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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoles, et al. (US 5,916,469) in view of Pfaffmann, et al. (US 2004/0200550).
In reference to Claim 10, Scoles discloses a welding susceptor used to produce a preform for a composite member (12:50-53) (an apparatus configured to form a composite member), the apparatus comprising: preparing a lay-up of reinforcement and thermoplastic, wherein the lay-up is non-conductive (12:50-67) (a preform tool to shape a non-conductive into a preform for the composite member (Examiner understands the apparatus is capable of shaping a non-conductive lay-up of dry reinforcement layers and thermoplastic interlayers, but this is non-limiting functional language)); and inducing heat in the tool using a susceptor on the thermoplastic sheet (12:62) (a controller to induce heat in the preform tool to a transition temperature range); wherein pressing the lay-up between dies (15:45-63) (the preform tool applies pressure to the lay-up between complementary dies (Examiner understands the apparatus is capable of applying pressure while the lay-up is heated to the transition temperature range where the thermoplastic interlayers are tacky, to shape the lay-up into the preform, but this is non-limiting functional language)), and inducing heat in the tool using a susceptor on the thermoplastic sheet (12:62), the dies are used for the parts (14:23-48).
Scoles does not disclose a susceptor enclosed within the shaping portion of at least one of the complimentary dies, or the susceptor is coextensive with a shaping surface of the shaping portion of the at least one of the complementary dies.
Pfaffmann discloses the distance of the one or more susceptors from the inner surface of the die can be uniform or varied, so as to once again obtain a tailored heating profile of the metal blank within the die ([0172]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Scoles using the susceptor that shapes along the shape of the mold like Pfaffmann because the shaped susceptors allow for more even heating of the material being molded (Fig. 34). One would have been motivated to use the shaped susceptor of Pfaffmann in the apparatus of Scoles because the susceptor would add support ([0172]). The reasonable expectation of success would be an evenly heated preform.
In reference to Claim 11, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, as described above.
Scoles discloses releasing the pressure and applying a coolant (16:14-30) (the preform tool removes the pressure applied; and the controller controls a cooling device to cool the preform below the transition temperature range to solidify the thermoplastic interlayers).
In reference to Claim 12, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, as described above.
Scoles discloses a thermosetting material used in the preform (19:58-65) (a molding tool that infuses the preform having a near-net shape for the composite member with a thermosetting matrix material, and cures the thermosetting matrix material to produce the composite member).
In reference to Claim 13, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, as described above.
Scoles discloses an induction coil (14:29-48) (an induction coil that encompasses the preform tool; wherein the controller instructs a power supply to apply a current to the induction coil to generate a magnetic field that induces heat in a susceptor in the preform tool to the transition temperature range).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 13, as described above.
Scoles discloses overlaying a susceptor on the thermoplastic sheet (12:62) (a surface area of the susceptor corresponds with a surface area of the lay-up).
In reference to Claim 15, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 13, as described above.
Scoles discloses reaching elevated temperatures during autoclave curing (23:8-19) (a material selected for the susceptor reaches a maximum temperature within the transition temperature range in the presence of the magnetic field from the induction coil).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, as described above.
Scoles discloses the object is made for an aircraft (19:1-3) (the composite member is formed for an aircraft).
In reference to Claim 18, Scoles discloses a welding susceptor used to produce a preform for a composite member (12:50-53) (a system configured to form a composite member), the apparatus comprising: preparing a lay-up of reinforcement and thermoplastic, wherein the lay-up is non-conductive (12:50-67) (a preform tool to shape a non-conductive into a preform for the composite member (Examiner understands the apparatus is capable of shaping a non-conductive lay-up of dry reinforcement layers and thermoplastic interlayers, but this is non-limiting functional language)); and inducing heat in the tool using a susceptor on the thermoplastic sheet (12:62) (a controller that instructs a power supply to apply a current to the induction coil to generate a magnetic field that induces heat in the susceptor up to a transition temperature range that causes the thermoplastic interlayers of the lay-up to become tacky without liquefying (it is Examiner’s understanding that if the temperature is sufficient to create tackiness in the thermoplastic interlayers then it has been heated to the transition temperature range)); wherein pressing the lay-up between dies (15:45-63) (the preform tool applies pressure to the lay-up between the dies (Examiner understands the apparatus is capable of applying pressure while the lay-up is heated to the transition temperature range where the thermoplastic interlayers are tacky, to shape the lay-up into the preform, but this is non-limiting functional language)), and inducing heat in the tool using a susceptor on the thermoplastic sheet (12:62), the dies are used for the parts (14:23-48).
Scoles does not disclose a susceptor enclosed within the shaping portion of at least one of the complimentary dies, or the susceptor is coextensive with a shaping surface of the shaping portion of the at least one of the complementary dies.
Pfaffmann discloses the distance of the one or more susceptors from the inner surface of the die can be uniform or varied, so as to once again obtain a tailored heating profile of the metal blank within the die ([0172]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Scoles using the susceptor that shapes along the shape of the mold like Pfaffmann because the shaped susceptors allow for more even heating of the material being molded (Fig. 34). One would have been motivated to use the shaped susceptor of Pfaffmann in the apparatus of Scoles because the susceptor would add support ([0172]). The reasonable expectation of success would be an evenly heated preform.
In reference to Claim 19, modified Scoles discloses the system of Claim 18, as described above.
Scoles discloses a thermosetting material used in the preform (19:58-65) (a molding tool that infuses the preform having a near-net shape of the composite member with a thermosetting matrix material, and cures the thermosetting matrix material to produce the composite member).
In reference to Claim 20, modified Scoles discloses the system of Claim 18, as described above.
Scoles discloses reaching elevated temperatures during autoclave curing (23:8-19) (a material selected for the susceptor reaches a maximum temperature within the transition temperature range in the presence of the magnetic field from the induction coil).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoles, et al. (US 5,916,469) in view of Pfaffmann, et al. (US 2004/0200550) as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Tsotsis, et al. (US 2008/0289743).
In reference to Claim 16, modified Scoles discloses the apparatus of Claim 10, as described above.
Scoles does not disclose the lay-up comprises a thermoplastic interlayer disposed between each of the reinforcement layers.
Tsotsis discloses a lay-up of dry reinforcement layers and thermoplastic interlayers ([0034]) and [0054]) (the lay-up comprises a thermoplastic interlayer disposed between each of the reinforcement layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the apparatus of Scoles using the lay-up of dry reinforcement layers and thermoplastic interlayers of Tsotsis because the layers strengthen the whole ([0034]). One would have been motivated to use the layers of Tsotsis in the apparatus of Scoles because the heat and pressure of the apparatus would properly combine the layers ([0036]). The reasonable expectation of success would be a preform with layers of reinforcement and thermoplastic ([0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM EST.
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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights