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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/18/25 and 3/11/25 have been 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 recites the limitation "the fiber barrier" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the barrier 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2017-0103568 (PARK ET AL) in view of JP 2013-129308 (SUDO).
Regarding claim 1: The PARK reference discloses a vehicle headliner comprising a foam base, an adhesive, a glass sheet (barrier layer), a nonwoven reinforcing fiber layer, and a heat-shielding layer. See claims 1-2. It is recognized that the heat-shielding layer is formed of carbon nanotubes and not a metal layer. However, the SUDO reference discloses a headliner comprising a heat-shielding layer formed of vacuum deposited aluminum. See claim 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aluminum heat-shielding layer in the PARK headliner. Substituting one known heat-shielding material for another would yield expected results.
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 13: See Figure 2 for the layer arrangement including a protective layer on the heat-shielding layer.
Regarding claims 3 and 7-9: Forming nonwoven materials by spinning resin fibers is well known.
Regarding claim 4 and 11-12: The SUDO reference discloses a vacuum deposited aluminum film for the heat-shielding layer. See claim 4.
Regarding claim 6: The PARK reference discloses a molded vehicle headliner comprising a foam base, an adhesive, a glass sheet (barrier layer), a nonwoven reinforcing fiber layer, and a heat-shielding layer. See claims 1-2. It is recognized that the heat-shielding layer is formed of carbon nanotubes and not a metal layer. However, the SUDO reference discloses a headliner comprising a heat-shielding layer formed of vacuum deposited aluminum. See claim 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aluminum heat-shielding layer in the PARK headliner. Substituting one known heat-shielding material for another would yield expected results.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: The glass barrier sheet prevents tearing and is air impermeable.
Regarding claim 14-16: Printing metal inks and extruding adhesives are well known methods of application. Further, PARK discloses any hot melt adhesive may be used. See hot melt 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are allowable because the prior art does not t each or suggest a molded ceiling for a vehicle comprising a base formed of a core material and a plurality of fiber-reinforced layers, a thermosetting adhesive bonding the core to the fiber-reinforced layers, and a lining material formed of a fiber layer, a heat-shielding layer and a barrier layer. The closest art, KR 2017-0103568, discloses a core material and a lining material formed of a fiber layer, a heat-shielding layer and a barrier layer but does not include a fiber-reinforced layer between the core and lining material.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F.
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.
/ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785