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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, and 6-11 drawn to an assembly in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are 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.
As to claim 9, as the assembly in the form of a foamed sheet comprising multiple elongated foamed elements, it is unclear what is meant by the core layer comprising a part consisting of the sheet. Further, it is not clear as to what is referred to one or more parts consisting of a third composition. Does applicant want to convey the welded seams between the elongated foamed elements, or an encapsulating material for the elongated foamed element?
As to claim 11, it is confusing whether a floor panel is the same or different than a floor panel for a caravan. The same token applies to a roof panel and a roof panel for a house. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2011/0165363 to Wolf et al. (hereinafter “Wolf”).
Wolf discloses a planar structural element comprising multiple foam bodies arranged next to one another in a plane, and bonded to one another (abstract, and figure 6). Each foam body has a rectangular shape (paragraph 23). The foam bodies are made by cutting one foamed sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the foamed sheet is a polypropylene foam prepared by extrusion process (paragraphs 12 and 15). Wolf also states that the cutting is perpendicular to the top surface and the bottom surface of the foamed sheet (figure 6). Wolf does not explicitly disclose the foam bodies having a compression stress at yield in a direction perpendicular to the cutting direction of at least 100 kPa as determined by ISO 844 (2014).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it appears that the planar structural element comprises multiple foam bodies arranged next to one another in a plane, and bonded to one another (abstract, and figure 6). Each foam body has a rectangular shape (paragraph 23). The foam bodies are made by cutting one foamed sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the foamed sheet is a polypropylene foam prepared by extrusion process (paragraphs 12 and 15). The cutting is perpendicular to the top surface and the bottom surface of the foamed sheet (figure 6).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the compression stress of the foam bodies at yield in a direction perpendicular to the cutting direction of at least 100 kPa as determined by ISO 844 (2014) would be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claim 2, Wolf discloses that the elongated foamed bodies are made by cutting the at least one foamed sheet in the direction transverse to the extrusion direction (figure 6).
As to claim 4, Wolf discloses that the foamed sheet is prepared by a process comprising the sequential steps of: providing a polymer composition, adding a blowing agent to the polymer composition, subjecting a mixture of the polymer composition and the blowing agent to a foam extrusion process to form the foamed sheet, and stretching the foamed sheet in at least one direction (paragraphs 15 and 41).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0227640 to Tynys et al. (hereinafter “Tynys”).
Wolf does not explicitly disclose the foam sheet obtained from a polymer composition comprising a high melt strength polypropylene (HMS-PP) and its MS greater than 30 cN in accordance with ISO 16790:2005 at a temperature of 200oC, using a cylindrical capillary having a length of 20 mm and a width of 2 mm, a starting velocity vO of 9.8 mm/s and an acceleration of 6 mm/s2.
Tynys, however, discloses a foamed sheet obtained from a polymer composition comprising an HMS-PP and its MS of 25-50 cN in accordance with ISO 16790:2005 (abstract; and paragraphs 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an HMS-PP disclosed in Tynys for the polymer composition disclosed in Wolf motivated by the desire to obtain improved thermal insulation properties and excellent bending resistance.
Claim 6, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,984,445 to Yamagata et al. (hereinafter “Yamagata”).
As to claims 6 and 7, Wolf discloses a planar structural element comprising multiple foam bodies arranged next to one another in a plane, and bonded to one another (abstract, and figure 6). Each foam body has a rectangular shape (paragraph 23). The foam bodies are made by cutting one foamed sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the foamed sheet is a polypropylene foam prepared by extrusion process (paragraphs 12 and 15). Wolf also states that the cutting is perpendicular to the top surface and the bottom surface of the foamed sheet (figure 6).
Wolf also discloses a composite material 1 comprising a planar structural element 11, and a first and a second cover layer 2, 3 provided on a first and a second side of the planar structural element, respectively (figure 2). The first and second cover layers are made of a glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic material (paragraph 78).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wolf does not explicitly disclose the first cover layer is made of a first composition comprising polypropylene and optionally reinforcement fibers wherein the first composition has a density of at least 0.903 g/cc.
Yamagata, however, discloses a multilayer sheet comprising a thermoplastic resin foam sheet, a reinforcing sheet layered on integrated with at least one side of the thermoplastic resin foam sheet (abstract). The thermoplastic resin foam sheet is directly bonded to the reinforcing sheet without an adhesive layer (column 17, lines1-10). The reinforcing sheet is obtained from a non-woven fabric comprising non-meltable fibers interwound with one another and said non-meltable fibers bound together with a thermoplastic resin (abstract). The thermoplastic resin foam sheet is a polypropylene foam (column 29, lines 40-55). The reinforcing sheet comprises long glass fibers and polypropylene with a mixing ratio of 70:30 (column 27, lines 10-20). Given that the densities of glass fiber and polypropylene of greater than 1 g/cc and 0.9 g/cc, respectively (column 25, lines 20-25), the density of the reinforcing sheet should be greater than 0.9 g/cc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reinforcing sheet disclosed in Yamagata for the cover layer disclosed in Wolf motivated by the desire to provide excellent bending strength, compressive strength, and dimensional stability.
As to claim 9, Wolf discloses that the weld seams between the foam bodies of the planar structural element are present in the form of dense plastic material layers that are pore free (paragraph 59). This is a clear indication that the weld seams have a density greater than 1g/cc.
As to claims 10 and 11, Wolf discloses that the composite material is useful as a wall panel or a floor panel for a building or a transportation vehicle (paragraph 66).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of WO 2020/229410 or US 2022/0242068 to MV et al. (hereinafter “MV”).
As to claims 6 and 8, Wolf discloses a planar structural element comprising multiple foam bodies arranged next to one another in a plane, and bonded to one another (abstract, and figure 6). Each foam body has a rectangular shape (paragraph 23). The foam bodies are made by cutting one foamed sheet having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the foamed sheet is a polypropylene foam prepared by extrusion process (paragraphs 12 and 15). Wolf also states that the cutting is perpendicular to the top surface and the bottom surface of the foamed sheet (figure 6).
Wolf also discloses a composite material 1 comprising a planar structural element 11 and first and a second cover layer 2, 3 provided on a first and a second side of the planar structural element, respectively (figure 2). The first and second cover layers are made of a glass fiber reinforced thermoplastic material (paragraph 78).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wolf does not explicitly disclose the first cover layer is made of a first composition comprising polypropylene and fibers wherein the first composition has a density of at least 0.903 g/cc, wherein the first cover layer is in the form of a continuous glass fiber reinforced tape.
MV, however, discloses a glass fiber reinforced tape obtained from a composition comprising 10-70 wt% of continuous glass fibers impregnated with 30-90 wt% of a polypropylene composition (abstract; and paragraphs 66, 92, 97 and 128). Given that the densities of glass fiber and polypropylene of greater than 1 g/cc, and 0.9 g/cc, respectively (column 25, lines 20-25), the density of the glass fiber reinforced tape should be greater than 0.9 g/cc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a continuous glass fiber reinforced tape disclosed in MV for the cover layer disclosed in Wolf motivated by the desire to provide excellent mechanical strength.
As to claim 7, Wolf discloses that the planar structural element is directly bonded to the first cover layer without an adhesive (paragraph 65).
As to claim 9, Wolf discloses that the weld seams between the foam bodies of the planar structural element are present in the form of dense plastic material layers that are pore free (paragraph 59). This is a clear indication that the weld seams have a density greater than 1g/cc.
As to claims 10 and 11, Wolf discloses that the composite material is useful as a wall panel or a floor panel for a building or a transportation vehicle (paragraph 66).
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 1-4, and 6-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/130,640 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention are anticipated by those set forth in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, and 6-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/723,124 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present invention are anticipated by those set forth in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
Prosecution Insights