SABIC Global Technologies B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2021

2021002957 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/319,571 12/16/2016 Craig Lawrence MILNE 14PLAS0086-US-PCT 1901 102091 7590 12/01/2021 Cantor Colburn LLP - SABIC Americas 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER SLITERIS, JOSELYNN Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CRAIG LAWRENCE MILNE, GREGORY E. TREMBLAY, DHANENDRA KUMAR NAGWANSHI, SOMASEKHAR BOBBA VENKAT, ARUNACHALA PARAMESHWARA, and MATTHEW D. MARKS Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 21–25. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “SABIC GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES B.V.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to the structural body of a vehicle and to weight reduction thereof.” Spec. ¶ 1. Apparatus claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An energy-absorbing device, comprising: a polymer reinforcement structure, wherein the polymer reinforcement structure comprises a polymer matrix and chopped fibers; and a shell comprising two walls extending from a back and forming a shell channel, wherein the shell comprises continuous fibers and a resin matrix; wherein the polymer reinforcement structure is overmolded in the shell channel; and wherein the polymer reinforcement structure comprises honeycombs and/or ribs. EVIDENCE Name Reference Date Murakami et al. (“Murakami”) US 5,139,843 Aug. 18, 1992 Zabik US 2008/0048462 A1 Feb. 28, 2008 Wang2 CN 101797822 A Aug. 11, 2010 Kötter et al. (“Kötter”) DE 10 2011 109 514 A1 Feb. 7, 2013 2 We rely on the English Language translation provided in the Office Action Appendix dated April 5, 2019. Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–10, 12, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murakami and Wang.3 Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murakami, Wang, and Kötter. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murakami, Wang, and Zabik. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 3–10, 12, and 21–25 as unpatentable over Murakami and Wang Appellant argues claims 1, 3–10, 12, and 25 together. See Appeal Br. 4–7. Appellant also presents separate arguments for independent claim 21, independent claim 22, and dependent claim 25. See Appeal Br. 7–8. We select claims 1, 21, 22, and 25 for review, with their respective dependent claims (if any) standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the limitation of a polymer reinforcement structure comprising “a polymer matrix and chopped fibers.” Italics added. The Examiner acknowledges that the primary reference to Murakami “does not specifically disclose the polymer reinforcement structure comprising chopped fibers.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Wang for such teachings and states that it would have been obvious to provide Murakami’s 3 The Examiner also listed claim 26, but this claim has been canceled. See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 4 structure “with chopped fibers . . . in order to achieve the desirable results of various high mechanical properties while facilitating production and reducing cost.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 12–13 (both referencing Wang Abstract). Appellant disagrees stating that the desirable properties taught by Wang “are a function of the unique size/shape of its core . . . as well as the action of its two side panels [and] not the inclusion of fibers in core (2).” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends, “nowhere does Wang teach that its stated mechanical benefits come from its fibers alone, but rather from the structure as a whole.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. In other words, although the Examiner relied on Wang for teaching the use of chopped fibers, Appellant argues that the mechanical benefits cited by the Examiner as a result of their use would come about only from also incorporating Wang’s “size/shape” and “side panels” into the Murakami structure. Wang’s Abstract states (in part): The prepared cellular core consists of a series of concave- convex staggered pyramid-shaped platform bodies which form a stable whole body together under the action of the two panels on the two sides, so the novel fiber reinforced cellular board has various high mechanical properties. The novel fiber reinforced cellular board has very simple molding process and low production cost, and can realize continuous high-efficiency production. Appellant does not dispute that Wang’s Abstract teaches “injecting high- strength dispersed short-cut fiber cotton/felt into an epoxy resin substrate” or dispersing the “short-cut fiber . . . to form a pre-mixed molding material” to generate the pyramid-shaped bodies of the stable core. Nor does Appellant dispute that the “pyramid-shaped platform bodies” derive strength from the “high-strength dispersed short-cut fiber.” Wang Abstract. Hence, even Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 5 presuming arguendo that some of the core’s strength is derived from its shape, that does not detract from Wang’s teaching that the core’s strength is also derived via the “high-strength” fiber dispersed throughout such shapes. In other words, Appellant’s contention that “nowhere does Wang teach that its stated mechanical benefits come from its fibers alone” (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive of Examiner error because Wang appears to evidence that at least a portion of the mechanical advantages of its structure derive from the presence of the chopped fibers in the epoxy resin matrix. Further, the Examiner notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” Ans. 13. Instead, “the test is what the combined teachings [] would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 13–14 (referencing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, (CCPA 1981)). Hence, Appellant’s arguments regarding potential drawbacks or issues in which the entire structure of Wang was used to modify the Murakami structure are not germane, as the Examiner has not proposed such a modification. Appellant also contends, “[i]t is not clear how the core (2) of Wang could be implemented into Murakami without negatively affecting the purpose and/or beneficial properties of both structures.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4 (“there is no expectation of success”). However, as indicated above, the Examiner does not rely upon incorporating the core of Wang into Murakami, because the Examiner only addresses Wang’s teachings of using “chopped fibers,” and the benefit that would be achieved by such inclusion. Final Act. 4; Ans. 13. Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 6 Appellant also contends that “the Examiner provides no citation, reference, nor any evidence to support the assertion” that adding chopped fibers increases strength. Reply Br. 2 (referencing Ans. 13). However, Appellant does not explain how Wang (a citation, reference, and evidence the Examiner relied upon) fails to clearly teach the use of “high-strength [] short-cut fiber” as contributing to the strength of the Wang article. Wang Abstract. Appellant’s position appears to ignore that Wang describes the “short-cut fiber[s]” that are used as specifically being “high strength” fibers, which are integral to creating a “fiber reinforced” cellular board. Hence, Appellant is not persuasive when attempting to explain how it would not have been predictable to improve Murakami via the use of Wang’s high- strength chopped fibers. See Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and its dependent claims 1, 3–10, and 12. Claim 21 Independent claim 21 recites the limitation of the polymer reinforcement structure being “inseparably attached to the shell.” The Examiner relies on Murakami’s “adhesive tape 6” for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 14. Appellant contends that a “tape can be removed without damage” and, as such, this limitation is not met. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner explains that Murakami teaches “thermoset adhesives” which are cured “resulting in crosslinking” thereby “creating an irreversible chemical bond that prevents the material from being removed or repositioned.” Ans. 14. Murakami’s actual teachings support the Examiner’s position, i.e., “adhesive tape 6 may be a thermosetting type pressure sensitive adhesive tape” and that “adhesive tape 6 serves to increase Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 7 the strength of the connection” between the two components. Murakami 4:49–58. Appellant does not dispute such teachings. Thus, in view of Murakami’s disclosure, Appellant does not explain how Murakami’s thermosetting tape 6 “can be removed without damage” as argued above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on Murakami for teaching this “inseparably attached” limitation. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Claim 22 Independent claim 22 recites the limitation of fibers either “located in a single plane and oriented in at least two directions” or, “unidirectional tape fibers, wherein greater than or equal to 90% of the unidirectional tape fibers are oriented in the same direction.” The Examiner relies on Murakami for such teachings, referencing Murakami’s Abstract, Figures 4A and 4B, and claims 1 and 2 as disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 9; Ans. 14–15. Appellant contends that “Murakami in view of Wang fails to disclose this feature.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. Although Murakami discloses use of tape 6 as discussed above, Murakami is silent as to any fibers in this tape being either “located in a single plane and oriented in at least two directions” or where 90% or more of the fibers “are oriented in the same direction.” At best, Murakami’s Abstract teaches a fiber layer “formed by aligning reinforcing fibers parallel to the longitudinal axis” of the body, but is silent as to whether such fibers are “located in a single plane and oriented in at least two directions” as recited, or whether 90% or more of the fibers “are oriented in the same direction” as recited. Similarly, Murakami’s claim 1 teaches an “axial fiber layer” and also “a spiral fiber layer,” but again, Murakami is silent as to Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 8 whether they are “located in a single plane” or whether 90% or more of these fibers “are oriented in the same direction” as recited. Murakami’s Figures 4A and 4B provide no assistance in this matter either. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner has identified where the cited art teaches this limitation. Hence, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22, or its dependent claims 23 and 24. Claim 25 Claim 25 depends directly from claim 1 and additionally recites “ribs extending across the channel of the shell.” The Examiner finds that Murakami’s structure 2 comprises such ribs (i.e., “part of the honeycombs can be interpreted as ‘ribs’ in at least Fig. 1”). Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 15. Appellant does not explain how the Examiner might be in error by correlating “part of the honeycombs” as the recited “ribs.” See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25. The Examiner’s rejections of: (a) claim 2 as unpatentable over Murakami, Wang, and Kötter; and, (b) claim 11 as unpatentable over Murakami, Wang, and Zabik Each of these claims depend directly from claim 1. Appellant contends that the additionally cited reference (i.e., Kötter or Zabik), “fails to cure the deficiencies of Murakami in view of Wang.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant is not persuasive that there are deficiencies with respect to the combination of Murakami and Wang when rejecting claim 1. See above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error that the further combination with Kötter or Zabik is in error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims in view of the additionally cited art. Appeal 2021-002957 Application 15/319,571 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–10, 12, 21, 25 103 Murakami, Wang 1, 3–10, 12, 21, 25 22–24 103 Murakami, Wang 22–24 2 103 Murakami, Wang, Kötter 2 11 103 Murakami, Wang, Zabik 11 Overall Outcome 1–12, 21, 25 22–24 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART