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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 6, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Bitterlich (DE102013223284) and in further view of Kaneko (US20060249877) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
776
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Spalding
Regarding claim 1, Spalding teaches an induction heating apparatus, comprising: at least one coil layer having a coil device and a carrier, on which carrier the coil device is arranged (Col. 1 lines 1-10 heating elements 220; heater mat 212); wherein the at least one coil layer is of flexurally flexible configuration (Col. 1 lines 1-10 heater mat 212); wherein the at least one coil layer is embedded in the structural material of a vacuum hood (Col. 11 lines 20-25 Heater mat 212 may be disposed in vacuum chamber 282); and wherein the vacuum hood having the at least one coil layer is of flexurally flexible configuration (Col. 6 lines 10-15 vacuum chamber having flexible wall 136) but is silent on wherein the vacuum hood comprises a reinforcing structure which is integrated in the structural material of the vacuum hood to form a single component, a channel device comprising at least one feed channel, and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Bitterlich
Bitterlich teaches wherein the vacuum hood (1) further comprises a fiber reinforcing structure (5) which is integrated in the structural material (7) of the vacuum hood (1) to form a single component (Fig. 3, [0029] where reinforcing fibers 5 are integrated into the heat-activated binder 7 of component 1)
Spalding and Bitterlich are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding to incorporate the teachings of Bitterlich to have a vacuum hood comprising a fiber reinforcing structure integrated into the structural material of the vacuum hood to form a single component to allow the heating component to be easy to handle and flexible, as a product of having the fiber embedded into the structural material of the heating component, while also providing a low mass heating product (Bitterlich [0005]).
Spalding and Bitterlich are silent on a channel device comprising at least one feed channel and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside.
PNG
media_image3.png
776
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Kaneko
Kaneko teaches a channel device comprising at least one feed channel ([0041] resin inlet 10); and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside ([0041] Fig. 1 the bagging film 7 has, at one side, resin injection grooves 8 a, 8 b, 8 c and 8 d and resin discharge grooves 9 a, 9 b and 9 c, shown to be on the underside of bagging film 7 towards fiber layer 1).
Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters used for curing. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding and Bitterlich to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have a channel device with a feed channel and channel structure on the underside of the vacuum hood in order to increase the speed of diffusing resin into a reinforcing fiber layer (Kaneko [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches wherein the at least one coil layer is surrounded by the structural material of the vacuum hood (Col. 11 lines 20-25 Heater mat 212 may be disposed in vacuum chamber 282).
Regarding claim 5, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claims 1, and but Spalding and Bitterlich are silent on wherein (i) a negative pressure region is creatable between the underside and the workpiece and (ii) the workpiece is infiltratable with a material via the at least one feed channel.
Kaneko teaches a negative pressure region is creatable between the underside and the workpiece and (ii) the workpiece is infiltratable with a material via the at least one feed channel ([0044] resin inlet 10 injects resin after gas has been evacuated).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding and Bitterlich to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have a negative pressure region and the workpiece being infiltratble with a material in order to conduct resin injection in a short time and at a lower pressure (Kaneko [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches and wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one port which is operatively connected to the at least one feed channel for fluid communication therewith (Col. 11 25-35 vacuum port assembly 292, Fig. 2 shown having a feed channel being the tube).
Regarding claim 7, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches and wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one distributor (Col. 11 25-35 vacuum port assembly 292, Fig. 2 shown having a distributor, being the connection to the film 216).
Regarding claims 13, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches, wherein the vacuum hood has at least one sensor associated therewith (Col. 8 lines 1-6 a sensor element).
Regarding claim 14, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches wherein the vacuum hood comprises a fixing device having at least one lug and at least one opening (Col. 8 lines 15-20 coupler 224 and hole 256).
Regarding claim 15, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 14, and Spalding teaches wherein the at least one lug is connected in one piece to the vacuum hood (Col. 8 lines 15-20 coupler 224 and hole 256 in film 216 being the vacuum bag).
Regarding claim 16, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches wherein the vacuum hood is made of at least one of a castable structural material and an injection mouldable structural material (Col. 6 lines 13-16 a vacuum bag made of a suitable polymer film (or other suitable material).
Regarding claim 17, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but Spalding and Bitterlich are silent on wherein the structural material of the vacuum hood is a silicone material.
However, Kaneko teaches wherein the structural material of the vacuum hood is a silicone material ([0054] bagging film 7 being a silicone rubber).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding and Bitterlich to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have the structural material of the vacuum hood be a silicone material in order to have a material that allows for the formation of grooves (Kaneko [0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, and Spalding teaches wherein at least one additional layer is provided which is releasably connected to the vacuum hood via a connecting device (Col. 9 lines 40-46 film 216 is sealed with adhesive interface 280).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366), Bitterlich (DE102013223284), and Kaneko (US20060249877), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Brunel (EP2796265A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 3, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but are silent on wherein the coil device comprises a plurality of spiral-shaped windings, wherein the spiral-shaped windings are arranged in at least one of rows and columns.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Brunel
However, Brunel teaches wherein the coil device comprises a plurality of spiral-shaped windings ([0063] plurality of coils, with windings, the coils having diameter), wherein the spiral-shaped windings are arranged in at least one of rows and columns (Fig. 3 plurality of inductive coils, in at least one row and column).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Brunel to have a plurality of coils being in rows and columns so that coils can be provided according the required dimension, where the coils are as small as possible and provide good thermal efficiency (Brunel [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but are silent on wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood.
However, Brunel teaches wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood ([0065] silicone base material for the flexible sheet, being thermally insulating).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Brunel to have a thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood in order to have a layer to conform to the surface to be repaired (Brunel [0010]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366), Bitterlich (DE102013223284), and Kaneko (US20060249877), applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE202015100080 with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but are silent on wherein the carrier is formed by at least one of a fibre structure and a mesh structure,
However, DE202015100080 teaches wherein the carrier is formed by at least one of a fibre structure and a mesh structure, wherein the coil device is held to the carrier via one or more holding threads ([0042] carrier is a mesh, having wire sewn into the mesh).
Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko, and DE202015100080 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters used for curing. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of DE202015100080 in order to have the carrier be a mesh where the coil device is held by threads in order to make it easy to connect a high frequency stand in a defined geometric position with spiral windings of a carrier (DE202015100080 [0042]).
Claims 9-10 and 22-26, and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Bitterlich (DE102013223284), and further in view of Kaneko (US20060249877) and Coxon (US 20160082710).
Regarding claim 9, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but are silent on wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the openings of all channels of the channel structure at the underside is at least 30% of the total area of the underside.
PNG
media_image5.png
764
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2A-F of Coxon
However, Coxon teaches wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the openings of all channels of the channel structure at the underside is at least 30% of the total area of the underside ([0032] plurality of ridges/cavities on the bottom of film 54, show to be at least 30% of the total area Fig. 2A-F).
Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko, and Coxon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters used for curing. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Coxon to have a plurality of openings on the underside in order to allow the film to conform to surface features and contours on a top surface (Coxon [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 1, but are silent on wherein the channels of the channel structure are arranged uniformly across the underside.
However, Coxon teaches wherein the channels of the channel structure are arranged uniformly across the underside ([0032] plurality of ridges/cavities on the bottom of film 54, shown to be arranged uniformly Fig. 2A-E).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Coxon to have a plurality of uniform openings on the underside in order to allow the film to conform to surface features and contours on a top surface (Coxon [0022]).
PNG
media_image6.png
588
914
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Spalding
Regarding claim 22, Spalding teaches a vacuum hood apparatus, comprising: a vacuum hood (Col. 11 lines 20-25 chamber 282); wherein the vacuum hood has an underside which, in operation of the vacuum hood apparatus, faces towards a workpiece (Fig. 3 vacuum chamber 282 having an underside that faces composite material 204, to be cured); wherein the vacuum hood comprises a channel device comprising at least one feed channel and a channel structure having at least one channel at the underside (Col. 11 25-35 a vacuum port assembly 292 coupled to film 216 as depicted in FIG. 2, but not shown in FIG. 3, opening on the underside of the film); and wherein the at least one channel of the channel structure is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside and is operatively connected to the at least one feed channel for fluid communication therewith (Col. 11 25-35 vacuum port assembly 292 coupled to film 216, to apply pressure to the composite material, by evacuating the vacuum chamber) but is silent on wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the openings of all channels of the channel structure at the underside is at least 30 % of the total area of the underside, a fiber reinforcing structure which is integrated in the structural material of the vacuum hood to form a single component, wherein the vacuum hood comprises a reinforcing structure which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood, a channel device comprising at least one feed channel, and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside.
Bitterlich teaches wherein the vacuum hood (1) further comprises a fiber reinforcing structure (5) which is integrated in the structural material (7) of the vacuum hood (1) to form a single component (Fig. 3, [0029] where reinforcing fibers 5 are integrated into the heat-activated binder 7 of component 1)
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding to incorporate the teachings of Bitterlich to have a vacuum hood comprising a fiber reinforcing structure integrated into the structural material of the vacuum hood to form a single component to allow the heating component to be easy to handle and flexible, as a product of having the fiber embedded into the structural material of the heating component, while also providing a low mass heating product (Bitterlich [0005]).
Spalding and Bitterlich are silent on a channel device comprising at least one feed channel and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside.
Kaneko teaches a channel device comprising at least one feed channel ([0041] resin inlet 10); and wherein the channel device comprises a channel structure comprising at least one channel at the underside of the vacuum hood, which channel is, at an opening thereof, open towards the underside ( [0041] Fig. 1 the bagging film 7 has, at one side, resin injection grooves 8 a, 8 b, 8 c and 8 d and resin discharge grooves 9 a, 9 b and 9 c, shown to be o the underside of bagging film 7 towards fiber layer 1).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding and Bitterlich to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have a channel device with a feed channel and channel structure on the underside of the vacuum hood in order to increase the speed of diffusing resin into a reinforcing fiber layer (Kaneko [0006]).
Coxon teaches wherein a sum of cross-sectional areas of the openings of all channels of the channel structure at the underside is at least 30% of the total area of the underside ([0032] plurality of ridges/cavities on the bottom of film 54, show to be at least 30% of the total area Fig. 2A-F).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Coxon to have a plurality of openings on the underside in order to allow the film to conform to surface features and contours on a top surface (Coxon [0022]).
Regarding claim 23, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach the vacuum hood apparatus in accordance with claim 22, but Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko are silent on wherein the channels of the channel structure are arranged uniformly across the underside and in particular wherein, in a portion of area of the underside.
However, Coxon teaches the channels of the channel structure are arranged uniformly across the underside and in particular wherein, in a portion of area of the underside ([0032] plurality of ridges/cavities on the bottom of film 54, shown to be arranged uniformly Fig. 2A-E).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Coxon to have a plurality of uniform openings on the underside in order to allow the film to conform to surface features and contours on a top surface (Coxon [0022]).
Regarding claim 24, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and but Spalding, Bitterlich, and Coxon are silent on wherein (i) a negative pressure region is creatable between the underside and the workpiece and (ii) the workpiece is infiltratable with a material via the at least one feed channel.
Kaneko teaches a negative pressure region is creatable between the underside and the workpiece and (ii) the workpiece is infiltratable with a material via the at least one feed channel ([0044] resin inlet 10 injects resin after gas has been evacuated).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Coxon to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have a negative pressure region and the workpiece being infiltratble with a material in order to conduct resin injection in a short time and at a lower pressure (Kaneko [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and Spalding teaches and wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one port which is operatively connected to the at least one feed channel for fluid communication therewith (Col. 11 25-35 vacuum port assembly 292, Fig. 2 shown having a feed channel being the tube).
Regarding claim 26, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and Spalding teaches and wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one distributor (Col. 11 25-35 vacuum port assembly 292, Fig. 2 shown having a distributor, being the connection to the film 216).
Regarding claims 29, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and Spalding teaches, wherein the vacuum hood has at least one sensor associated therewith (Col. 8 lines 1-6 a sensor element).
Regarding claim 30, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claims 1, and Spalding teaches wherein the vacuum hood comprises a fixing device having at least one lug and at least one opening (Col. 8 lines 15-20 coupler 224 and hole 256).
Regarding claim 31, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 30, and Spalding teaches wherein the at least one lug is connected in one piece to the vacuum hood (Col. 8 lines 15-20 coupler 224 and hole 256 in film 216 being the vacuum bag).
Regarding claim 32, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and Spalding teaches wherein the vacuum hood is made of at least one of a castable structural material and an injection mouldable structural material (Col. 6 lines 13-16 a vacuum bag made of a suitable polymer film (or other suitable material).
Regarding claim 33, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, but Spalding, Bitterlich, and Coxon are silent on wherein the structural material of the vacuum hood is a silicone material.
However, Kaneko teaches wherein the structural material of the vacuum hood is a silicone material ([0054] bagging film 7 being a silicone rubber).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Coxon to incorporate the teachings of Kaneko to have the structural material of the vacuum hood be a silicone material in order to have a material that allows for the formation of grooves (Kaneko [0054]).
Regarding claim 34, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, and Spalding teaches wherein at least one additional layer is provided which is releasably connected to the vacuum hood via a connecting device (Col. 9 lines 40-46 film 216 is sealed with adhesive interface 280).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366), Bitterlich (DE102013223284), and Kaneko (US20060249877) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of Kia (US 20150001768).
Regarding claims 19, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach the induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 18, but are silent on wherein the connecting device comprises at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection.
However, Kia teaches wherein the connecting device comprises at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection ([0009] magnetic system, to bring portions together and form a seal).
Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko, and Kia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters used for curing. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Kia have the connecting device comprise at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection so that the required pressure may be suitably adjusted by the control of the magnets (Kia [0009]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366), Bitterlich (DE102013223284), Kaneko (US20060249877), and Coxon (US 20160082710) as applied to claim 22, in further view of Brunel (EP2796265A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 28, Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko teach an induction heating apparatus in accordance with claim 22, but are silent on wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood.
However, Brunel teaches wherein the vacuum hood comprises at least one thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood ([0065] silicone base material for the flexible sheet, being thermally insulating).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Brunel to have a thermal insulation layer which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood in order to have a layer to conform to the surface to be repaired (Brunel [0010]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366), Bitterlich (DE102013223284), Kaneko (US20060249877), and Coxon (US 20160082710) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kia (US 20150001768).
Regarding claim 35, Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko and Coxon teach the vacuum hood apparatus in accordance with claim 34, but are silent on wherein the connecting device comprises at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection.
However, Kia teaches wherein the connecting device comprises at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection ([0009] magnetic system, to bring portions together and form a seal).
Spalding, Bitterlich, Kaneko, and Kia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heaters used for curing. It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding, Bitterlich, and Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Kia have the connecting device comprise at least one of (i) at least one magnet and (ii) at least one hook-and-loop connection so that the required pressure may be suitably adjusted by the control of the magnets (Kia [0009]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Bitterlich (DE102013223284).
Regarding claim 36, Spalding teaches an induction heating apparatus, comprising: at least one coil layer having a coil device and a carrier, on which carrier the coil device is arranged (Col. 1 lines 1-10 heating elements 220; heater mat 212); wherein the at least one coil layer is of flexurally flexible configuration (Col. 1 lines 1-10 heater mat 212); wherein the at least one coil layer is embedded in the structural material of a vacuum hood (Col. 11 lines 20-25 Heater mat 212 may be disposed in vacuum chamber 282); and wherein the vacuum hood having the at least one coil layer is of flexurally flexible configuration (Col. 6 lines 10-15 vacuum chamber having flexible wall 136) but is silent on wherein the vacuum hood comprises a reinforcing structure which is embedded in the structural material of the vacuum hood, and wherein the fiber reinforcing structure prevents the formation of ripples and wrinkles in the vacuum hood.
Bitterlich teaches wherein the vacuum hood (1) further comprises a fiber reinforcing structure (5) which is integrated in the structural material (7) of the vacuum hood (1) to form a single component (Fig. 3, [0029] where reinforcing fibers 5 are integrated into the heat-activated binder 7 of component 1)
It would have been obvious to have modified Spalding to incorporate the teachings of Bitterlich to have a vacuum hood comprising a fiber reinforcing structure integrated into the structural material of the vacuum hood to form a single component to allow the heating component to be easy to handle and flexible, as a product of having the fiber embedded into the structural material of the heating component, while also providing a low mass heating product (Bitterlich [0005])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 8/1/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Duffy (US 2006/0246796) and Kaneko (US20060249877), claim 22 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Duffy (US 2006/0246796), Kaneko (US20060249877), Coxon (US 20160082710) and claim 36 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Duffy (US 2006/0246796) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of claim 1 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of newly cited reference Bitterlich (DE102013223284) and Kaneko (US20060249877), claim 22 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of newly cited reference Bitterlich (DE102013223284), Kaneko (US20060249877), Coxon (US 20160082710) and claim 36 under Spalding (US 9788366) in view of Newly cited reference Bitterlich (DE102013223284).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/14/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761