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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-5, filed 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nichols et al. (Effect of weathering on the stress distribution and mechanical performance of automotive paint systems), herein Nichols.
The 112 rejection of claims 2 and 5 are moot as the claims were canceled.
In the response, applicant amended claims 1, 3 , 6, 10, canceled claims 2 and 5 and added claim 21. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-21 are pending and claims 15-20 remain withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foran et al. (US 20220242086 A1), herein Foran in view of Nichols et al. (Effect of weathering on the stress distribution and mechanical performance of automotive paint systems), herein Nichols.
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).
Foran does not expressly teach that the paint layer has a coefficient of linear thermal expansion ("CTLE") that is within 30% of that of the structural skin.
Nichols teaches automotive paint systems [title]. Nichols teaches a common failure in the paint systems is the mismatch in thermal expansion coefficient between the layers of the coating system and the coatings and the substrate [Pgs. 141-142, 145]. The mismatch in thermal expansion coefficient which leads to an accumulation of stress between the layers and delamination [Pgs. 141-142, 145]. Nichols does not give and exact range of the mismatch which leads to the high stresses and failure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have chosen the composition of the paint layer such that the CTLE mismatch is minimized based on 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: cellulosic, 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].
Claim 13 is 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 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 teaches automotive coatings [Title]. The paints comprise polyacrylics, polyurethanes and epoxy resins [Pg. 213, Secs. 7.2, 7.4, 7.6].
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.
Claims 21 and 6 are 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), herein Minato.
In regards to claim 21, 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 teaches the component is suitable for use as a body section of a vehicle or vehicle hood or roof panel [Abstract, 0002, Figs. 1, 6].
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).
Foran does not expressly teach that a veil is positioned between the structural skin and 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.
In regards to claim 6, Minato does not expressly teach that the veil is pre-painted.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have pre-painted the veil of Minato. Pre-painting the veil means the paint is applied on a flat, controlled surface not a complex 3D surface which would lead to improved uniformity of the paint layer across the veil and less runs. This would then lead to a more uniform final paint layer. Additionally, One would have done so in order to better color match the later applied paint layer and a reduction in the amount of the final paint layer.
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 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
Prosecution Insights