DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claim 11 is amended. Claims 16 and 17 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 02/01/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 11 under U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Schonholz (US 20160007442) in view of Nielsen (US 20150343668) and OGAWA (US 20190099300).
4. Schonholz further describes that in the pin lamination process, the thermally hardening epoxy and not the UV exposed resin works as an adhesive in the stack (black arrows) and adheres the layers together only in the areas of the at least one uncured UV resin portions (127) to form a laminated layup (see also FIG. 6.).
5. Examiner maintains that the claim recites that a joining device comprising the molding tool and adapted to join the first laminate arrangement and second laminate arrangement; it does not require the entire area of the layers will be joined together.
.
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) 11,13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonholz (US 20160007442) in view of Nielsen (US 20150343668) further in view of OGAWA (US 20190099300).
Regarding Claim 11 Schonholz discloses system for manufacturing a component ([0032]), comprising: a molding tool(Figure 6, [0044],prepeg-100 with first surface-125)and a second laminate arrangement (Figure 6, [0044], prepeg layer/second surface-150), a joining device(Figure 6, [0044], layer-125 through pins-152 is adapted to join the superposed first laminate arrangement (Figure 4, [0022] , [0044]; ), and a cutting/milling arranged movably relative to the support surface (Figure 7-8, [0045]; milling is done along the contouri.e. the perimeter-162 which is part of the second surface150 and forms a separating section -160 ), so that at least one segment(Figure 8 showing that one segment
Schonholz did not disclose a cutting tool specifically, however it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the time of applicant’s invention applicant’s invention to interpret that if milling is being performed then there has to be a cutting/milling tool to undergo the operation for the purpose of removing the rigid portion from the arrangement ([0006],Schonholz).
Further, Schonolz didn’t disclose the joining device cover structure. In the related field of endeavor, fabricating composites, Nielson discloses that the cover is rigid to exert pressure on the laminate arrangements and in the direction of the molding tool. (Figure-4, rigid cover-10, [0070]). Therefore, combining together Schonholz and Nielson a cover , together with the support surface, forms a closed chamber for resin infusion as required, and wherein the cover is rigid is met.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schonholz’s teaching with that of Nielson rigid cover for the purpose of a protecting sheath during the molding process.
The above combination didn’t disclose that a release material comprising a material distinct from the fiber-reinforced plastic of the first laminate arrangement. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, OGAWA discloses, a release material comprising aluminum foil or plastic film i.e. distinct from the fiber-reinforced plastic of the first laminate arrangement (Figure 1, release layer-5, [0060]); a release material configured to be applied to at least one release portionof the first laminate arrangement as a release layer (combining Schonholz’s and Ogawa this limitation is met).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schonholz’s teaching with that of OGAWA for the purpose of flexible less corrosive laminate arrangement.
Regarding Claim 13, Schonholz discloses wherein the joining deviceFigure 6, [0022], [0044], Claim 1; layer-125 through pins-152 adapted to join the superposed first laminate arrangement).
Regarding Claim 14, Schonholz discloses wherein the cutting tool([0045]).
Regarding Claim 16, OGAWA discloses wherein the release layer comprises an aluminum foil ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 17, OGAWA discloses, wherein the release layer comprises polyimide or a plastic ([0060]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonholz (US 20160007442) in view of Nielsen (US 20150343668) and OGAWA (US 20190099300)as applied to claim 11 further in view of Nouhra (US 20220314101)
Regarding Claim 12, Schonholz discloses system for manufacturing a component ([0032]) with two different laminate arrangements. However, Schonholz didn’t disclose that the connecting devicerelated field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Nouhra discloses that mold/surface placed at elevated temperature which are used for laminated arrangements ([0002]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the time of applicant’s invention applicant’s invention to combine Schonholz/ Nielsen teaching with that of the Nouhra’s teaching of elevated temperature and pressure for the curing purpose as used in the composite material.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights