DETAILED ACTION
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 is 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 since 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 teaching/suggestion.
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.
Claims 8-10 is 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 since 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 teaching/suggestion.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While it is true that Shepherd teaches that “Reuse of the bag is thus not preferred”, this does not mean that the Shepherd bag is not reusable as Applicant has argued. Teaching a preference for not reusing a bag is not a teaching away from the claimed structure of the bag, which still appears to be met by Shepherd in view of the other cited references. Applicant may wish to consider reciting any structural differences which improve the instant bag over the prior art rather than a statement about intended use/reuse.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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