DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 8, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 20 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.
As to claim 20, claim 10 already recites “a raised pattern having a regular, repeating arrangement and defining a lower pathway;” The Examiner believes that the limitation “the lower air pathway varies in size and/or shape across the embossed vacuum bag film” in claim 20 is contrary to the previous limitation in claim 10 since it is unclear how the pattern can be both regular and repeating but also vary in size and shape.
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.
Claims 8-10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 5,129,813) in view of Kipp (US 20080106007).
As to claim 10, Shepherd teaches a vacuum bagging system capable of performing the recited intended use comprising:
A reusable embossed vacuum bag (1) comprising an upper layer with a low permeability (polyamide) and a raised “geometrically regular” pattern (5:28) that repeats (5:66-68) and defines a lower air pathway (Figs. 1, 2, and 4);
a sealant tape (29) configured to seal the embossed vacuum bag film to the mold;
a valve (31, compare to Applicant’s Fig. 1, item 102) in communication with an interior space between the embossed vacuum bag film (1) and the mold (27);
wherein the vacuum bagging system can be provided without a breather or release film separate from the vacuum bag film (8:52-54).
Shepherd does not specifically teach (a) a lower layer comprising a polyolefin or fluoropolymer integral with the upper layer configured to self-release from the part and having a regular repeating arrangement defining a lower air pathway and wherein the lower film is bonded to the sealant tape sealing the multi-layer embossed vacuum bag film to the mold during the process of curing the composite part, and (b) a hose coupled to the valve.
Regarding (a), Kipp teaches that a Teflon/fluoropolymer release sheet or coating ([0069]) can be applied to an inner surface of a vacuum bag. Since Kipp does not teach applying the release sheet or coating in a limited area or pattern, it is interpreted that the lower film extends across an entirety of the bag. When the Kipp Teflon release coating is applied to the inner surface of the Shepherd polyamide vacuum bag, the combination would provide an integral polyamide upper layer with low permeability, and a lower fluoropolymer release coating configured to self-release from the composite part which follows the Shepherd raised “geometrically regular” pattern (5:28) that repeats (5:66-68) to define a lower air pathway (Figs. 1, 2, and 4). Additionally, in the combination, one would have provided the Kipp lower film bonded to the Shepherd mold using the Shepherd tape (29). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kipp Teflon release coating to the inner surface of the Shepherd vacuum bag because:
Shepherd already teaches/suggests a release sheet (11) between the bag and composite, and Kipp provides a release material in a similar location between the vacuum bag and the composite within the scope of Shepherd’s suggestion. A reasonable expectation of success would be evident in view of the similar apparatuses in Shepherd and Kipp.
One of ordinary skill would have viewed the Kipp release material to be the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Shepherd provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by incorporating a release layer with the vacuum bag. The prior art of Kipp contained a comparable device similar to Shepherd improved in the same way as the claimed invention by providing the release layer directly onto the inner surface of the vacuum bag. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known improvement in the same way to the Shepherd device to provide the predictable result of improving the release of the vacuum bag from composite material, a result that is consistent with Shepherd’s disclosure at 8:44-54.
Regarding (b), Kipp teaches that a vacuum bag can be connected to a vacuum source (Fig. 6(b)), and the solid line or the piece between 162 and the solid connecting the Kipp vacuum bag to the vacuum source would inherently or obviously be a hose. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kipp hose into Shepherd because Shepherd already teaches/suggests applying vacuum to the vacuum bag and Kipp teaches a device for connecting a vacuum bag to a vacuum source within the scope of the Shepherd teaching/suggestion.
As to claims 8 and 9, the Shepherd/Kipp structure has the same structure as one that would have been co-extruded or laminated, and therefore the structure meets these claims.
As to claim 20, the Shepherd/Kipp structure could vary in shape over the reusable embossed vacuum bag (see Figs. 1-2, item 1). Also note the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
As to claim 21, this claim recites details about how the vacuum bag film would behave during a curing process with unknown/unstated steps that are not part of the claim scope. However, the Shepherd/Kipp structure is configured to maintain its structure (see Fig. 2) and would maintain this configuration if no/low vacuum were not applied during curing.
Claims 8-10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd (US 5,129,813) in view of Kipp (US 20080106007) and Greene (US 20050161092).
As to claim 10, Shepherd teaches a vacuum bagging system capable of performing the recited intended use comprising:
A reusable embossed vacuum bag (1) comprising an upper layer with a low permeability (polyamide) and a raised “geometrically regular” pattern (5:28) that repeats (5:66-68) and defines a lower air pathway (Figs. 1, 2, and 4);
a tape sealant (29) configured to seal the embossed vacuum bag film to the mold;
a vacuum port (31) in communication with an interior space between the embossed vacuum bag film (1) and the mold (27);
wherein the vacuum bagging system can be provided without a breather or release film separate from the vacuum bag film (8:52-54).
Shepherd does not specifically teach (a) a lower layer coupled to the upper layer configured to self-release from the part wherein the lower film is bonded to the sealant tape sealing the multi-layer embossed vacuum bag film to the mold during the process of curing the composite part, and (b) a hose coupled to the valve. In this interpretation of the claimed “valve”, Shepherd also does not specifically teach that the vacuum port actually controls flow, and therefore Shepherd may be silent to the claimed “valve”.
Regarding (a), Kipp teaches that a Teflon/fluoropolymer release sheet or coating ([0069]) can be applied to an inner surface of a vacuum bag. Since Kipp does not teach applying the release sheet or coating in a limited area or pattern, it is interpreted that the lower film extends across an entirety of the bag. When the Kipp Teflon release coating is applied to the inner surface of the Shepherd polyamide vacuum bag, the combination would provide an integral polyamide upper layer with low permeability, and a lower fluoropolymer release coating configured to self-release from the composite part which follows the Shepherd raised “geometrically regular” pattern (5:28) that repeats (5:66-68) to define a lower air pathway (Figs. 1, 2, and 4). Additionally, in the combination, one would have provided the Kipp lower film bonded to the Shepherd mold using the Shepherd tape (29). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kipp Teflon release coating to the inner surface of the Shepherd vacuum bag because:
Shepherd already suggests a release sheet (11) between the bag and composite, and Kipp provides a release material in a similar location between the vacuum bag and the composite within the scope of Shepherd’s suggestion. A reasonable expectation of success would be evident in view of the similar apparatuses in Shepherd and Kipp.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the Kipp release material to be the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Shepherd provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by incorporating a release layer with the vacuum bag. The prior art of Kipp contained a comparable device similar to Shepherd improved in the same way as the claimed invention by providing the release layer directly onto the inner surface of the vacuum bag. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known improvement in the same way to the Shepherd device to provide the predictable result of improving the release of the vacuum bag from composite material, a result that is consistent with Shepherd’s disclosure at 8:44-54.
Regarding the hose in (b), Kipp teaches that a vacuum bag can be connected to a vacuum source (Fig. 6(b)), and the solid line or the piece between 162 and the solid connecting the Kipp vacuum bag to the vacuum source would inherently or obviously be a hose. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kipp hose into Shepherd because Shepherd already teaches/suggests applying vacuum to the vacuum bag and Kipp teaches a device for connecting a vacuum bag to a vacuum source within the scope of the Shepherd teaching/suggestion.
Regarding the valve in (b), Greene teaches a vacuum check valve for use with vacuum bagged composite parts. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Greene valve into the Shepherd apparatus because (i) this is an obvious interchangeable substitute for the Shepherd vacuum port, or (ii) this is an obvious improvement that prevents backflow of air into the vacuum bag.
As to claims 8 and 9, the Shepherd/Kipp structure has the same structure as one that would have been co-extruded or laminated, and therefore the structure meets these claims.
As to claim 20, the Shepherd/Kipp structure could vary in shape over the reusable embossed vacuum bag (see Figs. 1-2, item 1). Also note the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
As to claim 21, this claim recites details about how the vacuum bag film would behave during a curing process with unknown/unstated steps that are not part of the claim scope. However, the Shepherd/Kipp structure is configured to maintain its structure (see Fig. 2) and would maintain this configuration if no/low vacuum were not applied during curing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that the absence of a release film does not suggest the inclusion of a different release film because this is internally inconsistent. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reviewing Shepherd, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a release may be used or omitted as optional (8:44-54). There is no argument that Kipp is non-analogous, and when one of ordinary skill in the art views Kipp beside the Shepherd reference, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the use of Kipp’s release on the inner face of the Shepherd vacuum bag to be obvious. The rejection is not internally inconsistent because it provides the same benefit already stated by Shepherd (release of the vacuum bag from the composite) on the inner surface of a similar vacuum bag (from Kipp).
Applicant also argues on page 6 that Kipp discloses that when a release layer is used, it may be desirable to alter the finish of the upper surface of the completed composite article, and therefore Kipp would not follow Shepherd’s pattern as Kipp provides a release layer specifically tied to imparting a different texture to the surface of the composite article. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument seems to take one embodiment of Kipp and take that teaching as representative of the entire Kipp disclosure. However, the Examiner does not believe that this cited embodiment is necessarily representative of the entire disclosure, and even if it were, it is unclear how this would make the cited feature (a Teflon release coating) nonobvious for use in the Shepherd vacuum bag.
Applicant argues on page 7 that the addition of Greene in an alternative rejection has not shown that Greene would overcome the deficiencies Applicant believes exist in the pending rejection of claim 1. The Examiner maintains the rejections of claim 1, and notes that the portion of the rejection over Greene does not appear to be specifically argued aside from the combination of Shepherd and Kipp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
