the multilayer of Maas in view of Sybert to obtain the desired property and desired end use (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10, Maas in view of Sybert discloses multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein given that Maas in view of Sybert discloses the same multilayer as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the multilayer of Maas in view of Sybert would have the same properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Maas in view of Sybert discloses multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the third layer comprises multiwall, i.e. two walls, (0029).
Regarding claims 6 and 12-13, Maas in view of Sybert discloses the multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein Maas discloses more than two core layers can be used (0043). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the additional core layer anywhere in the multilayer structure including between first and second layer to meet end users requirement. Further, it is noted that the additional core layer would contain air channel (0029) which would hold air. This meets the limitation of claim 13.
Maas discloses the thickness of multiwall layer can be less than 55 mm (0029). Therefore, when the additional multiwall layer is present between the first and the second layer, it meets the presently claimed limitation of a distance between the second layer and the first layer along the y-axis is 50 mm or more.
Regarding claim 14, Maas in view of Sybert discloses multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein Maas discloses adhesive layer can be added between layers (0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use adhesive layer between the second and third layers and between third and fourth layers to obtain proper adhesions between layers.
Regarding claim 15, Maas in view of Sybert discloses multilayer sheet of claim 1, wherein the multilayer is used in air and rail applications such as interior components (0016, 0021) where the multilayer would necessarily adapt the shape of interior component which meets the presently claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787