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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, the phrase “a remainder of the sandwich component” leaves the limitation unclear as it is unclear as to what portions of the component are a remainder of the sandwich component. For example, is the remainder anything outside of the fiber component of the cover layer, however the claim seems to require the cover layer as well. Based on the Instant Spec. it appears the configuration is meant to include both the cover layer and the core as connected to the coupling element.
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 1, 3 ,7, 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byrmerski et al. (DE 102013003538 A1), herein Byrmerski.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (DE 102013003538 A1). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1 and 11, Byrmerski teaches a sandwich component comprising a core structure (130) and between cover layers made of fiber-reinforced plastic arranged on the core structure [Abstract, Fig.1, 0007-0008, 0019]. The cover layer is applied to the core structure only in regions, for example where it is necessary with regard to the component properties to be achieved, thus free regions are present [0009].
In regards to claim 3, Byrmerski further teaches the fiber in the cover layer is unidirectional [0008].
In regards to claim 7, Byrmerski further teaches the fiber of the cover layer is in the form of a tape [0008, 0013].
In regards to claim 9, Byrmerski further teaches the fiber of the cover layer is in the form of a tape strip and the cover layer comprises a plurality of tape layers [0024]. [0008, 0013, 0022]. Each layer of tape is considered to be an individual ply.
In regards to claim 10, Byrmerski further teaches the fiber tape of the cover layer is directly laminated to the core [0007, 0022-0025, Fig. 1].
In regards to claim 15, Byrmerski teaches a method of making a sandwich component comprising providing a core and coating at least one cover layer by laminating a unidirectional fiber-reinforced thermoplastic strip material onto the core structure [0007, Fig. 1]. The cover layer is applied to the core structure only in regions, for example where it is necessary with regard to the component properties to be achieved, thus free regions are present [0009].
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.
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 2, 4-5, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrmerski et al. (DE 102013003538 A1), herein Byrmerski, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
In regards to claim 2, Byrmerski further teaches that the cover layer partially covers the core but does not teach the coated/covered regions percent of the total area. However, Byrmerski teaches the cover layer is applied to the core structure only in regions, for example where it is necessary with regard to the component properties to be achieved, thus free regions are present [0009].
Byrmerski discloses the claimed invention except for the coating area occupying at least 10% and at most 50% of the total area of the flat side of the core. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the covering region is within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regards to claim 4, Byrmerski further teaches the tape of the cover layer comprises multidirectionally aligned fibers, which would include having crossed fibers [0011, 0013].
In regards to claim 5, Byrmerski does not expressly teach the areas that are covered with the tape of the cover layer. However, Byrmerski teaches the e cover layer is applied to the core structure only in regions, for example where it is necessary with regard to the component properties to be achieved [0009]. One region that benefits from increased support is edges of the panel (i.e., margins).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the cover layer to regions that would benefit from reinforcement including the around edges of the panel. One would have been motivated to do so based on the increased strength afforded by the cover layer as well as the ease of handling the panel without crushing the core.
In regards to claim 8, Byrmerski further teaches the tapes of the cover layer comprise a plurality of layers [0024]. Byrmerski further teaches the cover layer is applied to the core structure only in regions, for example where it is necessary with regard to the component properties to be achieved [0009]. Byrmerski does not expressly teach the shape of such a layout. However, one obvious layout would be a lattice or grid like framework.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have created the cover layer in a grid or lattice frame work. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure component properties across the panel while minimizing added weight that a full cover layer would provide.
Byrmerski discloses the claimed invention except for the cover layer being a framework. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the cover layer as a framework, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In regards to claim 12, Byrmerski further teaches the cover layer may be provided only in regions or across the entire core [0009, 0026]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have created the second cover layer to cover the entire core of the panel. One would have been motivated to do so based on the intended use of the panel in cases where a smooth finish is needed or materials will be blocked from penetrating the core. Further, as Byrmerski a completely covering cover layer is conventionally known, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 13, Byrmerski further teaches the cover layer may be provided across the entire core [0009, 0026]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have created the second cover layer to cover the entire core of the panel. One would have been motivated to do so based on the intended use of the panel in cases where a smooth finish is needed or materials will be blocked from penetrating the core. Further, as Byrmerski a completely covering cover layer is conventionally known, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. As to the installation, the second cover layer may be intended to be mounted such that it is visible, this would be an obvious design choice to prevent the exposure of materials into the core as well as having a more mechanically stable face as the outer face of the panel.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrmerski et al. (DE 102013003538 A1), herein Byrmerski, as applied to claim 5 above in further view of Feng et al. (Creative design for sandwich structures: A review), herein Feng.
In regards to claim 6, Byrmerski does not expressly teach a mechanically coupling element is present in the panel.
Feng teaches methods of coupling cores to facesheets via stitching or the addition of z-pins [Foam Cores, Fig, 9]. Feng teaches such methods increase the mechanical properties of the panels [Foam Cores].
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 stitching or pinning method of Feng on the core of Byrmerski. One would have been motivated to do so based on the improved mechanical properties of the panel.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrmerski et al. (DE 102013003538 A1), herein Byrmerski, as applied to claim 5 above in further view of Reeves et al. (US 20160186441 A1), herein Reeves.
In regards to claim 6, Byrmerski does not expressly teach a mechanically coupling element is present in the panel. Byrmerski further teaches the tape of the cover layer comprises multidirectionally aligned fibers, which would include having crossed fibers [0011, 0013].
Reeves teaches a panel assembly for use in a vehicle includes a first face sheet, a second face sheet, and a core layer disposed between the first and second face sheets [Abstract, claims 1, 11, 0031]. Reeves further teaches that panel includes and insert which is attached to the core and the face sheet [Abstract, Figs. 1-2, claim 1, 0003, 0007, 0028-0029, 0054]. Reeves teaches the inserts allow connection between fasteners and the panels [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the insert of Reeves to the panel of Byrmerski. One would have been motivated to do so as Reeves teaches that inserts are a conventionally known method for mounting panels and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrmerski et al. (DE 102013003538 A1), herein Byrmerski, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Stamp et al. (US 20150050446 A1), herein Stamp.
In regards to claim 14, Byrmerski teaches the cover layers may comprise a polarity of layers, but does not expressly teach that one of the layers contains a foam component.
Stamp teaches a sandwich component (10) having a honeycomb core layer (4) and at least one fiber-reinforced thermoplastic outer layer (3) [Abstract, Fig. 2]. Stamp further teaches at least one side of the sandwich component (10 has a decorative layer (1,1′), which is arranged on the outer layer (3). The sandwich component (10) furthermore has at least one foam layer (2), which is arranged between the outer layer (3) and the decorative layer (1,1′), and which is connected to the outer layer (3) and the decorative layer (1,1′) [Abstract, Fig. 2, claim 11]. In the edge region and in the deformation zones, the foam layer reduces or laminates the imprinting on the decorative surface. The decorative surface hereby also retains the same optical appearance in the edge region and in the deformation zones as on the remaining surface [0015]. The of a foam layer is used in order to prevent the imprinting of surface defects on the decorative layer [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the foam layer Stamp to the second cover layer of Byrmerski. One would have been motivated to do so as Stamp teaches the use of a foam layer in a cover layer is conventionally known and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, one would have been motivated to do so as the foam layer is used in order to prevent the imprinting of surface defects on any additional surface layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: Dhoore et al. (US 4235303A), Nark et al. (US 9245089B1), Coppens et al. (US 20060185087A1), Lukaszewicz (US 20170368788A1), and Aston et al. (US 20250121957 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
Prosecution Insights