DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal
In view of the pre-appeal conference request filed on 05/27/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of the rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
File a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Response to Pre-Appeal Conference Request
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In view of the pre-appeal conference request, mailed on 06/24/2025, the following rejections are withdrawn from the Final Office Action, mailed on 03/27/2025.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 2006/0027314)
New Grounds of the Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Butler (US 2019/0168481).
As to claim 1, Butler (US ‘481) discloses a system for preparing a part using a rigid tool surface (forming tool 44; ¶ [0060] and Fig. 10) having a shape, the system comprising: a vacuum bag (lower bagging film 32; ¶ [0058] and Fig. 10) positioned over the rigid tool surface (forming tool 44) and being under vacuum pressure (¶ [0059]) conforming the vacuum bag (lower bagging film 32; ¶ [0058] and Fig. 10) to the shape of the rigid tool surface ([0062]; the sealed space underneath the upper bagging film 40 is subjected to vacuum pressure thus the space between the vacuum bag 32 and the tool 44 is also subjected to vacuum, Fig. 11); and a resin pre-impregnated ply (¶ [0055], “sublaminate units 27, 28 comprise a multiplicity of plies, wherein each ply 27, 28 comprises fibers impregnated with resin which has been initially cured to an initial cure stage”; further, ¶ [0052], in last sentence, recites “this process would be akin to metal-bonded processing, but with staged pre-preg sublaminates instead”, which this means that each ply 27, 28 is a pre-peg ply) positioned adjacent the vacuum bag (32) opposite the rigid tool surface (44), wherein the part (the enveloped stack 30, ¶ [0060]) is positioned adjacent the [AltContent: textbox (A resin pre-impregnated ply formed by sublaminate units (27, 28))]ply (27, 28) opposite the vacuum bag (32). (See Fig. 10)
[AltContent: textbox (The enveloped stack (30), as the part)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A vacuum bag (32))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A rigid tool surface (44) having a shape)]
PNG
media_image1.png
250
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A 2nd vacuum bag (40))][AltContent: textbox (The enveloped stack (30) as a part has at least two thicknesses including a reduced thickness)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A 1st vacuum bag (32))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
224
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Butler (US ‘481) discloses the part (the enveloped stack 30, ¶ [0060]) has at least two thicknesses including a reduced thickness (see the notch formed on top of the part (the enveloped stack 30, ¶ [0060]) that has a reduced thickness compare to other sections of the part (30), see the above figures 10-11)
As to claim 13, Butler (US ‘481) teaches the vacuum bag (32) is a first vacuum bag and the first vacuum bag (30) is under vacuum pressure (148, ¶ [0046] and Fig. 4) from a first vacuum source (50, ¶ [0078]), and further, a second vacuum bag (upper bagging film 40, ¶ [0060]) is positioned over the part (30) and being under vacuum pressure from a second vacuum source conforming the second vacuum bag to the shape of the part (30). (see Figs 10-11)
[AltContent: textbox (A breather sheet (35))] As to claim 14, Butler (US ‘481) discloses a breather sheet (the inner vacuum bag 35, ¶ [0059]) placed between the part (30) and the second vacuum bag (upper bagging film 40, ¶ [0060]), the breather sheet comprising gas-permeable material (¶ [0059]).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
154
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Butler (US ‘481) teaches each of the first and second vacuum bags (32 and 40) comprises a perimeter portion (¶ [0058] and ¶ [0060]), the rigid tool (forming tool 44) comprises a perimeter portion, the perimeter portions of the first and second vacuum bags (32 and 40) are sealed against the perimeter portion of the rigid tool (44) (¶ [0058] and ¶ [0060]).
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2006/0027314) in view of Butler (US 2019/0168481).
Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose a mold apparatus for consolidating and curing of a composite material having a thermoplastic surface film and a thermoset reinforcement structure (See paragraph [0041]) as characterized below:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An unimpregnated reinforcement layer (58))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: textbox (A rigid tool surface (52))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A part (60))][AltContent: textbox (A 2nd vacuum bag (66))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
307
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (A 2nd vacuum bag (66))][AltContent: textbox (A 1st vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: textbox (A 2nd perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A 1st perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The rigid tool (52))]
PNG
media_image5.png
259
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses a system for preparing a part using a rigid tool surface (mold: 52, ¶ [0042]) having a shape, the system comprising: a vacuum bag (a surface film: 56, ¶ [0043]) positioned over the rigid tool surface (mold: 52, ¶ [0044]) and being under vacuum pressure conforming the vacuum bag (a surface film: 56, ¶ [0048]) to the shape of the rigid tool surface (52); and an unimpregnated reinforcement layer (58; ¶ [0045]) is positioned adjacent the vacuum bag (56; ¶ [0047]) opposite the rigid tool surface (52; annotated Fig. 3), wherein the part (a pre-impregnated fibrous reinforcement layer 60; ¶ [0045], [0047]) is positioned adjacent the ply (reinforcement layer 58) opposite the vacuum bag (56; [0047]). (see paragraph [0042]-[0045] and annotated fig. 3)
Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the layers of a structural layers of a structural material (58, 60) are directly applied onto the surface film (56), wherein the structural material (58, 60) comprises an unimpregnated reinforcement layer (58) and a pre-impregnated fibrous reinforcement layer (60) which is located thereon. (¶ [0045]). Therefore, even though Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose a top layer (pre-impregnated fibrous reinforcement layer 60) of the structural layers is pre-impregnated, it fails to disclose the reinforcement layer or ply (58), which positioned adjacent the vacuum bag (56) and opposite the rigid tool surface (52), is actually a resin pre-impregnated ply, as required by claim 1.
In the analogous art, Butler (US ‘481), that has been discussed in detail above in rejection of the claims under anticipation, disclose a system for preparing a part using a rigid tool surface (forming tool 44; ¶ [0060] and Fig. 10) having a shape, the system comprising: a vacuum bag (lower bagging film 32; ¶ [0058] and Fig. 10) positioned over the rigid tool surface (forming tool 44); and a resin pre-impregnated ply (¶ [0055], “sublaminate units 27, 28 comprise a multiplicity of plies, wherein each ply 27, 28 comprises fibers impregnated with resin which has been initially cured to an initial cure stage”; further, ¶ [0052], in last sentence, recites “this process would be akin to metal-bonded processing, but with staged pre-preg sublaminates instead”, which this means that each ply 27, 28 is a pre-peg ply) positioned adjacent the vacuum bag (32) opposite the rigid tool surface (44), wherein the part (the enveloped stack 30, ¶ [0060]) is positioned adjacent the ply (27, 28) opposite the vacuum bag (32). (See Fig. 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to substitute the layer (58) of the structural layers of Jones et al. (US ‘314) with a resin pre-impregnated ply that has been initially cured to an initial cure stage in order to enhance forming a constant thickness composite laminate after further resin impregnation of the structural layers, as suggested by Butler (US ‘481), ¶ [0045], 4th sentence.
As to claim 2, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach a second vacuum bag (66; [0046]) positioned adjacent the part opposite the ply (58) and being under a second vacuum pressure (72; [0049]) pressing the part against the ply. (See annotated fig. 3)
As to claim 3, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses a part formed by the system that the part is capable to be a honeycomb core.
As to claim 4, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses the part (60) is capable to be a honeycomb core comprises of aluminum. (See parag [0132])
As to claim 5, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teaches a breather sheet (breather layer 64) applied between the rigid tool surface (52) and the vacuum bag (56). (See paragraphs [0046]-[0047])
Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the subsequent layers of structural material are processed by applying pressure and, if necessary, heat to consolidate the structural layers and to ensure curing of the laminate and adequate bonding of the surface film 26 to the structural material 28, 30. [See paragraph (0034)]
As to claim 6, Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the rigid tool (52) comprises aluminum. (See paragraph [0132])
As to claim 7, Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the part (60) is capable of being two pieces each having an interface surface.
As to claim 8, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach comprising adhesive adhering the interface surfaces of the two pieces to one another. (See paragraph [0083])
Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach the preform 10 further comprises a second fibrous reinforcement layer 14. The layer comprises a thickness which enables the reinforcement layer to be structurally stable whilst being as thin as possible. This layer has preferably a thickness of less than 0.5 mm. After processing of the liner, the second layer has a low resin content to ensure that the processed preform has suitable air permeability or porosity properties to enable the product to be applied in relation to a mould as a porous liner. [See paragraph (0027)] moreover, Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the preform material (10) when processed and cured has a thickness of 0.5 millimeters or less to ensure that appropriate, required dimensions of the moulded product are maintained. [See paragraph (0030)] further, the reinforcement layer 216 comprises a reduced thickness fabric edge which provides a "soft overlap" 228. The resin pre-impregnated reinforcement layer 218 comprises a "standard overlap" whereby layers of the reinforcement layer simply overlap. [See paragraph (0064)]
As to claim 9, Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose the part has at least two (2) thicknesses including a reduced thickness. [See paragraph (0064)]
As to claim 10, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach the ply (58) comprises a sheet of polyester peel ply support carrier pre-impregnated with resin. (See paragraph [0137])
As to claim 11, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses the vacuum bag (56) comprises a first perimeter portion and a substantially opposite second perimeter portion, the rigid tool (52) comprises a first perimeter portion and a substantially opposite second perimeter portion, the first perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56) is sealed against the first perimeter portion of the rigid tool (52) and the second perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56) is sealed against the second perimeter portion of the rigid tool (52). (See below annotated fig. 3)
[AltContent: textbox (A 1st vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: textbox (A 1st vacuum source (70))][AltContent: textbox (A 2nd perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56))][AltContent: textbox (A 2nd vacuum bag (66))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The rigid tool (52))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A 1st perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (56))]
PNG
media_image5.png
259
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach the respective perimeter portions of the vacuum bag (56) are releasably sealed to the corresponding perimeter portions of the rigid tool (52). (See above annotated fig. 3)
As to claim 13, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses wherein the vacuum bag is a first vacuum bag (56) and wherein the first vacuum bag (56) is under vacuum pressure from a first vacuum source (70), and a second vacuum bag (66) positioned over the part (60) and being under vacuum pressure from a second vacuum source (72) conforming the second vacuum bag (66) to the shape of the part (60). (see paragraph [0046] and [0048]-[0049])
As to claim 14, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses a breather sheet (54) placed between the part (60) and the second vacuum bag (66), the breather sheet (64) comprising gas-permeable material. (see paragraphs [0046]-[0047])
As to claim 15, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses the first and second vacuum sources (70, 72) are configured for independent application of pressure and corresponding independent release respectively of the first and second vacuum bags (56 and 66). (see paragraphs [0046] and [0048]-[0049])
As to claim 16, Jones et al. (US ‘314) teach each of the first and second vacuum bags (56, 66) comprises a perimeter portion, the rigid tool (52) comprises a perimeter portion, the perimeter portions of the first and second vacuum bags (56 and 66) are sealed against the perimeter portion of the rigid tool (52). (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049])
As to claim 17, Jones et al. (US ‘314) discloses the perimeter portion of the rigid tool (52) comprises an edge flange having an inner portion nearer the part (60) and an outer portion further from the part (60), the perimeter portion of the vacuum bag (66) is sealed against the inner portion of the edge flange, the perimeter portion of the second vacuum bag (66) is sealed against the outer portion of the edge flange, the vacuum pressure supplied by the first vacuum source is along the inner portion of the edge flange, the vacuum pressure supplied by the second vacuum source is along the outer portion of the edge flange. (See above annotated fig. 3)
As to claim 18, Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose each of the first and second vacuum sources (72) comprises a vacuum port configured to deliver vacuum pressure across a substantially rigid and gas-permeable mesh screen. (see paragraph [0046] and [0048]-[0049])
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler (US ‘481) in view of KR 20170081341.
Note: the following rejection relies on English translation of KR 20170081341.
The teachings of Butler (US ‘481) anticipates all the structural limitations of claim 1, as it was discussed above, however, fail to disclose the resin pre-impregnated ply (27, 28) and the vacuum bag (32) being configured to be peeled away from the part, as claimed in claim 19, and further that the ply (27, 28) comprises a wet peel ply, as claimed in claim 20.
In the analogous art, KR ‘341 discloses an infusion apparatus for producing a boat by covering the outer surface of the carbon fiber with a vinyl bag for vacuum (vacuum bag) and connecting a line for introducing an epoxy resin for impregnation and a vacuum line. (see the claims)
[AltContent: textbox (Vacuum bag (6))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A mold (1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peel ply (5) )][AltContent: textbox (The fiber pile (3))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
310
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further, KR ‘341 teaches the vacuum bag (6) is peeled off, the peel ply (5) is peeled off, and then the epoxy boat cured in the mold shape is demolded. (In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page) Therefore, as to claim 19, KR ’341 discloses the carbon fiber pile (3), positioned between the vacuum bag (6) and the mold (1), is attached to the vacuum bag (6) and the vacuum bag (6) being configured to be peeled away from the attached peel ply (5) and the fiber pile (3).
Further, KR ’341 further discloses the carbon fiber pile (3) positioned between the vacuum bag (6) and the mold (1) is spread while wetting it to impregnate the carbon fiber pile (3) as a whole. Then, the vacuum bag (6) is peeled off, the peel ply (5) is peeled off, and then the epoxy boat cured in the mold shape is demolded. In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page. Therefore, as to claim 20, KR ’341 teaches the fiber pile (3) comprises a wet peel ply (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the step of separating the vacuum bag and the part, as taught by Butler (US ‘481), through peeling away the vacuum bag from the part by providing a wet peel ply in order to enhance a more reliable demolding operation for the molded article after the resin is hardened, (In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US ‘314) in view of Butler (US ‘481) and further in view of KR 20170081341.
Note: the following rejection relies on English translation of KR 20170081341.
The modified teachings of Jones et al. (US ‘314) disclose all the structural limitations of claim 1, as it was discussed above, however, fail to disclose the ply (58) and the vacuum bag (56) being configured to be peeled away from the part, as claimed in claim 19, and further that the ply (58) comprises a wet peel ply, as claimed in claim 20.
In the analogous art, KR ‘341 discloses an infusion apparatus for producing a boat by covering the outer surface of the carbon fiber with a vinyl bag for vacuum (vacuum bag) and connecting a line for introducing an epoxy resin for impregnation and a vacuum line. (see the claims)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The fiber pile (3))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A mold (1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peel ply (5) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vacuum bag (6))]
PNG
media_image6.png
310
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Further, KR ‘341 teaches the vacuum bag (6) is peeled off, the peel ply (5) is peeled off, and then the epoxy boat cured in the mold shape is demolded. (In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page) Therefore, as to claim 19, KR ’341 discloses the carbon fiber pile (3), positioned between the vacuum bag (6) and the mold (1), is attached to the vacuum bag (6) and the vacuum bag (6) being configured to be peeled away from the attached peel ply (5) and the fiber pile (3).
Further, KR ’341 further discloses the carbon fiber pile (3) positioned between the vacuum bag (6) and the mold (1) is spread while wetting it to impregnate the carbon fiber pile (3) as a whole. Then, the vacuum bag (6) is peeled off, the peel ply (5) is peeled off, and then the epoxy boat cured in the mold shape is demolded. In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page. Therefore, as to claim 20, KR ’341 teaches the fiber pile (3) comprises a wet peel ply (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the step of separating the vacuum bag and the part, as taught by modified teachings of Jones et al. (US ‘314), through peeling away the vacuum bag from the part by providing a wet peel ply in order to enhance a more reliable demolding operation for the molded article after the resin is hardened, (In English translation: page 3, last two paragraphs in the page)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed in regard to previous rejections of claims 1 and 19 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/27/2025, with a pre-appeal brief conference request, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 19 over the prior art of Jones et al. (US 2006/0027314) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly introduced references of Butler (US 2019/0168481) and KR 20170081341.
In regard to previous rejection of claim 1, applicant argues that in Jones et al. (US ‘314), the reinforcement layer (58) is an unimpregnated reinforcement layer and is free of any resin, and therefore, cannot be considered as to claimed resin pre-impregnated ply. However, in the above new grounds of the rejections, a new prior art of Butler (US ‘481) is introduced that anticipates this limitation and the claimed subject matter in general.
Moreover, in regard to rejection of claim 19, applicant argues that in Jones et al. (US ‘314), the reinforcement layer (58) is configured to be peeled away from the part. However, in the above new grounds of the rejections, a new prior art of KR ‘341 is introduced to address the limitations of claims 19 and 20.
Finally, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an examiner interview can benefit the prosecution of the application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 D. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 09/25/2025