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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on February 12, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 15, 19, and 21 are amended; claims 1-14, 20, 24, 25, 28, and 31 are cancelled; resulting in claims 15-19, 21-23, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32-34 pending for examination.
This is a non-final rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 4-5 of claim 19, it is suggested to amend the limitation reciting “in a strong direction of a panel” to --in a strong direction of the panel-- in order to clearly refer back to the previously-recited panel (i.e., the concrete formwork facing panel).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-23, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32-34 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.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation reciting “a honeycomb core between the first polymer sheet and the second polymer sheet” is indefinite because the claimed first and second polymer sheets lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Although the claim sets forth that the facing panel comprises first and second uni-directional continuous fiber reinforced sheets, the claim does not recite first and second polymer sheets. Given that dependent claim 26 recites that the facing panel further comprises first and second film layers, the limitations in claim 21 directed to the first and second polymer sheets appear to intend to refer to the first and second fiber reinforced sheets. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation in line 4 of claim 21 will be interpreted to mean that the facing panel comprises a honeycomb core between the first uni-directional continuous fiber reinforced sheet and the second uni-directional continuous fiber reinforced sheet.
Regarding claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32-34, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 21.
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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (JP H07233630, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Nakagawa et al. teaches a plate for concrete formwork (concrete formwork facing panel) comprising an intermediate layer (3) in the form of a plate-shaped honeycomb core and fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (1) bonded to both the front and back sides of the intermediate layer by an adhesive (2) ([0004], Figs. 1-2). Examples of adhesives for laminating the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet to the honeycomb core include hot-melt adhesives ([0011]), such that the fiber-reinforced sheets may be thermally bonded to the honeycomb core via a hot-melt adhesive.
Nakagawa et al. teaches that the formwork plate is not limited to a three-layer structure in which two thermoplastic resin sheets are laminated onto an intermediate layer made of a honeycomb core, but may have any number of layers as long as the sheets are exposed on at least both sides, for example, a five-layer structure or a seven-layer structure [0013]. The five-layer structure taught by Nakagawa et al. includes two pairs of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets thermally bonded to each of the front and back sides of the intermediate layer, such that the outer pair of fiber-reinforced resin sheets correspond to the claimed first and second film layers, while the inner pair of fiber-reinforced resin sheets in combination with the hot-melt adhesive layers correspond to the claimed first and second fiber reinforced sheets.
Regarding claim 17, Nakagawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the thermoplastic resin used in the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet may include polyolefin resins such as polypropylene, and that the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet can include known stabilizers such as ultraviolet absorbing materials ([0006], [0008]).
Claims 15, 16, 21-23, 26, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuhara (JP 2001-121630, previously cited).
Regarding claim 15, Fukuhara teaches a lightweight board material (1; concrete formwork facing panel) comprising a lightweight core (2; honeycomb core) with a honeycomb structure and surface materials (3) made of synthetic resin integrally provided on both sides of the core material ([0005], Figs. 1-2). Fukuhara teaches that the surface material may be formed on the surface of the core material by laminating multiple fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31a, 31b) containing glass fibers onto the surface portion (21) of the core material ([0012], Figs. 5-6). The inner pair of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31a) located closest to the core can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second fiber reinforced sheets, while the outer pair of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31b) can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second film layers.
Fukuhara teaches that the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet may be melt-bonded (thermally bonded) to the surface of the core material by hot pressing ([0012]-[0014], [0020], Fig. 5). Therefore, the first and second film layers, first and second fiber reinforced sheets, and honeycomb core are thermally bonded to one another as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Fukuhara teaches that the surface material (3) may be formed on the surface of the core material (2) by laminating multiple fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31), where the number of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets can be selected depending on the desired thickness and strength of the surface material [0014]. Fukuhara further teaches that the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets are laminated with their fibers in different (i.e., orthogonal) directions in order to improve the strength of the resulting board material [0014]. Therefore, in the case where four unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets are laminated on either side of the core material, the inner three pairs of sheets correspond to the claimed uni-directional fiber reinforced polymer sheet and 0/90 cross laying continuous fiber reinforced sheet of the claimed first and second fiber reinforced sheets, while the outer pair corresponds to the claimed first and second film layers.
Regarding claim 21, Fukuhara teaches a lightweight board material (1; concrete formwork facing panel) comprising a lightweight core (2; honeycomb core) with a honeycomb structure and surface materials (3) made of synthetic resin integrally provided on both sides of the core material ([0005], Figs. 1-2). Fukuhara teaches that the surface material may be formed on the surface of the core material by pressing a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet (31; first and second uni-directional continuous fiber reinforced sheets) containing glass fibers onto the surface portion (21) of the core material ([0012], Fig. 5). The fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet may be one containing continuous fibers, such as unidirectional fibers [0014].
Fukuhara teaches that the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet may be melt-bonded (thermally bonded) to the surface of the core material by hot pressing ([0012]-[0014], Fig. 5). Therefore, first and second fiber reinforced sheets are thermally bonded to the honeycomb core as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting “configured for use with concrete formwork” is a functional limitation directed to an intended use of the claimed pacing panel and is only considered to further limit the claimed invention to the extent that the facing panel must be capable of being used in the manner claimed. The lightweight board material taught by Fukuhara satisfies all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of being used in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Regarding claim 23, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets may contain continuous reinforcing fibers such as unidirectional fibers, wherein the sheets may be unidirectional glass fiber reinforced polypropylene sheets ([0014], [0020]).
Regarding claim 26, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the surface materials (3) provided on either side of the core (2) may be composed of multiple fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31a, 31b) ([0014], Fig. 6), such that the inner pair of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31a) located closest to the core can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second fiber reinforced sheets, while the outer pair of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31b) can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second film layers which are on outer surfaces of the facing panel.
Regarding claim 32, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the core material may be made by bonding a large number of paper sheets ([0004]), such that the lightweight board comprising a paper core and fiber-reinforced thermoplastic surface layers is considered to be recyclable.
Regarding claim 33, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the core material may be made by bonding and impregnating a large number of paper sheets with synthetic resin ([0004]), such that the lightweight board comprising surface material sheets made of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin and a resin-impregnated core material is considered to be water tolerant.
Regarding claim 34, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above. With respect to the limitation requiring that the facing panel is repairable, Fukuhara teaches a lightweight board having a substantially identical structure made from substantially identical materials to that of the concrete formwork facing panel of the present invention, in particular, in which the outer layers may be formed of thermoplastic materials. Paragraph [0035] of the as-filed specification indicates that the disclosed formwork panel is repairable using well established plastic welding methods, such that the board taught by Fukuhara is understood to be repairable using similar methods due to the use of similar materials.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuhara (JP 2001-121630, previously cited) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Heilmann et al. (WO 2025/073818, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Although Fukuhara teaches that the thermoplastic resin used to form the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (first and second film layers) may be polypropylene ([0010], [0020]), Fukuhara does not expressly teach that the polypropylene is UV stabilized.
However, in the analogous art of formwork panels, Heilmann et al. teaches a formwork panel comprising a foam core (A), supporting layers (B) bonded to the core, and outer layers (C) bonded to the supporting layers ([0017], Fig. 1). Similar to Fukuhara, Heilmann et al. teaches that the outer layers comprise a polyolefin such as polypropylene, wherein the outer layers preferably comprise a UV stabilizer in order to improve the weather resistance, especially UV resistance ([0038]-[0039], [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board material taught by Fukuhara by incorporating a UV stabilizer in the outer polypropylene sheet, as taught by Heilmann et al., in order to improve the weather resistance of the board.
Claims 18, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuhara (JP 2001-121630, previously cited) as applied to claims 15 and 21 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (JP H07233630, previously cited) and Heilmann et al. (WO 2025/073818, previously cited).
Regarding claims 18, 29, and 30, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claims 15 and 21 above. Although Fukuhara teaches that the core material (2) has a honeycomb structure ([0006]), the reference differs from the claimed invention in that the core material (2) is made using paper as a raw material rather than polypropylene and does not expressly teach a diameter or a density of the honeycomb core.
However, in the analogous art of formwork panels, Nakagawa et al. teaches a plate for concrete formwork comprising an intermediate layer (3) in the form of a plate-shaped honeycomb core and fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (1) bonded to both the front and back sides of the intermediate layer ([0004], Figs. 1-2). Nakagawa et al. teaches that the material of the honeycomb core can be any material, such as aluminum, paper, or various plastics such as polypropylene, and is not particularly limited as long as it exhibits sufficient physical strength for use as a plate for forming a concrete formwork [0005]. Nakagawa et al. further teaches that it is preferable to make the bottom area of each tubular portion in the honeycomb core small in order to increase the strength of the formwork plate and to improve adhesion to the thermoplastic resin sheet [0005]. Nakagawa et al. teaches an embodiment in which the area of each cylindrical section of a paper honeycomb core is set to 0.5 cm2 or less (corresponding to a diameter of about 8 mm) to provide high strength [0005].
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the honeycomb core taught by Fukuhara by substituting the paper core with a polypropylene core and by setting an area, and thus a diameter of each of the cylindrical portions forming the honeycomb core within the approximate range of 6 mm, as suggested by Nakagawa et al., in order to increase the strength of the board material and to improve adhesion between the core and the adjacent thermoplastic resin sheets.
Fukuhara in view of Nakagawa et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach that the polypropylene honeycomb core has a density of 160-240 kg/m3.
However, in the analogous art of formwork panels, Nagamori et al. teaches a composite panel suitable for use as a form for pouring concrete, wherein the composite panel (5) may be composed of a composite sheet (1) in which thermoplastic resin sheets (3, 31) are laminated on both sides of a core layer (2) made of a polyolefin resin foam sheet, and synthetic resin sheets (4) are laminated on both sides of the composite sheet ([0001], [0069], Fig. 3). Similar to Nakagawa et al., Nagamori et al. teaches that the polyolefin used to form the core layer may be a polypropylene resin, wherein the core layer has a density of 0.05 to 0.5 g/cm3 ([0009]), equivalent to 50 to 500 kg/m3. Nagamori et al. teaches that if the density of the polyolefin sheet exceeds 0.5 g/cm3, the weight of the formwork will become too heavy and the cost will be high, while if the density is below 0.05 g/cm3, the bending elasticity will be insufficient [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Fukuhara in view of Nakagawa et al. by setting a density of the polypropylene honeycomb core within the claimed range, as taught by Nagamori et al., in order to ensure that the product has a weight, cost, and bending elasticity that is both practical and sufficient for use as a concrete formwork panel. Furthermore, it is noted that Nagamori et al. teaches a density for a polypropylene core layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuhara (JP 2001-121630, previously cited) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of JP ‘539 (JP H0723539, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 27, Fukuhara teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 above. Although Fukuhara teaches that the thermoplastic resin used to form the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31b; first and second film layers) may be polypropylene ([0010], [0020]), Fukuhara differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach the first and second film layers being unreinforced polypropylene.
However, in the analogous art of formwork panels, JP ‘539 teaches a building panel (P) that can be used as a concrete formwork panel, the panel having a laminate (1) comprising reinforcing layers (13) and skin layers (14) laminated and integrated on both sides of the core layer (12) ([0001], [0017], [0028], Fig. 4). The outer layer is formed of a synthetic resin layer such as polypropylene that does not contain reinforcing fibers ([0029]-[0030]). JP ‘539 teaches that the outer layer (14) does not contain reinforcing fibers so that the reinforcing fibers of the reinforcing layer (13) does not come into contact with the skin when the panel is handled, such that when used as a concrete formwork panel, the reinforcing fibers are not anchored to the poured concrete [0033]. Moreover, by not including reinforcing fibers in the outer layer, the outer surface of the panel has good slipperiness which allows the concrete to flow well, resulting in a smooth and well-finished surface of the concrete layer [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board material taught by Fukuhara by including an outer layer of unreinforced polypropylene on the outer surface of each of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets, as suggested by JP ‘539, in order to conceal the reinforcing fibers, thereby improving the smoothness on the outer surfaces of the panel.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 19 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to the claim in the response filed February 12, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 24 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are moot in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims in the response filed February 12, 2026.
However, upon further consideration of the claims, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is presented with respect to claim 21.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of the remarks filed February 12, 2026, with respect to amended claims 15 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of the amendments to claims 15 and 21, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Fukuhara is presented above. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed insofar as they apply to the current grounds of rejection.
With respect to Nakagawa et al., the Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks that Nakagawa fails to teach or suggest the claimed thermal bonding because Nakagawa teaches the use of adhesives for bonding.
This argument is not persuasive. In light of the amendments to claim 15, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Nakagawa et al. have been modified in the office action above to address the limitations directed to thermal bonding. Specifically, the teachings of Nakagawa et al. are interpreted such that a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheet and the hot-melt adhesive layer are taken together to correspond to each of the first and second fiber reinforced sheets, such that the hot-melt adhesive layer serves to thermally bond the fiber reinforced sheet to the honeycomb core as claimed. Moreover, the use of thermoplastic materials in the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets along with a hot-melt adhesive layer would result in the adjacent fiber-reinforced resin sheets being thermally bonded together upon lamination of the layers constituting the formwork plate.
With respect to Kwon et al., the Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that Kwon teaches manufacturing a panel with a polyurethane adhesive layer, which is different from the claimed panels which are thermally bonded. This argument is persuasive. Kwon et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference teaches a polyurethane layer (300) being used as an adhesive layer to bond the polypropylene composite sheet (400) and the glass fiber layer (200) to the core structure (100) and does not teach the claimed structure in which the layers are thermally bonded as recited in claims 15 and 21. The previous rejections based on Kwon et al. are therefore withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed invention of the instant application.
Independent claim 1 in combination with dependent claim 19 recites a concrete formwork panel comprising first and second film layers thermally bonded to respective first and second fiber reinforced sheets, and a honeycomb core thermally bonded to the first and second fiber reinforced sheets. The first and second film layer each comprise a 350 gsm UV stabilized polypropylene film and a 35 gsm spunbond non-woven PET fabric bonding layer. The first and second fiber reinforced sheets each comprise a 500 gsm first unidirectional film sheet in a strong direction of the panel, an 800 gsm 0/90 cross laying continuous fiber film sheet, a 370 gsm second uni-directional film sheet in the strong direction of the panel, and a 370 gsm third uni-directional film sheet in the strong direction of the panel. The honeycomb core comprises a polypropylene honeycomb core having a diameter of about 6 mm and a density of 180 kg/m3.
Although the prior art teaches similar formwork panels comprising film layers, fiber-reinforced layers, and honeycomb cores, the prior art does not teach the specific materials and structural features (basis weight, fiber direction, density, etc.) of the sub-layers recited in claim 19 in combination with the configuration recited in claim 1 in which the layers are thermally bonded to one another.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is to Fukuhara (JP 2001-121630). Fukuhara teaches a lightweight board material (1; concrete formwork facing panel) comprising a lightweight core (2; honeycomb core) with a honeycomb structure and surface materials (3) made of synthetic resin integrally provided on both sides of the core material ([0005], Figs. 1-2). Fukuhara teaches that the surface material may be formed on the surface of the core material by laminating multiple fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets (31a, 31b) containing glass fibers onto the surface portion (21) of the core material ([0012], Figs. 5-6). Fukuhara teaches that the surface material is laminated onto the surface of the core material by hot pressing at a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of the thermoplastic matrix resin of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheet, such that the thermoplastic resin is melted and impregnated into the core material to melt-bond the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheet to the core material ([0012], Fig. 5).
Fukuhara teaches that the unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin sheets can be laminated with their fibers in different (i.e., orthogonal) directions, as shown in Fig. 6, wherein the number of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheets may be selected depending on the desired thickness and strength of the surface material ([0014]), such that a plurality of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheets can include at least three unidirectional sheets oriented in the strong direction of the panel and a 0/90 cross laying continuous fiber sheet. Fukuhara differs from the claimed invention in that the reference is silent to basis weights of the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sheets.
Fukuhara also differs from the claimed invention in that the core material (2) having a honeycomb structure is made of paper ([0006]) rather than polypropylene, and the reference is silent to a diameter and a density of the honeycomb core. Fukuhara also does not expressly teach the first and second film layers including the claimed sub-layers of a UV stabilized polypropylene film and a spunbound non-woven PET fabric bonding layer.
In the previous rejections of record, Kwon et al. and Heilmann et al. were relied upon to address the limitations directed to the first and second layer each comprising a UV stabilized polypropylene film and a spunbound non-woven PET fabric bonding layer. Kwon et al. teaches a formwork panel having a structure in which a polypropylene composite sheet (400) is laminated to the outside of a core structure (100) via a polyurethane layer (300), wherein the polypropylene composite sheet is composed of a polypropylene sheet (410) and a non-woven layer (420), wherein the nonwoven layer serves to enhance adhesion between the polypropylene sheet and the polyurethane layer ([0022], [0049]). Heilmann et al. teaches the use of a UV stabilizer to improve the weather resistance of a polypropylene outer layer in a similar formwork panel ([0038]-[0039], [0041]). Although the polypropylene composite sheet taught by Kwon et al. has a similar structure to the first and second film layers of the claimed invention, there is no clear motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the polypropylene composite sheet of Kwon et al. to the board material of Fukuhara, and to select the specific basis weights and materials as claimed.
Heilmann et al. was further relied upon to address the limitations directed to the basis weights of the sub-layers in the first and second fiber reinforced sheets. In particular, Heilmann et al. teaches that the support layers (B) of the panel preferably each have a basis weight in the range from 1000 to 2200 g/m2, which contributes to the high stability of the formwork panel while making it easy to handle, wherein the support layers can each comprise two to ten reinforcing fiber layers ([0032], [0037]). Heilmann et al., however, does not specifically teach basis weights of each of the reinforcing fiber layers constituting the support layers.
Kwon et al. and Heilmann et al. were both relied upon to address the limitations directed to the features of the honeycomb core. In particular, Kwon et al. teaches that its core structure (100) can be a polypropylene straw assembly having a circular hole (110) with a diameter of about 8 mm formed therein ([0033]-[0034]), thus corresponding to the claimed about ø6 mm polypropylene honeycomb core. Heilmann et al. further teaches that its core structure has a density of 50 to 600 kg/m3, wherein using a low density core makes the formwork panel easier to handle during transport and use [0028].
Although various features of the claimed invention are taught in the prior art, the prior art does not have sufficient specificity or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the numerous modifications to Fukuhara necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights