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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant argues that Extol does not teach an ultrasonic welding process that is applicable to claim 1 as Extol differentiates between ultrasonic welding and vibratory welding, and the Examiner relied upon Extol’s vibratory welding technique to address the claim limitations of claim 1, which is not ultrasonic welding. It should be noted however, that Applicant does not argue any manipulative difference between Extol’s vibratory welding technique and their claimed welding technique in claim 1. Extol simply defines ultrasonic welding differently than Applicant in that it must occur from vertical vibration (pg. 2 “Direction of Vibration” section), which is different from Applicant’s definition of ultrasonic welding found in [0039] of their Specification which includes both a vertical ultrasonic welding technique and a linear or parallel welding technique. The difference between the prior art and the immediate application are in definition only, which makes this argument unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
2. It should be noted that the terms “sonotrode” and “horn” in context of an ultrasonic welding device are equivalent terms in the prior art as stated by Spicer et al. (US 8,439,247- col. 1 lines 14-16).
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2015/0246480; previously presented) in view of Extol (NPL Webpage- “What is the difference between vibration and ultrasonic welding?”, Published 12/26/2017; previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches a method for welding thermoplastic composite components (title), best displayed in [0077] wherein a first and second composite components that both contain thermoplastic matrix material (“fiber-reinforced plastics”, noted as a matrix in [0002]) and weld region surfaces (“portions to be joined”, also “contact portion”) are brought into stationary contact at the weld region surfaces (“brought into contact… [and] started to apply the pressurizing force”), ultrasonically welded by melting the thermoplastic resin with an ultrasonic welding device with a sonotrode (horn) at an engagement surface (“a surface portion”) of one of the components, and then kept in contact until the matrix material of both components are cooled below their melt temperatures (“solidifying” implies the matrix material is brought below the melting points). Both composites have some melt temperature, and therefore there is a first and second melt temperature. Sano teaches that ultrasonic welding involves direct contact between the first and second components ([0022]).
Sano does not teach that the ultrasonic welding device moves in a direction axis parallel to the welding surfaces. In a related art, Extol teaches of welding in a direction parallel to the welding surfaces (noted as “vibration welding” discussed in pg. 2 “Direction of Vibration” Section, and shown in the “Vibration Welding” Figure of page 2). This welding technique is applicable to thermoplastics (pg.2 “Vibrate to weld plastics” Section), and there are devices that are capable of both perpendicular and parallel ultrasonic welding (pg. 5 “Ultrasonic and Vibration Welding in Automation” Section). The advantages of moving the ultrasonic welding device in a parallel axis to the weld region surfaces is that it makes strong, robust welds (pg. 4-pg.5 “Best uses” Section, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to vibrate the ultrasonic welding device of Sano in a direction that makes a parallel axis to the weld region surfaces as suggested by Extol for the advantage of making strong, robust welds.
Regarding claims 2-4, Sano doesn’t differentiate between the two materials ([0029]), this implies that they are the same material which is relevant to claim 4. Sano explicitly teaches using polyamide (PA), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), as well as similar resins ([0054]). Since this can be applied to both, this meets the limitations of both claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sano teaches that the composite components contain reinforcement contains carbon fibers ([0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Sano teaches the use of unidirectional fibers in their composite material, possibly stacked orthogonally ([0034]). In the case that both the first and second component have unidirectional fibers, each component would have an outermost fiber reinforcement layer that would have a plurality of fiber all extending substantially along a second fiber orientation, next to the weld region.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 1, Sano teaches that there is a welding force applied by the sonotrode to the engagement surface of the first thermoplastic composite component or the second thermoplastic composite component that the sonotrode is contacting (“pressurizing force”-[0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Sano teaches a method for welding thermoplastic composite components (title), best displayed in [0077] wherein a first and second composite components that both contain thermoplastic matrix material ([0002]) and a plurality of fibers for composite reinforcement (“fiber-reinforced plastics”) and weld region surfaces (“portions to be joined”, also “contact portion”) are brought into stationary contact at the weld region surfaces (“brought into contact… [and] started to apply the pressurizing force”), ultrasonically welded by melting the thermoplastic resin with an ultrasonic welding device with a sonotrode (horn) at an engagement surface (“a surface portion”) of one of the components, and then kept in contact until the matrix material of both components are cooled below their melt temperatures (“solidifying” implies the matrix material is brought below the melting points). Both composites have some melt temperature, and therefore there is a first and second melt temperature. Sano teaches that ultrasonic welding involves direct contact between the first and second components ([0022]) and a pressurizing force that would be normal to the engagement surface is applied both before and during welding ([0023]).
Sano does not teach that the ultrasonic welding device moves in a direction axis parallel to the welding surfaces. In a related art, Extol teaches of welding in a direction parallel to the welding surfaces (noted as “vibration welding” discussed in pg.2 “Direction of Vibration” Section, and shown in the “Vibration Welding” Figure of page 2). This welding technique is applicable to thermoplastics (pg.2 para. 2), and there are devices that are capable of both perpendicular and parallel ultrasonic welding (pg. 5 “Ultrasonic and Vibration Welding in Automation” Section). The advantages of moving the ultrasonic welding device in a parallel axis to the weld region surfaces is that it makes strong, robust welds (pg. 4-pg.5 “Best uses” Section, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to vibrate the ultrasonic welding device of Sano in a direction that makes a parallel axis to the weld region surfaces as suggested by Extol for the advantage of making strong, robust welds.
Regarding claim 16, Sano teaches the use of unidirectional fibers in their composite material, possibly stacked orthogonally ([0034]). In the case that both the first and second component have unidirectional fibers, each component would have an outermost fiber reinforcement layer that would have a plurality of fiber all extending substantially along a second fiber orientation, next to the weld region.
5. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and Extol as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rajadurai et al. (NPL- “Optimization of Ply Orientation of Different Composite Materials for Aircraft Wing”; dated June 2017; previously presented; hereafter known as Rajadurai).
Regarding claims 8-13, Sano does not teach the orientation of the fibers on a unidirectional fiber sheet, but does teach as an example of multilayer unidirectional fiber layers may be perpendicular ([0034]). In a similar field of endeavor, Rajadurai teaches orientation of fibers between layers (known as plies) of composite structures are various and highly dependent on the complexity of the intended structure (page labelled 111, Section I- Introduction). Specifically, the optimal orientation is found through experimentation (last sentence of the introduction). Claims 8-13 are directed towards specific fiber orientations. MPEP 2114.05.II.A states- "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Rajadurai teaches the orientations of 0°, ±30°, ±45°, ±75°, and 90° as an example, and consequentially it is the opinion of the Examiner that these orientations mentioned by Rajadurai describe the general conditions of claims 8-13, and would consequentially be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore unpatentable.
6. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and Extol as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Rajadurai.
Regarding claims 17-20, Sano does not teach the orientation of the fibers on a unidirectional fiber sheet, but does teach as an example of multilayer unidirectional fiber layers may be perpendicular ([0034]). In a similar field of endeavor, Rajadurai teaches orientation of fibers between layers (known as plies) of composite structures are various and highly dependent on the complexity of the intended structure (page labelled 111, Section I- Introduction). Specifically, the optimal orientation is found through experimentation (last sentence of the introduction). Claims 17-20 are directed towards specific fiber orientations. MPEP 2114.05.II.A states- "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Rajadurai teaches the orientations of 0°, ±30°, ±45°, ±75°, and 90° as an example, and consequentially it is the opinion of the Examiner that these orientations mentioned by Rajadurai describe the general conditions of claims 17-20, and would consequentially be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore unpatentable.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights