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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0368758 (hereinafter “Touma”).Regarding claim 1 Touma teaches a laminated structure comprising molten resin applied in a plurality of layers (paragraph [0003] and Figures 6-14). Touma teaches the molten resin includes a plurality of types of resin R1, R2, including a first resin R1 and a second resin R2 (paragraphs [0067] and [0068]; and Figures 6-14). Touma teaches each layer comprises the plurality of types of resin R1, R2 having a linear shape, where a plurality of each type of resin R1 and R2 are present in a single layer and are parallel relative to each other (paragraphs [0069], [0070], and [0086]; and Figures 6-14), which corresponds to each of the layers comprise a plurality of linear resins arranged in parallel. Touma teaches embodiments where the shape of either the first resin R1 or the second resin R2 within the same layer is elliptical, and the first type of resin R1 and the second type of resin R2 are alternatively disposed within the same layer (Figures 13-14). Touma illustrates the longer axis of the elliptical shape extends parallel to the distance between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer (d), and the shorter axis of the elliptical shape extends parallel to the thickness (t) (lamination direction) of the layer, and results in a distance (d) between adjacent linear resins R1 or R2 in the same layer being greater than the thickness (t) of the linear resins R1 or R2 in a lamination direction (Figures 13-14, including Annotated Figure 14, shown below). Touma teaches a gap (space) may occur between the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in one layer (paragraph [0070]), which corresponds to a space between two adjacent linear resins is a void.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 In addition, Touma illustrates the laminated structure includes a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer, the second layer is a layer formed on the first layer, the third layer is a layer formed on the second layer, a linear resin R2 constituting the first layer and a linear resin R2 constituting the third layer extend parallel to each other, the linear resin R2 constituting the third layer is disposed directly above the linear resin R2 constituting the first layer, and the linear resin R2 constituting the first layer and a linear resin R2 constituting the second layer extend in different directions (Figures 7 and 13, including Annotated Figure 13, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
259
323
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17 As previously mentioned, Touma teaches a gap (space) may occur between the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in one layer (paragraph [0070]). In addition, Touma teaches a resin material R1 or R2 (bridge portion) in a first layer (layer immediately below) and extends in a straight line orthogonal to the resin materials R1, R2 in a second layer (resin material R1 or R2 (bridge portion) in the first layer bridging over the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in the second (one) layer) (Figures 6 and 7, including Annotated Figure 7, shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Touma as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by an article titled “Polypropylene Properties & Polypropylene Characteristics Explained” by Purvis King (hereinafter “King”).Regarding claim 11 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Touma teaches polypropylene (material forming the linear resin) is used as the resin material R1 (paragraph [0122]). The elongation at break of polypropylene is well known, and ranges from 200-700%, as evidenced by King (page 2), which falls within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma as applied to claim 1 above.Regarding claim 2 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Touma teaches the first resin material R1 is a high strength material, and the second material R2 is a high flexibility material, where by forming a parallel cross section structure using the high strength resin material R1 and the high flexibility resin material R2, a high strength and high flexibility resin material is formed, and by changing the composition ratio of the resin material R1 and the resin material R2, the strength and the flexibility of the formed object can be freely changed (paragraphs [0100] and [0101]). Touma teaches in one layer a plurality of resin materials R1 and R2 are formed to have a predetermined blending ratio, where a composition or compounding ratio is changed by adding more resin material R1 or R2 along its width in a given thickness (paragraphs [0063], [0064], [0068], [0078] and [0079]; and Figures 6, 7 and 9-12), which corresponds to changing the distance (d) between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer. Touma does not explicitly teach a ratio of the distance (d) between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer to a thickness (t) of the linear resins in a lamination direction ranges from greater than 1 to less than or equal to 6. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the d/t ratio (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the resin materials R1 and R2 (corresponding to the distance (d) between each of the resin materials R1 and R2, and affects the ratio of d/t determined therefrom) through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired balance between strength and the flexibility of the formed object. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).Regarding claims 4-6 In addition, Touma teaches the resin materials R1 and R2 have a linear shape extending in a direction orthogonal to each other (crossing angle 90 degrees). However, to increase the bonding area between the same resin materials between layers, and improve the strength of the object S, the angle between these materials R1 and R2 may be an angle other than 90° (paragraph [0086]). Touma does not explicitly teach each of the layers is laminated so that an angle between extension directions of the linear resins of the layers adjacent to each other is substantially 60°. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle between extension directions of adjacent layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate extension angle between adjacent layers through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired increased strength of the formed object via the increased bonding area between the same resin materials between adjacent layers. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). The resulting structure from such a modification results in a first layer (k-th layer) having an extension angle of 0° relative to a reference direction, a second layer ((k+b)-th layer) having an extension angle of 60° relative to the reference direction (the (k+b)-th layer having an extension direction which does not coincide with the k-th layer), a third layer having an extension angle of 120° in the reference direction, another first layer ((k+a)-th layer) having the same extension angle of 0° relative to the reference direction (the (k+a)-th layer having an extension direction which coincides with the k-th layer), and so on. This structure corresponds to the plurality of layers include a total of n layers, k = 1, a = 3, and b = 1, which satisfies each of: 1<k<k+a<n; a>3; a=3; and 1<b<a-1.Regarding claim 10 In addition, Touma teaches an embodiment where the resin material R2 (linear resins) is a material having low rigidity but high flexibility, such as an elastomer (paragraph [0134]). Touma does not explicitly teach the Shore A hardness of the resin material R2 (linear resins) is 50 or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate Shore A hardness of the resin material R2 of Touma using nothing more than routine experimentation to yield a resin material R2 which exhibits the low rigidity and high flexibility desired by Touma. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 7, 8, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma.Regarding claims 7 and 8 Touma teaches a laminated structure comprising molten resin applied in a plurality of layers (n layers) (paragraph [0003] and Figures 6-14). Touma teaches the molten resin includes a plurality of types of resin R1, R2, including a first resin R1 and a second resin R2 (paragraphs [0067] and [0068]; and Figures 6-14). Touma teaches each layer comprises the plurality of types of resin R1, R2 having a linear shape, where a plurality of each type of resin R1 and/or R2 are present in a single layer and are parallel relative to each other (paragraphs [0069], [0070], and [0086]; and Figures 6-14), which corresponds to each of the layers comprise a plurality of linear resins arranged in parallel. Touma teaches a gap (space) may occur between the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in one layer (paragraph [0070]), which corresponds to a space between two adjacent linear resins is a void. Touma teaches the resin materials R1 and R2 have a linear shape extending in a direction orthogonal to each other (crossing angle 90 degrees). However, to increase the bonding area between the same resin materials between layers, and improve the strength of the object S, the angle between these materials R1 and R2 may be an angle other than 90° (paragraph [0086]). Touma does not explicitly teach each of the layers is laminated so that an angle between extension directions of the linear resins of the layers adjacent to each other is substantially 60°. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle between extension directions of adjacent layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate extension angle between adjacent layers through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired increased strength of the formed object via the increased bonding area between the same resin materials between adjacent layers. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). The resulting structure from such a modification results in a first layer (k-th layer) having an extension angle of 0° relative to a reference direction, a second layer ((k+b)-th layer) having an extension angle of 60° relative to the reference direction (the (k+b)-th layer having an extension direction which does not coincide with the k-th layer), a third layer having an extension angle of 120° in the reference direction, another first layer ((k+a)-th layer) having the same extension angle of 0° relative to the reference direction (the (k+a)-th layer having an extension direction which coincides with the k-th layer), and so on. This structure corresponds to the plurality of layers include a total of n layers, k = 1, a = 3, and b = 1, which satisfies each of: 1<k<k+a<n; a>3; a=3; and 1<b<a-1.Regarding claim 19 As previously mentioned, Touma teaches a gap (space) may occur between the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in one layer (paragraph [0070]). In addition, Touma teaches a resin material R1 or R2 (bridge portion) in a first layer (layer immediately below) and extends in a straight line orthogonal to the resin materials R1, R2 in a second layer (resin material R1 or R2 (bridge portion) in the first layer bridging over the resin materials R1, R2 adjacent in a transverse direction in the second (one) layer) (Figures 6 and 7, including Annotated Figure 7, shown above).Regarding claim 21 In addition, Touma teaches a first layer and a second layer are formed in the same manner, but with a variation of the orientation of the resin materials R1, R2 (paragraphs [0068], [0069], [0083] and [0069]), which corresponds to a plurality of layers having the same thickness t of their respective resin materials R1, R2 (linear resins). As previously mentioned, the resulting structure from claims 7 and 8 corresponds to: (i) a first layer (k-th layer) having an extension angle of 0° relative to a reference direction; (ii) a second layer ((k+b)-th layer) having an extension angle of 60° relative to the reference direction; (iii) a third layer having an extension angle of 120° in the reference direction; and (iv) another first layer ((k+a)-th layer) having the same extension angle of 0° relative to the reference direction. This structure corresponds to a layered configuration of (i)/(ii)/(iii)/(iv), where (ii)/(iii) corresponds to an interlayer distance between (i) (the k-th layer) and (iv) (the (k+a)-th layer) being 2t, which is larger than αt where t represents a thickness of the linear resins in a lamination direction and α is 1.5.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touma as applied to either claim 1 or 7 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0101167 (hereinafter “Niri”).Regarding claims 18 and 20 The limitations for claims 1 and 7 have each been set forth above. In addition, Touma teaches the laminated structure is formed by melting and discharging filaments through shaping heads (paragraph [0054]). Touma teaches a specific application of the shaped object S of the laminated structure includes the shaped object S being applied to a material of a sound wave absorbing element (base material layer) (paragraphs [0132] – [0134]), which corresponds to the laminated structure formed by laminating the plurality of layers is a coating layer that covers at least a part of the base material layer. Touma does not explicitly teach a material of the sound wave absorbing element. Niri teaches a well-known sound wave absorbing element includes a sound absorbing foam or an acoustic foam (paragraph [0032]), which corresponds to a foamed body of a base material layer having cells. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the sound wave absorbing element of Touma from the foam of Niri motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of a sound wave absorbing material. As mentioned above, (i) Touma’s teachings with regards to the laminated structure being formed by melted filaments, and (ii) Niri’s teachings with regards to the sound wave absorbing element includes a foam correspond to the claimed feature requiring the foamed body of the base material have cells into which a resin forming the coating layer enters.
Response to Arguments
The examiner would like to highlight Takashi, from the previous Office action, and Touma, from the current Office action, are directed to the same family of applications. Therefore, the examiner’s response to the applicant’s arguments with regards to Takashi are equally applicable to Touma. The examiner shall refer to Touma in the response below.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued Touma does not teach or suggest “d>t is satisfied” because d is defined as the distance between two adjacent linear resins; that is, between R1 and R2, and is not accurately represented by the annotated figure provided by the examiner. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends the claim merely recites “d represents a distance between two adjacent linear resins in the same layer.” Merriam-webster.com defines adjacent as “not distant; nearby.” Therefore, the applicant’s description of what scope “adjacent” requires is narrower than the broad language of the claims. The examiner submits the annotated figure highlights a reasonable interpretation of two adjacent linear resins being in the same layer.
The applicant argued Touma does not teach or suggest a space between the two adjacent linear resins is a void. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Touma explicitly teaches a gap may be formed between resin materials R1, R2. Therefore, the limitation now requiring “a space between the two adjacent linear resins is a void” is considered to be met.
The applicant argued, regarding claim 7, Touma does not provide motivation or evidence for a person skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed feature requiring adjacent layers to extend at an angle of 60°. The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Touma has a consistent theme; that is, the number of layers applied at an angle to the previously disposed layer ends up resulting in a layer which extends in the same direction as a previous layer. In other words, with Touma’s teaching that adjacent layers may be disposed at an angle other than 90° corresponds to a plurality of options, where such an angle would be a factor of 360° to meet this requirement. Moreover, with regards to motivation, Touma teaches changing the intersecting angle increases the bonding area between the same resin materials between layers, which improves the strength of the object S. With regards to evidence, a person having ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that the surface area in contact with adjacent linear resin portions increases as the angle between the linear resins goes from 90° to 0° (or 180°). This evidence may be observed when rotating the intersecting angle between two pencils from 90° to 0° (or 180°).
The applicant argued the most natural and essential design concept, with regards to an intersecting angle other than 90°, is to arrange adjacent layers in the same direction. The examiner respectfully submits this position is not supported by Touma. If Touma required an intersecting angle between consecutive layers to be 0°, it is reasonable that Touma would have explicitly recited as much. In other words, the applicant’s position takes Touma out of context in an attempt to bolster this argument. It is the position of the examiner that the determination of an intersecting angle between linear resins in adjacent layers requires nothing more than routine skill and/or experimentation, as detailed in the rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights