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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/02/2025.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2 and 5 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.
In claim 2, it is unclear what the “subunits” are in the claim limitation. The Instant Spec. only repeats the limitation without any further explanation. For the sake of examination, if the paint layer is a polymer of the claimed classes it meets the limitation.
In claim 5, it is unclear which layer is referred to as “the layer” could refer to the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer or the paint layer.
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.
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.
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 1, 3, 4, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foran et al. (US 20220024086 A1), herein Foran.
In regards to claim 1, A vehicle component construct comprising: a panel formed of a composite sandwich material comprising an open area core (12) defining a plurality of pores, a high gloss surface sheet adhered to a first face of the open area core by a first adhesive layer, and a structural skin (16) adhered to a second face of the open area core by a second adhesive layer [Abstract, claim 1, Fig. 2]. The open area core is lightweight [0006-0007, 0026]. Foran further teaches the structural skin (16) is provided with a paint layer [0037].
Foran does not expressly teach that the paint layer exhibits optical uniformity over at least 80% of the surface area of the painted layer. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the optical uniformity over a maximum amount of the surface area for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 3, Foran teaches color is added to the surface to match the vehicle and that paint is used to impart a color to the composite and as dip coating is taught both surfaces would be coating [0029,0037].
Foran does not expressly teach the structural skin is entirely opaque across at least 80% of the surface area of the layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surface area that is opaque for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As Foran teaches the panel may be used as part of the hood of a car, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the entire surface area is opaque [0038-0039]. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure a uniform appearance of the part.
In regards to claim 4, Claim 4 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a painted layer on the structural skin. The reference suggests such a product.
In regards to claim 7, Foran further teaches the open are core of said composite sandwich material is formed of at least one of: cellulosics, thermoplastic, thermoset, metal, or foam [claim 5, 0026].
In regards to claim 8, Foran further teaches the high gloss surface sheet of the composite sandwich panel is formed from sheet molding compound (SMC), thermoplastic, dicyclopentadiene (DCPD), overmolded polyurethane (PU), or a combination thereof [0028, claim 6]. The high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich material further comprises a filler [claim 7, 0028].
In regards to claim 9, Foran further teaches the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich material has a thickness of from 0.5 to 3.5 mm [claim 9]. The composite sandwich material has a ratio of a thickness of the high gloss surface sheet to a thickness of the open area core of 0.01-1:1 [claim 10].
In regards to claim 10, Foran further teaches the composite sandwich material has a cloth intermediate between the high gloss surface sheet and the open area core [claim 11]. The cloth is embedded in the first adhesive layer and the surface sheet is an SMC that has a thickness of less than 1.5 mm and still has a high gloss surface [claim 12].
In regards to claim 11, Foran further teaches the composite sandwich further comprises a decorative layer attached to said structural skin [claim 17].
In regards to claim 12, Foran further teaches wherein the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich material and the structural skin of said composite sandwich material are joined together to form an edge defining a moisture resistant seal [claim 18]. The composite further comprising a gasket disposed between the high gloss surface sheet of said composite sandwich material and the structural skin at the edge [claim 19].
In regards to claim 14, Foran further teaches wherein a conduit system us embedded in the open area core of the composite panel [0040].
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foran et al. (US 20220242086 A1), herein Foran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rink (Polymeric Engineering for Automotive Coating Applications).
In regards to claim 2, Foran does not expressly teach the type of paint utilized.
Rink teaches automotive coatings [Title]. The paints comprise polyacrylics, polyurethanes and epoxy resins [Pg. 213, Secs. 7.2, 7.4, 7.6].
Rink differs from claim 2 by teaching polyacrylics, polyurethanes and epoxy resins paint layers, such that it cannot be said that the species are anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Rink, including polyacrylics, polyurethanes and epoxy resins. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the polyacrylics, polyurethanes or epoxy paints of Rink as the paint of Foran. One would have been motivated to do so based as Rink teaches these are conventionally known paints for automotive use thus it would have been the simple substitution of known conventionally known automotive paint for another to achieve predictable results.
Rink further teaches that for the paints the choice of monomers for building the desired polymer, the molecular weight of the polymer, the molecular weight distribution of the polymers, the number and configuration of the network-forming reactive groups, and the branching of the polymers are all parameters that help to achieve targeted management of the property profile [Pg. 214, 217, 218]. Here the number of subunits may be interpreted as the repeat unit of the polymer and thus would be reflected in the molecular weight of the polymer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the molecular weight of the polymer in the paint, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 13, Foran does not expressly teach the paint comprises at least one of a UV stabilizer, a mica material, a phosphorescent material, a felted material, or a rubberized material felt.
Rink further teaches that the paint is desired to be UV stable [Pgs. 213, 214, 232, 238, 248].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have added a UV stabilizer to the paint of modified Foran as implied by Rink. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain the color and gloss of the coating by preventing the degradation or aging of the paint over exposure to sunlight.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foran et al. (US 20220024086 A1), herein Foran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minato et al. (WO 1999038683 A1), herein Minato.
In regards to claim 5, Furan does not teach that a veil is positioned between the structural skin and the layer. Here the layer is interpreted to be the paint layer.
Minato teaches composite panels with class A surfaces. Minato teaches that a veil is provided between layers in order to prevent print-through of the underlying layer [Pg. 2 lines 18-29].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have added the veil as taught by Minato to the composite panel of modified Foran. One would have been motivated to do so as Minato teaches the additional of a veil is conventionally known and it presents print-through of the underlying layers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foran et al. (US 20220242086 A1), herein Foran, in view of Minato et al. (WO 1999038683 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of McCartney et al. (US 20180112402 A1), herein McCartney.
In regards to claim 6, Claim 6 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a veil between the structural skin and paint. The reference suggests such a product.
Alternatively, McCartney teaches panels including veils [Abstract].
McCartney teaches it is conventionally known to coat/paint the veil prior to lay-up [Abstract, Claims 1-2, 0009, 0014, 0019]. McCartney teaches that reproducible finishes may be obtained by using the coated veils [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have pre-coated the veil of modified Foran as taught by McCartney. One would have been motivated to do so as this technique leads to reproducible finishes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: Durham et al. (US 20220024183 A1), Sang et al. (US 20180346146 A1), Arai et al. (US 20230158784 A1), Kiesewetter et al. (US 20190389107 A1), Thompson et al. (US 20220379593 A1) and Formella et al. (US 20050236736 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784