DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14, Paragraph 1: The phrase “along the upper flame portion” contains spelling errors.
Page 14, Paragraph 3: The phrase “a middle portion of the inner panel 30 l as holes for working” contains spelling errors.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto (US 20180093621 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches “A service hole cover member applied to a door of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a cushion layer abutted along an inner panel, which is located facing an outer panel, from the side of said inner panel opposite to said outer panel so as to cover at least one service hole formed in said inner panel, said outer panel and said inner panel being included in a door body provided in said door (see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1), and
a board member laminated on said cushion layer so as to face said inner panel through the cushion layer (see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1),
wherein said cushion layer is formed of a flexible elastic material having waterproof performance in addition to sound-absorbing performance (cushion is elastic foam, prevents water and noise from entering vehicle, see paragraph 0020), and
wherein said board member is formed so as to have a board shape with a non-metallic material (sheet formed of polyethylene resin, see paragraph 0040) having sound-insulating performance (resin sheet supports cushion material and aids with noise reduction, see paragraph 0043) and rigidity (resin sheet is more rigid than foam, see paragraph 0040).”
PNG
media_image1.png
664
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto teaches “The service hole cover member for a door of a motor vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein said flexible elastic material that is a forming material of said cushion layer is soft urethane foam, rubber foam, or elastomer foam having a volume density within a predetermined volume density range (sheeted foam elastic material is elastomer or rubber foam, see paragraph 0042), and
wherein said predetermined volume density range is set so that said soft urethane foam, said rubber foam, or said elastomer foam exerts waterproof performance (foam prevents water from entering vehicle, see paragraph 0020).”
Regarding claim 4, Morimoto teaches “The service hole cover member for a door of a motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said non-metallic material that is a forming material of said board member is a synthetic resin material (sheet formed of polyethylene resin, see paragraph 0040) having sound-insulating performance (resin sheet supports cushion material and aids with noise reduction, see paragraph 0043) and rigidity (resin sheet is more rigid than foam, see paragraph 0040).”
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto teaches “The service hole cover member for a door of a motor vehicle according to claim 1, comprising:
an outer peripheral laminated portion and at least one protruding laminated portion formed so as to correspond to said at least one service hole of said inner panel at an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral laminate portion (bonded, laminated resin sheet corresponds to opening in inner panel, see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 2),
wherein said at least one protruding laminated portion is formed to protrude from said outer peripheral laminated portion so as to be press-fitted into said at least one service hole from the opposite side of said inner panel to said outer panel (bonded, laminated foam sheet press fits into opening in inner panel, see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 2).”
Note that lamination is defined as the bonding of separate layers with an adhesive, thus, both the foam sheet and resin sheet make up a single laminate.
PNG
media_image2.png
687
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 2
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morimoto (US 20180093621 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 2 above, except “volume density range is set to 0.005 g/cm3 to 0.1 g/cm3.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an elastic foam as taught by Morimoto with an volume density range that is best suited to prevent the transmission of both water and sound across the door, falling within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Morimoto (US 20180093621 A1), in view of Staser et al. (US 20200338968 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Morimoto teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “The service hole cover member for a door of a motor vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein said board member is formed so as to have a board shape with a two-layer laminated body including both of a non-air permeable layer laminated on said cushion layer so as to face said inner panel through said cushion layer, and a hard layer laminated on said non-air permeable layer so as to face said cushion layer through the non-air permeable layer,
wherein said non-air permeable layer is formed of a polymeric material having sound-insulating performance,
wherein said hard layer includes a semi-rigid urethane foam layer and both glass fiber layers,
said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is formed of semi-rigid urethane foam having sound-insulating performance and rigidity, and
said both glass fiber layers are respectively formed of a plurality of glass fibers, and
wherein one glass fiber layer of both the glass fiber layers is laminated on said non-air permeable layer as one side glass fiber layer so as to face said cushion layer through said non-air permeable layer,
said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is laminated on said one side glass fiber layer so as to face said non-air permeable layer through said one side glass fiber layer, and
the other glass fiber layer of said both glass fiber layers is laminated on said semi-rigid urethane form layer as the other side glass fiber layer so as to face said one side glass fiber layer through said semi-rigid urethane form layer.”
However, Staser teaches “wherein said hard layer includes a semi-rigid urethane foam layer and both glass fiber layers (reinforcement layer comprises glass fiber and urethane foam, see paragraph 0014 and 0015),
said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is formed of semi-rigid urethane foam having sound-insulating performance and rigidity (the office takes note that polymer foam layers are characterized by sound insulation and tunable rigidity), and
said both glass fiber layers are respectively formed of a plurality of glass fibers (glass fiber composite, see paragraph 0015), and
wherein one glass fiber layer of both the glass fiber layers is laminated on said non-air permeable layer as one side glass fiber layer so as to face said cushion layer through said non-air permeable layer,
said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is laminated on said one side glass fiber layer so as to face said non-air permeable layer through said one side glass fiber layer, and
the other glass fiber layer of said both glass fiber layers is laminated on said semi-rigid urethane form layer as the other side glass fiber layer so as to face said one side glass fiber layer through said semi-rigid urethane form layer (urethane foam is surrounded by glass fiber composite, see paragraph 0018).”
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the laminated foam and resin sheet as taught by Morimoto, with a composite glass fiber and urethane foam layer as taught by Staser, to increase sound absorption and decrease weight, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Morimoto, in view of Staser, teaches “The service hole cover member for a door of a motor vehicle according to claim 5, comprising:
an outer peripheral laminated portion and at least one protruding laminated portion formed so as to correspond to said at least one service hole of said inner panel at an inner peripheral side of the outer peripheral laminate portion (bonded, laminated resin sheet corresponds to opening in inner panel, see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 2),
wherein said at least one protruding laminated portion is formed to protrude from said outer peripheral laminated portion so as to be press-fitted into said at least one service hole from the opposite side of said inner panel to said outer panel (bonded, laminated foam sheet press fits into opening in inner panel, see Morimoto, Figure 2, Annotation Set 2).”
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the laminated foam and resin sheet corresponding and fitting into the inner panel opening as taught by Morimoto, with a composite glass fiber and urethane foam layer as taught by Staser, to increase sound absorption and decrease weight, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (US 20180093621 A1), in view of Staser et al. (US 20200338968 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fushiki et al. (US 20240253430 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto, in view of Staser teach all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 5 above, except “a skin layer of non-woven fabric laminated on said other side glass fiber layer so as to face said semi-rigid urethane foam layer through said other side glass fiber layer,
wherein lamination of said other side glass fiber layer to said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is performed by impregnation of liquid isocyanate and its curing to said other side glass fiber layer.”
However, Fushiki teaches “a skin layer of non-woven fabric laminated on said other side glass fiber layer so as to face said semi-rigid urethane foam layer through said other side glass fiber layer (see paragraph 0120 and Fushiki, Figure 9),
wherein lamination of said other side glass fiber layer to said semi-rigid urethane foam layer is performed by impregnation of liquid isocyanate and its curing to said other side glass fiber layer (see paragraph 0099 and Fushiki, Figure 9).”
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the laminated foam and resin sheet corresponding and fitting into the inner panel opening as taught by Morimoto, with a composite glass fiber and urethane foam layer as taught by Staser, to increase sound absorption and decrease weight, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the composite glass fiber and urethane foam layer covering a service hole as taught by Morimoto, in view of Staser, with a nonwoven fabric layer laminated with liquid isocyanate to further increase strength and rigidity of the reinforcement layer, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
289
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fushiki, Figure 9
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references disclose vehicle door insulation members.
Ruetter et al. (DE 10326295 A1) teaches a composite vehicle door insulation member, but makes no mention of a urethane foam or glass fiber reinforcement.
Obara et al. (JP 2017081495 A) teaches a composite vehicle door service hole cover, but makes no mention of a rigid board member, describing instead a bonded film layer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights