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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The examiner assigned to the current application has been changed. The new examiner's name and contact information are stated at the end of this action. Applicant is requested to take note of the change.
Applicant's amendments filed on 01/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-9, 12-16, 18 and 21 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim objection
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the resin is infused with the carbon fiber” should read “wherein the carbon fiber is infused with resin” in order to be consistent with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 1-6, 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 2009/0047854, ‘854 hereafter) in view of Fergason et al (US 5,857,215, of record, '215 hereafter) as evidenced by Meegan et al (WO 2017/106550, of record, ‘550 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 14, ‘854 discloses a method of making a composite shell comprising a step of providing shaped resin infused fiber shell including carbon fiber having first side and a second side by using a first mold (Fig. 2 and Fig. 5, [0032]-[0037]), and a step of injection molding a resin such as ABS reading upon elastomer to form an inner over-molded elastomeric body on the first side by a second mold having two mold parts, which different from the first mold (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, [0038], [0039]). ‘854 also discloses that a transparent plastic layer, reading upon clear coating, can also be applied to the other side of the carbon fiber shell to protect fibrous surface from scratched and other damages ([0042]-[0043]). ‘854 does not specifically set forth that the infused carbon fiber shell is made by infusing carbon fiber with resin using a mold. However, it is known in the art, as evidenced by ‘215, that a carbon fiber shell comprising carbon fiber impregnated with resin can be made by injecting the resin into a mold in which the fiber has already been inserted, wherein the fiber can be infused with a resin using a mold to create a carbon fiber shell by a RTM process (C8, lines 33-45), wherein the RTM mold can be a single-sided mold as evidenced by ‘550 (See Fig 3 and 5 , page 1, lines 18-19; page 2, lines 1-2, of ‘550) and trimming the carbon fiber shell for the purpose of obtaining an accurate desired shape (column 19, lines 34-36). In light of these teachings, it is evident that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the infused carbon fiber shell can be made by infusing carbon fiber with resin using a mold by a RTM process, and then trimming the shell to obtain an accurate desired shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply these known techniques to render an infused carbon fiber shell having the shape as needed, because these known process steps predictably resulted in an infused carbon fiber shell having desired shape.
Regarding claim 5, infusing the fiber disclosed by ‘215 with resin is at elevated temperature (apply heat; C19, line 25).
Regarding claim 15, the trimming taught by ‘215 removes portions of the molded shell along the perimeter (edges; C19, lines 36-39).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 2009/0047854, ‘854 hereafter) in view of Fergason et al (US 5,857,215, of record, '215 hereafter) as evidenced by Meegan et al (WO 2017/106550, of record, ‘550 hereafter), further in view of Ushiyama et al (US2018/0155489, ‘489 hereafter)
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘854 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but the cite prior art does not expressly set forth that infusion of the fiber using an autoclave. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘489 teaches the production of a fiber reinforced composite using autoclave molding for the purpose of utilizing a known method for a fiber-reinforced composite (paragraph 0176). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an autoclave molding in order to utilize this known method for a fiber reinforced composite.
Claims 9, 12-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 2009/0047854, ‘854 hereafter) in view of Fergason et al (US 5,857,215, of record, '215 hereafter) as evidenced by as evidenced by Meegan et al (WO 2017/106550, of record, ‘550 hereafter), Potts (U.S. Patent No. 3,274,086, of record) and Hasegawa et al (JP 8 – 276454A, of record).
Regarding claims 9,12-13 and 21, modified ‘854 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but the cite prior art fails to disclose injection molding temperature and pressure as presently claimed. However, it is well-known in the art that the molding condition such as molding temperature, molding material providing temperature and molding pressure to be applied to a molded article directly depend upon the material being used in the molding process, as evidenced by Potts and Hasegawa (see citations in the previous office actions), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the molding conditions as needed, based on the elastomer being used in the composite shell, including the molding temperature and molding pressure as presently claimed, to render the molded composite shell having desired shape.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 2009/0047854, ‘854 hereafter) in view of Fergason et al (US 5,857,215, of record, '215 hereafter) as evidenced by Meegan et al (WO 2017/106550, of record, ‘550 hereafter) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shenderova et al (US 20090297828, of record, ‘828 hereafter).
Regarding claim 16, modified ‘854 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but cited prior art does not set forth that the clear coating layer blocking ultraviolet light. However, ‘828 teaches a clear coating layer can be used to block ultraviolet light for the purpose of protecting a surface ([0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a clear coating as taught by ‘828 to block ultraviolet light in order to protect composite shell of ‘854.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 2009/0047854, ‘854 hereafter) in view of Fergason et al (US 5,857,215, of record, '215 hereafter) as evidenced by Meegan et al (WO 2017/106550, of record, ‘550 hereafter) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tseng et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,427,344).
Regarding claim 18, modified ‘854 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but cited prior art does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon that instructs a processor to perform the method.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tseng et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon that instructs a processor to perform a process method (C7, lines 5-15) for molding a fiber reinforced composite (C2, lines 22-41, C7, lines 5-15). In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon, to store the molding process method in order to input instructions for the process by computer as taught by Tseng et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights