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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15-16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasch (US2012/0071286 A1) in view of Bosse (US5468138 A).
Regarding claim 1, Pasch discloses a molding process for the production of a cover wall section of a folded or corrugated gangway bellow in which the cover wall section has at least one multi-layer fabric that has a reinforcement and, at least on one side, a polymer coating [abstract], the process comprising the steps of:
A) providing at least one multi-layer fabric [0008];
B) draping the at least one fabric over a molding surface of a mold [0004, 0037];
C). stretching the at least one fabric across the molding (tensile cord [0034-0035] to form at least one fold or corrugation [0042] )
D). and curing the at least one fabric in such a way that the cover wall section is fixed in its shape [0013].
Although Pasch does not explicitly disclose gangway bellow or stretching the surface by at least one tension element, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the claims are directed to the method of make a product. Both products are directed to different types of belts in automobiles and therefore the same field of endeavor.
As for the tension element, same field of endeavor, Bosse, discloses gripping member 68 stretches the polymer element (column 7 lines 20-25), which reads on stretching the surface by at least one tension element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated gripping member (reads on tension element) in order to properly stretch the material (column 4 lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 2, Pasch discloses wherein the step of curing the at least one fabric and/or the at least one tension element comprises heating the respective at least one fabric and/or the at least one tension element in such a way that it is fixed in its shape [0039].
Regarding claim 3, Pasch discloses the process comprises producing a cover wall section having a folded or corrugated contour with at least one fold or corrugation [0014]; the molding surface for creating the folded or corrugated contour has an appropriate molding contour [0042]; the step of stretching comprises stretching the at least one fabric over the molding surface by the at least one tension element in such a way that the at least one fabric has the folded or corrugated contour; and the step of curing comprises curing the respective at least one fabric and/or the at least one tension element in such a way that the at least one fabric is fixed in its shape that has the folded or corrugated contour [0032].
Regarding claim 4, Pasch discloses wherein the fabric provided has at least one polymer layer of thermosetting polymer [0027, 0034] and the at least one polymer layer is cured when the fabric is heated, causing the fabric to be fixed in its shape [0039].
Regarding claim 5, Pasch discloses wherein the at least one tension element is oblong and is a pliable tension element (figure 4, [0038], abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Pasch discloses wherein prior to the curing process the at least one tension element is pliable and is fixed in its shape during curing ([0039, figure 4]).
Regarding claim 7, Pasch discloses wherein the step of curing comprises the fabric being fixed in its shape having a folded or corrugated contour by fixing the tension element in its shape [0042].
Regarding claim 8, Pasch discloses wherein the at least one tension element comprises: a tensioning hose filled with a thermosetting material that cures during heating of the tensioning hose; and/or a tensioning rope impregnated with a thermosetting material that cures during heating of the tensioning rope; wherein the thermosetting material is a thermosetting polymer, an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, a thermoplastic polymer, or a high-shore elastomer mixture [0013, 0034].
Regarding claim 9, Pasch teaches the step of draping comprises the at least one oblong tension element arranged in channel of the fabric (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, Bosse depicts wherein the at least one oblong tension element is clamped (70) around the molding surface to tension the at least one fabric (see figure 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Pasch depicts wherein the tension element or, in the case of multiple tension elements, at least part of the tension elements, are in a chute- like indentation of the molding surface, and/or a wave trough of the corrugated contour or a fold edge of the folded contour being formed in the area of the chute-like indentation (figure 3 shows the wave trough of the corrugated contour).
Regarding claim 13, Pasch teaches wherein the step of molding comprises a ring-shaped cover wall section (18 in figure 3) or a complete ring-shaped cover wall is produced from one single or multiple fabrics [0027].
Regarding claim 15, Pasch does not explicitly disclose the step of molding comprises providing a mold shell used with a counter molding surface that corresponds to the molding surface, the mold shell being moved in a direction of the inner mold prior to heating in such a way that the at least one fabric is arranged positively locking between the shell and counter surface. However, Pasch disclose a mold shell (mandrel [abstract]). Figure 5 depicts fabric arranged positively locking between the shell and the counter service. Pasch discloses heating [0039]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention providing a mold shell used with a counter molding surface that corresponds to the molding surface, the mold shell being moved in a direction of the inner mold prior to heating in such a way that the at least one fabric is arranged positively locking between the shell and counter surface since it is conventionally well known. "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." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Pasch discloses the fabric draped over the mold [abstract] but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one oblong tension element is clamped on an outside. Bosse discloses clamps (70) on the outside. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated clamps, as taught by Bosse into the method taught by Pasch for the benefit of creating the required tension.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Pasch and Bosse teaches wherein the at least one tension element extends along an inner corrugation edge or fold edge of the cover wall section (figure 6 depicts the tension elements along the inner corrugation edge).
Regarding claim 22, Bosse depicts the tension element is clamped to a tension holding element (bar 74).
Regarding claim 23, Bosse depicts the upper and lower bars cross each other in figure 4 which reads on wherein the at least one tension element includes tension element ends that cross each other.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasch (US2012/0071286 A1) in view of Bosse (US5468138 A), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Busch (US 20200023699 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pasch discloses the molds (mandrel [0008, 0010]) and curing [0013] but does not explicitly disclose multiple fabrics, the draping step comprising draping the multiple fabrics over the molding surface in such a way that adjacent ones of the multiple fabrics overlap each other in edge areas, the fabrics being joined together in the overlapping edge areas by curing of the polymer coatings. However, analogous art, Busch, discloses comprising draping the multiple fabrics in such a way that adjacent ones of the multiple fabrics overlap each other in edge areas, the fabrics being joined together in the overlapping edge areas by curing of the polymer coatings (figure 2 [0026, 0029, 0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated multifabrics in such a way that adjacent ones of the multiple fabrics overlap each other in edge areas, the fabrics being joined together in the overlapping edge areas for the benefit of preventing the warp thread element from being pulled out of the base fabric [0033].
Regarding claim 14, Pasch discloses wherein: the step of molding comprises a first area of the at least one fabric being stretched over an area of the molding surface (abstract) in which the molding surface is highly curved (18 in figure 3) and a second area of the at least one fabric being stretched over an area of the molding surface in which the molding surface is less curved (19 in figure 3). Pasch does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric has a higher elongation at maximum force ɛH in accordance with DIN EN ISO 13934-1:2013 in the area of the highly curved area than in the less curved area. However, analogous mold art, Busch discloses DIN EN ISO 13934-1:2013 [0026]. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a fabric with higher elongation at ɛH in accordance with DIN EN ISO 13934-1:2013 since it a conventionally well-known standard. "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." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Pasch is not analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that Pasch is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Pasch and the current applicant are directed towards molded corrugated or folded layer. Although the final products may be different, the steps are similar. Both are also directed to automobile part. Also, the claim limitation is broad and reads on any molding steps. Additionally, it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art to use the same method steps to form different shapes based on design needs of the final product.
Applicant argues Pasch problem is different than the instant application. In response to applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues Bosse is not analogous art. However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Bosse and the current applicant are directed towards molding and stretching the molded layer. Although the use of the final products are different, the steps are the same. Further, it is the combination of Pasch and Bosse that reads on the claim.
Applicant’s claim as written is broad. Applicant’s claim language does not go into specific steps which differentiates it from the prior art. Applicant’s argues Pasch teaches splicing, however the current claim languages does not preclude is nor does it specify the steps that are different. Applicant's arguments does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant cites Pasch disclosing figure 4 with illustrates a desired tooth profile and stretched between two profiles and discloses that figure 5 is fed between two profiled rolls and corrugated. Regardless, of the exact process, both figures are showing stretching. Applicant’s current claims does not preclude that the stretching has to be a specific way or cannot be between rollers. Further, applicant is using piecewise analysis to examine the claim. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Even if Pasch teaches spiraling fabric onto a mandrel and/or feeding the fabric between profiled rolls into tooth-forming grooves, the tension element can be placed anywhere near/on mandrel or the profiled rolls absent a specific definition or location of the tension element in applicant’s method claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Busch et al (US 2019/0185027 A1).
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754