DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/22/2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 12 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-19 remain pending with claims 16-19 withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendment has overcome the § 112(b) rejection set forth in the office action of 3/20/2025. Therefore, the § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that BUEHLER teaches that the first sled is used to heat the material and the second sled is used to cool the material. Both sleds are stated to continuously move, but the patent also states that the material stops briefly while being molded/shaped and that this is when cutting of the material occurs, during the stopped time period. Thus, BUEHLER does not teach a continual movement process as present claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though BUEHLER teaches that at one point the sleds stop, the overall process is continuous. The Applicant also admits this in the Remarks of 9/22/2025 (“Both sleds are stated to continuously move” [pg. 6]). Furthermore, the Examiner would like to note that the recitation in the claims of “wherein the first and second movable pulling sleds engage the initial shaped material and the subsequent formed material in a sequential, continual movement process of back-and-forth translational motion in unison to form an article that is three-dimensional in one or more of a longitudinal or transverse direction” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the Examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that BUEHLER discloses two sled molds as presently claimed, it is clear that the two sled molds of BUEHLER would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
The Applicant argues that that claim 12 states that an intermediate section having the length L of the formed material is positioned between the first and second pulling sleds. This is not taught by BUEHLER, which shows the formed materials to be positioned back-to-back (see Fig. 2 of BUEHLER).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “wherein an intermediate section is positioned between the first pulling sled and the second pulling sled and the length L of the formed material is positioned between the first and second pulling sleds in the intermediate section” is with respect to an article worked upon (intermediate section) and not a positively recited element of the apparatus/structure (movable first pulling sled). Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (intermediate section) by a structure (movable first pulling sled) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
The Applicant argues that claim 12 requires an intermediate section having a length L between the first and second pulling sleds. SUMERAK shows movement by one sled from point A to point B, at which point the second sled picks up the material. Thus the Applicant submits that SUMERAK does not teach the features of claim 12. In addition, SUMERAK does not teach continual movement, as taught by the instant claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the arguments are towards an intended use of the apparatus and about the article worked upon.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(Currently Amended)” should read “(Withdrawn-Currently Amended). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(Original)” should read “(Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(Original)” should read “(Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(Original)” should read “(Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehler et al. (U.S. 10,131,097), hereinafter BUEHLER, or in the alternative, in view of Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK.
Regarding claim 1, BUEHLER teaches: A pulforming system for forming a three-dimensional article (BUEHLER teaches a pulforming system [Abstract; Fig. 1]) comprising: a first material comprising a plurality of fibers and an optional core (BUEHLER teaches a plurality of fibers (3) and a core (2) [Fig. 1; Col. 10, lines 35-42]); a resin injection system for injecting resin into the first material to impregnate the resin into the first material (BUEHLER teaches a resin injection system (5) to impregnate the material [Fig. 1; Col. 10, lines 44-46]); a preform die for forming the first material into an initial shaped material (BUEHLER teaches a preform die (7) for shaping the material [Col. 10, line 47]); a movable first pulling sled coupled to a forming tool that closes on the initial shaped material to move the initial shaped material and form the initial shaped material by heating and at least partially cooling the initial shaped material into a formed material having a length L (BUEHLER teaches a movable first pulling shed (8) coupled to a heating mould [Col. 10, lines 48-51; Figs. 1-2]. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to note that the recitation in the claims of “that closes on the initial shaped material to move the initial shaped material and form the initial shaped material by heating and at least partially cooling the initial shaped material into a formed material having a length L” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the Examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that BUEHLER discloses two sled molds as presently claimed, it is clear that the two sled molds of BUEHLER would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.); a movable second pulling sled having a clamping tool for clamping down and moving the formed material (BUEHLER teaches a second movable carriage (9) having a mould and moving the material [Figs. 1-2; Col. 10,, lines 48-51]); and a cutting station having a cutting mechanism for cutting the formed material into a final product (BUEHLER teaches a cutting station (11) for cutting the material [Figs. 1-2; Col. 10, line 52]), wherein the first and second movable pulling sleds engage the initial shaped material and the subsequent formed material in a sequential, continual movement process of back-and-forth translational motion in unison to form an article that is three-dimensional in one or more of a longitudinal or transverse direction (BUEHLER teaches the carriage moulds engage the initial shaped material and the subsequent formed material in a continual movement process of back and forth motion in unison to form an article [Figs. 1-2; Col. 3, lines 46-64]. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to note that the recitation in the claims of “wherein the first and second movable pulling sleds engage the initial shaped material and the subsequent formed material in a sequential, continual movement process of back-and-forth translational motion in unison to form an article that is three-dimensional in one or more of a longitudinal or transverse direction” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the Examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that BUEHLER discloses two sled molds as presently claimed, it is clear that the two sled molds of BUEHLER would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.).
If the Applicant remains unconvinced that the first sled is not capable of cooling and heating the material, in the sane field of endeavor, pultrusion, SUMERAK teaches a forming tool (32) that heats and cools the formed material after it is cured [Col. 7, lines 40-54]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BUEHLER, to have the molds heat and cool the cured form, as suggested by SUMERAK, in order to avoid surface precure [Col. 7, lines 50-55].
Regarding claim 2, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the article has varying planes, geometries, or radii along multiple planes (BUEHLER teaches the process is suitable for complex shapes or variations of the cross section in the workpiece [Col. 2, lines 28-33]).
Regarding claim 3, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the plurality of fibers comprises glass or fabrics (BUEHLER teaches the fibers comprise glass [Col. 4, lines 38-41]).
Regarding claim 4, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the resin comprises polyester, polyurethane, vinyl ester, epoxy, phenolic, or thermoplastics (BUEHLER teaches the resin can be polyester resins [Col. 5, lines 25-30]).
Regarding claim 5, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the core comprises a foam insert (BUEHLER teaches the core is a foam core [Col. 3, lines 22-24]).
Regarding claim 6, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the forming tool heats the initial shaped material to cure it and cools the formed material after it has cured (BUEHLER teaches the mould heats the initial material [Col. 3, lines 29-30; Col. 6, lines 47-53]).
Regarding claim 6, BUEHLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, pultrusion, SUMERAK teaches a forming tool (32) that heats and cools the formed material after it is cured [Col. 7, lines 40-54]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BUEHLER, to have the molds heat and cool the cured form, as suggested by SUMERAK, in order to avoid surface precure [Col. 7, lines 50-55].
Regarding claim 7, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the forming tool is heated to between about 280°F and about 400°F (BUEHLER teaches the temperature is heated generally from 100 to 300°C (280-400°F is 137 to 204°C) [Col. 5, lines 66-67]).
Regarding claim 8, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the clamping tool of the second pull sled is pads shaped to match the shape of the finished part that exits the forming tool (BUEHLER shows the second pulling mould matches the shape of the finished part [Figs. 1-2]).
Regarding claim 10, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the first and second pull sleds are positioned at heights and a spacing that is based upon the article being formed (BUEHLER shows the first and second carriages are positioned at heights and a spacing based upon the article [Figs. 1-2; Col. 6, lines 12-16]).
Regarding claim 11, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the system cures the formed material at least partially (BUEHLER teaches the system cures the material [Col. 10,lines 20-25]).
Regarding claim 12, BUEHLER teaches: wherein an intermediate section is positioned between the first pulling sled and the second pulling sled and the length L of the formed material is positioned between the first and second pulling sleds in the intermediate section (BUEHLER shows an intermediate section positioned in between the pulling moulds [Figs. 1-2]. BUEHLER teaches the precise length will be calculated by the person skill in the art in particular from the operating speed [Col. 11, lines 10-19]. Furthermore, the limitation “wherein an intermediate section is positioned between the first pulling sled and the second pulling sled and the length L of the formed material is positioned between the first and second pulling sleds in the intermediate section” is with respect to an article worked upon (intermediate section) and not a positively recited element of the apparatus/structure (movable first pulling sled). Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (intermediate section) by a structure (movable first pulling sled) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.).
Regarding claim 12, SUMERAK further teaches: wherein an intermediate section is positioned between the first pulling sled and the second pulling sled and a formed material is positioned between the first and second pulling sleds (SUMERAK also teaches an intermediate section between pullers [Figs. 1, 4, 4a]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BUEHLER, by having an intermediate section between pullers, as suggested by SUMERAK, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 13, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the forming tool comprises a top part and a bottom part that are movable relative to one another that together define a shape for the formed material (BUEHLER teaches the forming tool (8) has a bottom and top part that are movable to shape the material [Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 3-5]).
Regarding claim 14, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the pads geometrically match the shape of the formed material (BUEHLER teaches the moulds match the shape of the formed material [Figs. 1-2]).
Regarding claim 15, BUEHLER teaches: wherein the first and second pulling sleds move simultaneously in unison (BUEHLER teaches the carriages (8, 9) are pulled simultaneously [Col. 7, lines 10-13; Col. 3, lines 39-45]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehler et al. (U.S. 10,131,097), hereinafter BUEHLER, and Sumerak (U.S. 5,556,496), hereinafter SUMERAK, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kelly (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0065302), hereinafter KELLY.
Regarding claim 9, BUEHLER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the pads are cast urethane pads. In the same field of endeavor, pultrusion, KELLY teaches the pull blocks are made of durable urethane foam [0140; Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify BUEHLER, by having the pads be of urethan foam, as suggested by KELLY, in order to prevent deformation [0140].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748