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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed September 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 6 and 14-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no period immediately following the word “curved”. It appears a space has been introduced between the word and the period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “to create a surface texture harsh enough to damage a cell wall or microbe contacting the film thereby limiting a transmission of microbes or cells”. The recitation includes subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to demonstrate possession of the limitation. The specification does not disclose or convey possession of creating a surface texture harsh enough “to damage a cell wall” generally to thereby limit transmission of “cells”. Paragraph [0028] of the published application discloses the texturing creates a surface “harsh enough to damage the cell walls of microbes contacting the film”. As such, the disclosed cell walls are understood to be the cell walls of the disclosed microbes and not general cell walls that may not be related to the microbes as set forth by the word “or”. The rejection may be overcome by pointing to the location in the specification where support for the full scope of the limitation may be found or by amending the limitation in a manner supported by the original disclosure (e.g. “to create a surface texture harsh enough to damage cell walls of microbes contacting the film thereby limiting a transmission of the microbes”). The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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 1-5 and 7-13 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.
Claim 1 recites “to create a surface texture harsh enough to damage a cell wall or microbe contacting the film thereby limiting a transmission of microbes or cells”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear what “cell walls” are in view. The cell walls set forth in the specification are understood to be either the cell walls of microbes or the cell walls of the honeycomb core. As set forth in the claims, it is not clear which of the disclosed cell walls is intended or whether another cell wall is in view. As set forth in the section 112a rejection above, it does not appear that the cell walls of the microbes are necessarily in view. Further, the context does not appear to suggest that the cell walls of the honeycomb core are in view. However, since no other cell walls seem to be disclosed, it is not clear what is necessarily intended or required. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 4, the claim recites the perforation “is less than 0.05 inches”. It is not clear whether this is the diameter of the perforation or the depth of the perforation or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The other claims are rejected as dependent claims.
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.
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 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gastaldi (US 2021/0379801) in view of Inagaki (US 5,055,152), Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0345621), and Johnston et al. (US 2002/0146540).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Gastaldi teaches a method for manufacturing a microbe-resistant structure comprising: providing a structural core/core (2) comprising an open-celled honeycomb core having a plurality of cell walls (Abstract; paragraphs [0032] and [0062]; Figure 2): providing a binding compound/first layer (3) (Abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0012]-[0018] and [0021]; Figure 2); providing a film (7) having a first surface and a second surface on opposite sides of the film, wherein the first surface includes a surface treatment, including texturing the film (Abstract; paragraph [0007]), forming a charge that includes the structural core, the binding compound, and the film arranged such that the second surface of the film is facing toward the structural core and the first surface is facing away from the structural core and applying heat and pressure to the charge (Abstract; paragraphs [0012]-[0021], [0021] and [0079]).
Gastaldi does not teach the second surface includes a plurality of perforations such that the binding compound flows to substantially fill the plurality of perforations during the application of heat and pressure to the charge.
However, Inagaki teaches an analogous method wherein a corresponding film includes a plurality of perforations such that the corresponding binding compound flows to substantially fill the plurality of perforations during the application of heat and pressure (col. 2, lines 42-60; col. 3, line 44-col. 4, line 42; Figure 1 and Figures 7-10).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gastaldi and Inagaki and to have formed a plurality of perforations as claimed in the second surface of the film of Gastaldi and to have then filled those perforations with the binding compound/adhesive/polyurethane from layer (3) during the application of heat and pressure, as suggested by Inagaki, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of improving and controlling the bonding strength between the layers of the composite of Gastaldi. Further, Inagaki teaches that bonding through perforations as claimed is an art recognized suitable and effective means of bonding layers together. In the combination, the elements merely perform the same function as they do separately and on having ordinary skill would have recognized the result of the combination was predictable. As such, this is understood to correspond with a rationale of combining/substituting prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results or a simple substitution of one known bonding technique for another to obtain a predictable result and these provide additional rationales that support a conclusion of obviousness (see MPEP 2143).
Gastaldi teaches a honeycomb core but does not teach the dimensions of the cell wall. However, Matsumoto et al. (Abstract; paragraph [0125]) teach an analogous method wherein the wall thicknesses of the open-cell honeycomb cell walls in the most preferred embodiment substantially overlap the claimed range and disclose that these wall thicknesses in combination with a selected cell diameter produce a strong and light honeycomb structure.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gastaldi and Matsumoto et al. and to have utilized a honeycomb having cell walls within or which overlap the claimed range in the method of Gastaldi, as suggested by Matsumoto et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Matsumoto et al., of providing a honeycomb core structure with a desired balance of properties (e.g. strength and lightness).
As to claims 1 and 7, Gastaldi teaches surface treating the film to texture it and to improve washability (paragraph [0007]), but does not explicitly teach the surface treatment includes texturing the film by one of the techniques as claimed to create a surface harsh enough to damage cell walls or microbes and thereby limit their transmission. However, Johnston et al. (Abstract; Figures 2a-2c, 2g, 2j, 2k; paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0009]-[0019], [0082]-[0084], [0088] – secondary channel/notch dimensions are also applicable texturing and are given as a fraction of primary dimensions; [0110]-[0113]; also, see paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0019], [0059], [0104], [0106], [0116], and [0135] – the disclosed partial melting of the surface, embossing and hot stamping methods of forming the texturing read on the claimed “direct writing technique”, “knurling” and “instability induced patterning”) teach an analogous method wherein a textured surfaces with dimensions that overlap or a sufficiently close (see MPEP 2144.05) to the claimed dimensions in order to modify the surface of the article.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gastaldi and Johnston et al. and to have textured the surface of the composite of Gastaldi, as suggested by Johnston et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Johnston et al., of controlling the transport of fluid on the surface of the composite for subsequent removal.
As to claim 2, as set forth above in the combination, after applying heat and pressure the adhesive/binding compound cools to produce the claimed arrangement and properties.
As to claim 3, Inagaki teach using a roll to create the perforations (col. 3, lines 52-67). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 4 and 5, Inagaki suggests the size of the perforations is selected to achieve a desired degree of bonding (col. 3, lines 52-col. 4, lines 42). As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily optimized the size of the perforations as a result effective variable to facilitate control of the bonding strength. Similarly, selecting a shape for the openings is understood to be a routine expedient and is not understood to differentiate over the suggestion of the prior art absent a showing of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV B is understood to be applicable since the shape of the perforations is not understood to be significant.
As to claim 8, in the combination, the structural core/foam product has surfaces as claimed and is capable of/configured to face an interior of a vehicle (col. 26, line 64-col. 28, line 7).
As to claim 10, the combination suggests producing a perforated film having desired dimensions (e.g. thickness) and perforations having a desired configuration (Figures 7-10). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have performed conventional steps, such as skiving, to ensure the film was ready for use in the manner set forth by the references.
As to claim 11, as set forth above in the combination of claim 1, each of the references suggest bringing the layers together at or in the mold (Figures 3a-3c; paragraphs [0012]-[0018], [0021] and [0079]) immediately prior to applying the heat or pressure to the layered configuration/charge.
As to claim 12, Gastaldi suggests a range of applicable products (paragraph [0004]) which renders a curved structure prima facie obvious and further suggests a curved structure in Figure 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gastaldi (US 2021/0379801) in view of Inagaki (US 5,055,152), Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0345621), and Johnston et al. (US 2002/0146540), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of either one of Young et al. (US 2020/0047868) or DeBergalis et al. (US 2006/0182981).
As to claim 9, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Gastaldi does not teach the film includes PVF or PVDF. However, each of Young et al. (paragraphs [0044] and [0083]) and DeBergalis et al. (Abstract; paragraph [0029]) teach analogous methods wherein the film includes a fluoropolymer, such as PVF or PVDF.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gastaldi and either one of Young et al. or DeBergalis et al. and to have utilized a fluoropolymer, such as PVF or PVDF, as the film of Gastaldi, as suggested by either one of Young et al. or DeBergalis et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, or utilizing a material effective for use as an outer layer and having desired properties for particular applications.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gastaldi (US 2021/0379801) in view of Inagaki (US 5,055,152), Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0345621), and Johnston et al. (US 2002/0146540), as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of either one of Dodworth (US 2017/0087798) or Martin et al. (US 2012/0148824).
As to claim 13, Gastaldi exemplifies polyurethane as the binder, but does not specify other suitable materials. However, each of Dodworth (paragraphs [0062] and [0063] – polyurethane and epoxy together for improved properties) and Martin et al. (paragraphs [0035], [0089] and [0095] – polyurethane or epoxy as equivalent alternatives) teach analogous laminates wherein the adhesive includes an epoxy resin.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Gastaldi and either one of the secondary references and to have utilized an epoxy resin as the resin of Gastaldi, as suggested by either one of the references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, or utilizing art recognized suitable and effective alternative resin for forming laminated structures (Martin et al.) or for providing a resin with improved physical properties (Dodworth – paragraphs [0062] and [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
It is noted that Petcavich et al. (US 2010/0033818; paragraphs [0083]-[0087]) is understood to be an applicable secondary reference that could be utilized as an alternative to the Johnston et al. reference for teaching directed to texturizing the film with a lithographic technique as claimed. However, Petcavich et al. is not understood to be applicable against claim 7 because the widths disclosed by Petcavich et al. are understood to be outside the claimed range (paragraphs [0045], [0046] and [0052]). An amendment to claim 1 that further included the limitations of claim 7 would overcome the applicability of the Petcavich et al. reference.
Additionally, each of Childers et al. (US 10,821,651), Effing et al. (US 5,238,725) and Kourtides et al. (US 4,598,007) are understood to disclose applicable methods that could be combined with the secondary references utilized in the rejection in a manner similar to Gastaldi.
These cited references should be considered prior to replying to this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
