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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 7/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the process and apparatus are not distinct because the method recites steps that require the use of the specific apparatus of claim 16; and there is no serious burden on the examiner to search and examine both inventions. This is not found persuasive because 1) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as forming a sheet having a non-closed foam celled core; and 2) a search and examination of inventions having non-overlapping classifications would be a serious burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/25/26.
Claims 1 and 8 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.
The phrase “a closed foam cells core” (cl 1, ln 2) is indefinite because it is unclear if it is related to the closed foam celled core of independent claim 15. If they are the same, it should be clearly and explicitly recited as such.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what has a rectangular shape.
The phrase “a closed foam cells core” (cl 8, ln 2) is indefinite because it is unclear if it is related to the closed foam celled core of independent claim 15. If they are the same, it should be clearly and explicitly recited as such.
Corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al (Re.36674) in view of JP4373005 (English machine translation provided).
Regarding independent claim 15, Gluck et al teach:
15. A method of producing a sheet (Gluck et al : figs 2-4) comprising the steps of:
feeding under a pressure of at least 100 psi a first fluid material into a first input port of a Y junction (Gluck et al: figs 2-3; col 5:14-19; the foamable ingredients are pumped via either line 34 or 35 into the mixing head 36 at a pressure of 800-2500psi; figs 2 and 3 show the lines 34 and 35 and the mixer outlet form a Y junction);
feeding under a pressure of at least 100 psi a second fluid material into a second input port of the Y junction (Gluck et al: figs 2-3; col 5:14-19; the foamable ingredients are pumped via either line 34 or 35 into the mixing head 36 at a pressure of 800-2500psi; figs 2 and 3 show the lines 34 and 35 and the mixer outlet form a Y junction);
directing the first fluid material and the second fluid material together out and output port of the Y junction into a conduit (Gluck et al: figs 2-3; col 5:14-19; the foamable ingredients are mixed and then pumped out of the mixer 36);
mixing the first and second fluid materials in the conduit into a mixture as the first and second fluid materials flow through the conduit to a spray bar (Gluck et al: figs 2-4; col 5:14-19; the foamable ingredients are mixed and then pumped out of the mixer 36 into a spray nozzle or spout 48); and
spraying the mixture out nozzles in the spray bar to form a sheet with a closed foam celled core (Gluck et al: figs 2-4; abstract; col 5:14-19; the foamable ingredients are sprayed onto a belt to form a sheet of rigid, closed cell foam made of polyurethane or polyisocyanurate).
However, Gluck et al do not teach a sheet with a closed foam celled core that supports at least 1000 psi of compressive force. JP4373005 teaches sheets of rigid, closed cell foam made of polyurethane-type material that can support compressive forces of 100-5000 psi depending on the desired application (para. 0038). JP4373005 also teaches the foam sheet can be used in any application including for noise, vibration, and hardness reduction (para. 0015). Since Gluck et al and JP4373005 are analogous with respect to sheets of rigid, closed cell foam made of polyurethane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the foam sheet of Gluck et al to support at least 1000 psi of compressive force as taught by JP4373005 in order to produce products that can be used to reduce noise, vibration, and/or harshness.
Regarding claim 1, Gluck et al (modified) teach a continuous sheet comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, a first side and a second side, a closed foam cells core between the top surface and the bottom surface in the first side and the second side, wherein the core supports at least 1000 psi of compressive force. However, Gluck et al do not teach the top surface being at least 2 feet wide by 4 feet long and the sheet weighing less than 40 lbs. Sheet parameters such as width, length, and weight are well-known in the foam sheet art as important parameters depending on the desired application, and the desired width, length, and weight would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Further, the claimed width, length, and weight of the sheet are generally well-known in the foam sheet art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the foam sheet of Gluck et al to have those claimed parameters in order to produce a desirable foam sheet for a specific application.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Gluck et al (col 9:33-36, 45-46 and 53; col 13:48-50 and 58-61).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by Gluck et al since Gluck et al do not mention using phthalate as a possible ingredient for the foamable material (col 9:23-col 15:24).
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by Gluck et al (figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, such is taught by Gluck et al (col 3:4-10; fiber sheets constitute the claimed insert since the foamable material penetrates the fiber sheet).
Regarding claim 6, Gluck et al do no teach the insert being a metal wiring. Since foam sheets having metal wiring are well-known in the foam sheet art for its added strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fiber sheet of Gluck et al with a metal wiring to improve the strength of the foam sheet.
Regarding claim 7, Gluck et al do not teach the insert being a metal wiring having a shape of a metal cage. Since foam sheets having metal wiring with a cage shape are well-known in the foam sheet art for its added strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fiber sheet of Gluck et al with a metal wiring with a cage shape to improve the strength of the foam sheet.
Regarding claim 8, Gluck et al (modified) teach a continuous sheet comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, a first side and a second side, a closed foam cells core between the top surface and the bottom surface in the first side and the second side, wherein the core supports at least 1000 psi of compressive force. However, Gluck et al do not teach the top surface being at least 6 feet wide by 40 yard long. Sheet parameters such as width and length are well-known in the foam sheet art as important parameters depending on the desired application, and the desired width and length would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Further, the claimed width and length of the sheet are generally well-known in the foam sheet art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the foam sheet of Gluck et al to have those claimed parameters in order to produce a desirable foam sheet for a specific application.
Regarding claim 9, such is taught by Gluck et al (col 9:33-36, 45-46 and 53; col 13:48-50 and 58-61).
Regarding claim 10, such is taught by Gluck et al since Gluck et al do not mention using phthalate as a possible ingredient for the foamable material (col 9:23-col 15:24).
Regarding claim 11, such is taught by Gluck et al (figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, such is taught by Gluck et al (col 3:4-10; fiber sheets constitute the claimed insert since the foamable material penetrates the fiber sheet).
Regarding claim 13, Gluck et al do no teach the insert being a metal wiring. Since foam sheets having metal wiring are well-known in the foam sheet art for its added strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fiber sheet of Gluck et al with a metal wiring to improve the strength of the foam sheet.
Regarding claim 14, Gluck et al do not teach the insert being a metal wiring having a shape of a metal cage. Since foam sheets having metal wiring with a cage shape are well-known in the foam sheet art for its added strength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fiber sheet of Gluck et al with a metal wiring with a cage shape to improve the strength of the foam sheet.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach molding continuous foam sheet: JP2-49843 (metal wiring within a foam sheet); USPN 5846462 (Y junction); USPN 4144295 (Y junction); USPN 7264878 (foam board supporting 1000 psi of compressive force); and USPN 7387753 (Y junction; compressive strength).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
