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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on November 21, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 12, 18 – 19, 29, 32, 25, 38 – 43, 45 – 46, and 50 – 52 are currently amended. Claims 2 – 11, 13 – 17, 20 – 28, 30 – 31, 36 – 37, 44, 47 – 49, 53 – 57, 59 – 90 are canceled. Claim 91 is new. Claims 1, 12, 18 – 19, 29, 32, 25, 38 – 43, 45 – 46, 50 – 52 and 91 are pending and under examination. The amendment overcomes the claim objections, as well as the rejection under 35 USC § 112 and 35 U.S.C. 112(d), previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed on August 26, 2025, and are hereby withdrawn. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
New Grounds of Rejection
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 12, 18, 35, 43, 50 – 52, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2007/0215287 A1), in view of Johnston (US Pat. No. 3,964,958), and the non-patent literature of Park et al. (“Optimization of Shingled-Type Lightweight Glass-Free Solar Modules for Building Integrated Photovoltaics”, Applied Sciences, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Stevens teaches a tool (laminator 1) capable of fabricating a thermoplastic panel [0001], comprising:
a sealed vessel defining a volume (volume form between base1.1 and top 1.2 in the close position, see FIG. 1, laminator 1 comprising of a base 1.1 and a top 1.2 reads on “a sealed vessel” in the closed position, see [0025] “airtight”),
the sealed vessel comprising a first fluid port (14) and a second fluid port (24) (see FIG. 1, [0031]);
a membrane (compression membrane 2) within the volume (see FIG. 1, membrane 2 within the volume formed between the base 1.1 and top 1.2 in the closed position) and dividing the volume into a first chamber (11) and a second chamber (21) (see FIG. 1 and [0030] “With the laminator 1 closed, the interior of the laminator 1 is separated into a lower part of the chamber 11 and a top part of the chamber 21 by means of the compression membrane 2, with the two parts of the chamber 11, 21 being separated air-tight from each other and from the outer surroundings.”),
the first chamber capable of being configured to receive a first skin and a core of the thermoplastic panel (e.g., Stevens discloses that a structural component to be laminated is received in the chamber 11, see FIG. 1 and [0001, 0026, 0032]) and
capable of being configured to selectively apply a first fluidic pressure to the first skin and the core (e.g., a structural component to be laminated) in response to receiving a first fluid via the first fluid port (14) (e.g., Stevens discloses applying a fluidic pressure to chamber 11, see [0032] “the lower chamber 11 will also be aerated”, see also [0022] “it is also provided for the laminator according to the invention that the device 30 for the evacuation and/or aeration of the space comprises the line 27 and valve arrangement 32, as well as a vacuum pump 34, and that--by means of this or another line 14, 24 and valve arrangement 36 and by means of this vacuum pump 38--the lower part and the top part of the chamber as well can each be void of air and aerated.”),
the membrane configured to abut a surface of the thermoplastic panel and the second chamber configured to selectively apply a second fluidic pressure to the membrane in response to receiving a second fluid via the second fluid port (24) (e.g., [0032] “the compression membrane 2--by means of aeration of the top part of the chamber 21--is applied, due to the pressure difference between the two parts of the chamber 11 and 21, to the side of the structural component facing to the top, and will exert a pressing force on it which is directed against the structural component support 12.”; see [0022] “the lower part and the top part of the chamber as well can each be void of air and aerated.”); and
a heater (heating unit 13) configured to selectively direct heat toward the first chamber (1.1) (see FIG. 1 and [0031]).
Stevens does not disclose the tool being a tool for fabrication of a thermoplastic panel.
However, the preamble recitation of “A tool for fabrication of a thermoplastic panel” is directed to the intended use of the claimed tool (an apparatus), the Examiner has considered it and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Applicant is respectfully reminded that in Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, the court held that “A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967), “It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim.”; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963); “To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” See, e.g., In re Schreiber. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II) and MPEP § 2114.
While Stevens does not specifically disclose the structural component as a “thermoplastic panel”, the limitation is directed to the material worked upon (the thermoplastic panel) by the tool (apparatus) claimed. As previously indicated, the Examiner notes that claim 1 attempts to further limit the apparatus by specifying the material worked upon (i.e., thermoplastic panel, a first skin and a core of the thermoplastic panel); however, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus, these limitations are being considered to the extent that they provide structural differences between the apparatus of the prior art and the apparatus claimed. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Like Steven, Johnston, in the same field of endeavor of apparatus and methods for bonding of thermoplastic material through the application of heat and pressure (Col. 1 lines 10 – 19), teaches a tool for the fabrication of thermoplastic panels (analogous to Steven’s tool) comprising first and second pressure chamber (20, 21), defining cavities 25 and 29 enclosed by diaphragms (39, 32, and/or 95) which can be employed in single or double pressure chamber modes (analogous to the claimed membrane disposed within the volume; e.g., see FIGs. 1 – 16, Col. 3 lines 10 – 63, Col. 6 lines 61 – 68, cont. Col. 7 lines 1 – 29). Johnston discloses bonding of the thermoplastic material through the application of heat and pressure, thermoplastic material in the form of sheets or films supported within the molding volume created by chambers (65, 69), and supported by diaphragms (67, 71) (membranes), “Bonding heat is applied to the thermoplastic materials 60 and 61 through the diaphragm 67 by means of the heating element 72. The bonding pressure is applied uniformly over the surface of the materials 60 and 61 by the pressure within the pressure chambers 65 and 69.” (Col. 4 lines 40 – 66).
Moreover, Park et al. teaches materials and method for the fabrication of shingled-type lightweight glass-free solar modules (analogous to Steven’s structural component, solar modules cells) (Park et al. Abstract). Park discloses that solar modules with a non-glass cover include a polymer such as ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), polyamide (PA), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) [hence a thermoplastic panel], “which are typically used for lightweight applications such as roofs and facades of buildings” (Park et al. Introduction page 1). The solar module may be comprised of layers of ETFE film as the front sheet, layers of ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), and an aluminum (Al) honeycomb sandwich structure, which Park et al. discloses the use of a lamination system to laminate the shingled-type PV module with an Al honeycomb sandwich structure at 140°C for 660 seconds (Park et al. 2. Materials and Methods pages 2 – 3, Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the tool of Steven would have been capable of fabricating a laminated structural panel as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, wherein the material of the structural panel is choose from a thermoplastic material, as suggested by the prior art of both Johnston and Park et al., and the combination does no more than yield predictable results, e.g., the fabrication (e.g., a method for bonding of thermoplastic material through the application of heat and pressure, as taught and suggested by Johnston, and/or a method for the fabrication of shingled-type lightweight glass-free solar modules, as taught and suggested by Park et al.) of a thermoplastic panel (e.g., a solar module as taught and suggested by Park. Et al.) with the tool of Steven, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 12, Steven/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the membrane comprises a metal alloy (e.g., Johnston discloses that the membrane could comprise a metallic sheet 77, see FIG. 10 and Col. 8 lines 41 – 68, cont. Col. 9 lines 1 – 13).
Regarding claim 18, Steven/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the core comprises at least one of an air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure (e.g., Park et al. pages 2 – 3, Al honeycomb, see Figure 2).
Nevertheless, the Examiner notes that “the core” is not a positively recited limitation in the tool (apparatus) as claimed, rather the material worked upon by the apparatus claimed. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 35, Steven/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater is disposed below the second chamber (e.g., Steven [0031] discloses “the structural component will be heated by the heating unit 13 which heats the structural component support 12 to a temperature required for the laminating process.”, see FIG. 1, wherein the heating unit 13 is below the second chamber 21, below the support 12 within the second chamber 11; Johnston Col. 2 lines 38 – 40 “heat is applied to the bond area by a heating element carried by at least one diaphragm”).
Nonetheless, rearranging the heater would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 43. Although the limitations are directed to the manner in which the tool is intended to be operated, and such fails to further limit the tool (as previously mention throughout the Office action). Stevens/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater is capable of being configured to selectively heat a bond line between the first skin and the core of the thermoplastic panel to a predetermined temperature associated with creating a fusion bond at the bond line (see Johnston Col. 4 lines 19 – 65, Col. 10 lines 4 – 39 and FIGs. 1 – 15).
Regarding claim 50, Stevens/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, the sealed vessel further comprising: a lid (e.g., Stevens “top 1.2” FIG. 1) configured to open the sealed vessel to provide access to the first chamber for positioning the first skin and the core inside the first chamber and configured to close to seal the first chamber (see Stevens [0024] “top 1.2 swivable relative thereto by means of a power operated mechanism 22 in the sense of the arrow 29”, [0025] “In the closing position--shown in the drawing figure--of the top 1.2, it rests airtight on the base 1.1 under the intermediate layer of a circumferential seal 23.”, [0027] “The top 1.2 of the laminator 1 is here designed in the form of a cover 20 which is also closed towards the outside, as well as provided with a thermal insulation.”, and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 51, Stevens/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 50, wherein the heater (e.g., Johnston 72, 77) could be disposed above the first chamber within the lid (see Johnston FIG. 1 – 15, wherein the heaters are disposed in both top and bottom parts of the vessel). Nonetheless, rearranging the heater would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 52. Although the limitations are directed to the manner in which the tool is intended to be operated, and such fails to further limit the tool (as previously mention throughout the Office action). Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater is capable of being configured to selectively heat a bond line between the first skin and the core of the thermoplastic panel to a predetermined temperature associated with creating a fusion bond at the bond line when the first skin is proximate to the lid (see Johnston Col. 4 lines 19 – 65, Col. 10 lines 4 – 39 and FIGs. 1 – 15).
Regarding claim 91, for the sake of brevity of the Office action, only those limitations not shared between the tool of claim 91 and the of claim 1 will be discussed below. See the discussion of claim 1 above for the discussion of the share limitations between claim 91 and claim 1.
Regarding claim 91, Steven/Johnston/Park teaches a tool for fabrication of a thermoplastic panel, comprising – inter alia - a membrane within the volume dividing the volume into a first chamber and a second chamber, as discussed in claim 1 above, except for explicitly disclosing, the membrane comprising a middle section and a weld section around a perimeter of the membrane.
Steven, however, discloses the membrane comprising a middle section (e.g., see FIG. 1 the membrane 2 comprises a middle section between the carrying frame 26) and further discloses at [0028] that “The membranes 2.1 and 2.2 of the compression membrane 2 are sealingly stretched circumferentially on the edge in a joint membrane carrying frame 26. The membranes 2.1 and 2.2 can be two individual parts or, alternatively, they can be connected with each other circumferentially on their edge, e.g. by fusion or adhesion” [under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the membrane being connected with each other circumferentially on their edge by fusion or adhesion is analogous to the claimed “a weld section around a perimeter of the membrane” – hence rendering the limitation as obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art].
Claim(s) 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2007/0215287 A1), in view of Johnston (US Pat. No. 3,964,958), and the non-patent literature of Park et al. (“Optimization of Shingled-Type Lightweight Glass-Free Solar Modules for Building Integrated Photovoltaics”, Applied Sciences, 2022), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hesse et al. (US 2009/0321009 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Steven/Johnston/Park teaches the toll of claim 18, wherein the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure comprises an array of hollow cells orthogonal to the first skin, the array of hollow cells formed by cell walls (e.g., Park et al. pages 2 – 3, Al honeycomb, see Figure 2), except for explicitly disclosing, the cell walls having a plurality of breather holes such that the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure is air permeable from cell to cell.
Nevertheless, the Examiner notes that “the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure” is not a positively recited limitation in the tool (apparatus) as claimed, rather the material worked upon by the apparatus claimed. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Like Steven/Johnston/Park, Hesse et al. teaches sandwich components with an open core structure 2 and a cover layer 1, 3 applied to each side, wherein the cover layers 1, 3 are formed with a curable plastic material, and the sandwich component is cured in a closed device under pressure and methods thereof (Abstract). Hesse et al. at [0030] discloses that, “the core structure 2 is a slotted honeycomb core. Instead of a slotted honeycomb core, any desired open three-dimensional, i.e. in particular drainable, core structures can be used, for example with resin-stabilised knitted fabrics, resin-stabilised woven fabrics, perforated core structures, open-pore plastic foams, folded honeycomb cores, formed spacers for woven materials (for example in the form of egg cartons) or the like.” – Hence, the cell walls in such structures (e.g., perforated core structures, open-pore plastic foams) are reasonably expected to have a plurality of breather holes such that the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure is air permeable from cell to cell, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure (e.g., Park et al. Al honeycomb core, Figure 2), as a drainable core, as suggested by Hesse et al., with good expectation of success, and predictably resulting in the cell walls of the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure having a plurality of breather holes such that the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure is air permeable from cell to cell, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. MPEP § 2144.07
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 29, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Hesse teaches the tool of claim 1, the tool comprising a device for the evacuation and/or aeration of the chambers (e.g., Stevens [0020-0022, 0032, 0037, 0040]; Johnston Col. 3 lines 29 – 33 “ both pressure chambers are provided with a fluid port 45 (one illustrated) which is connected to a device for controlling the pressure within the pressure chambers (not shown) by means of a hose 4”), wherein the first fluid comprises at least one of a dry air, an inert gas and a nitrogen gas (e.g., Hesse et al. [0009] discloses, “By introducing a charging gas, in particular nitrogen or air, to the core structure prior to at least partial solidification of the cover layers, wherein a charging gas pressure is selected that is less than or equal to an operating pressure of the closed device in order to, in particular, at least largely prevent the formation of sink marks in the cover layers, it is possible to produce sandwich components with almost optimum surface characteristics, which, as a rule, render any mechanical reworking superfluous.”).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2007/0215287 A1), in view of Johnston (US Pat. No. 3,964,958), the non-patent literature of Park et al., and Hesse et al. (US 2009/0321009 A1; of record), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Matsen et al. (US Pat. No. 5,710,414; of record).
Regarding claim 32, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Hesse teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the second fluid comprises at least one of a dry air, an inert gas, a nitrogen gas (e.g., Steven, Johnston and Hesse discloses that both chambers can be supplied by the same device), except for, a mineral-based oil and a synthetic-based oil.
Matsen et al., in the same field of endeavor of making composite panel structures with core structures (Abstract), discloses that “Generally, we fill the bladder with air but we might also use a mineral oil or other fluid.” (Matsen et al. Col. 9, lines 5-22).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least one of a dry air, an inert gas and a nitrogen gas, a mineral-based oil and a synthetic-based oil, as suggested by the prior art, as the second fluid in the tool of Steven/Johnston/Park/Hesse, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claim(s) 38 – 42, and 45 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US 2007/0215287 A1), in view of Johnston (US Pat. No. 3,964,958), and the non-patent literature of Park et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dems et al. (WO 2009/073543 A2; of record).
Regarding claim 38, Stevens/Johnston/Park teaches the tool of claim 1, except for, wherein the heater comprises a plurality of electric cartridge heaters distributed across the sealed vessel in relation to a face of the first skin, the tool further comprising: a heating controller in operative communication with the heater to selectively apply electrical power to the plurality of electric cartridge heaters after the second fluid is received by the second chamber and after the first fluid is received by the first chamber, and wherein the heating controller is configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters after the first skin and the core of the thermoplastic panel are fusion bonded at a bond line between the first skin and the core.
Nonetheless, Stevens [0026, 0031-0033], discloses “The heating unit 13 can be e.g. an electric heating unit, or a heating unit which works with a fluid heating medium. If it is necessary for the operation of the laminator 1, the unit 13 can also simultaneously have a cooling function or be supplemented by an additional cooling device. Toward the outside, the base 1.1 is limited by a closed and heat insulating housing 10.” See FIG. 1, the heater of electric heating unit 13 being distributed across the sealed vessel in relation to a face of the first skin.
Johnston Col. 7 lines 46 – 52 discloses, “The heating unit 13 can be e.g. an electric heating unit, or a heating unit which works with a fluid heating medium. If it is necessary for the operation of the laminator 1, the unit 13 can also simultaneously have a cooling function or be supplemented by an additional cooling device. Toward the outside, the base 1.1 is limited by a closed and heat insulating housing 10.” Johnston Col. 10 lines 43 – 49 discloses “The main advantages of the present invention are obtained by a device which provides for the expelling of trapped air prior to sealing and sealing of the materials under uniform pressure with consistent temperature control. The temperature control is enhanced by the intimate contact between the heating element and pressure chamber diaphragm.”
Park et al. “2. Material and Methods” pages 2-3 discloses temperature control.
Dems et al. teaches a tool (perforated mold with first and second fluid ports, see FIG. 14) comprising a heating controller ( [0228]-[0231]) in operative communication with the heater (e.g., embedded resistance heaters in FIG. 14), capable of selectively apply electrical power to the plurality of electric cartridge heaters after the second fluid is received by the second chamber and after the first fluid is received by the first chamber (see [0229]-[0234]), and wherein the heating controller is capable of being configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters after the first skin and the core of the thermoplastic panel are fusion bonded at a bond line between the first skin and the core (see [0230]-[0237] “The resistance heater(s) may in turn be operably connected to an automatic temperature controller such as a thermostat”, and “the male mold piece and female mold piece may be independently temperature controlled if desired”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify in the same way Stevens/Johnston/Park tool for fabrication of the thermoplastic panel with a heating controller in operative communication with the heater, wherein the heater (e.g., Stevens heating unit 13) comprises a plurality of electric cartridge heaters, as taught by Dems et al., distributed across the sealed vessel in relation to a face of the first skin, as suggested and taught by Stevens, to selectively apply electrical power to the plurality of electric cartridge heaters after the second fluid is received by the second chamber (Stevens second chamber 21) and after the first fluid is received by the first chamber (Stevens first chamber 11), as suggested and taught by the Dems, and the modification would have yielded no more than predictable results in an improved tool, e.g., a tool wherein the heating controller is capable of being configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters at any desired time, as suggested and taught by Dems et al. (“The resistance heater(s) may in turn be operably connected to an automatic temperature controller such as a thermostat”, and “the male mold piece and female mold piece may be independently temperature controlled if desired” Dems [0230]-[0237]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to pursue the modification for the purpose of e.g., providing the tool with automatic temperature control capabilities, as taught by Dems et al. See MPEP 2143(I) (D).
Regarding claim 39, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 38, wherein the heating controller is configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters based at least in part on a predetermined heating time (Dems et al. teaches “specific molding times and temperatures will vary depending upon the specific fabric, molding equipment, and desired properties.” [0224]).
Regarding claim 40. Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of Claim 39, wherein “The amount of molding residence time varies but is usually less than about 3 minutes, preferably less than about 2 minutes, preferably less than about 1 minute. Correspondingly, the amount of molding residence time at the increased temperature is usually at least about 3, in some cases at least about 10, and in some cases at least about 30 seconds” (Dems et al. [0224]), overlapping the claimed range of the predetermined heating time ranges between at least one of about 35 seconds and about 95 seconds, about 50 seconds and about 80 seconds and about 60 seconds and about 70 seconds. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Dems et al. predetermined heating time range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 41, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 38, the sealed vessel further comprising: at least one temperature sensor (Dems et al. [0228] discloses “An element or monitor or means for monitoring or measuring the temperature may also be employed. Such monitoring or measurement of the temperature may be direct or indirect. That is, the temperature of, for example, the mold and/or opposing mold fixtures may be monitored or measured or the temperature of, for example, any liquid or gas in contact with the mold and/or opposing mold be may be monitored or measured. Useful elements may include a thermometer or a thermocouple.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one temperature sensor in the tool of Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems, within the first chamber and proximate to the bond line between the first skin and the core, wherein the heating controller is in operative communication with the at least one temperature sensor and capable of being configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters based at least in part on a temperature signal from the at least one temperature sensor indicating a predetermined temperature associated with creating a fusion bond is detected proximate to the bond line, as suggested and taught by Dems et al., since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. MPEP § 2144.07.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 42. Although the limitation are directed to the manner in which the tool is to be operated, and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus and are material dependent (e.g., see Stevens [0004, 0031]). Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Nonetheless, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 41, Stevens [0031-0033] discloses, “ the structural component will be heated by the heating unit 13 which heats the structural component support 12 to a temperature required for the laminating process.”, for a “required heating period”.
Johnston Col. 9 lines 14 – 20 “In addition to laminating thermoplastic materials, the pressure chamber of the configuration shown in FIG. 10 is uniquely suitable for forming the fusion bond of the heating element to the diaphragm forming film. Polyimide films are able to withstand temperatures in the range of 900°F (482.2 °C). Teflon will form the desired bond at approximately 600°F (315.6 °C).”
Park et al. “2. Materials and Methods” pages 2 – 3 discloses laminating “at 140 °C for 660 s”.
Overlapping with the claimed temperature ranges of between at least one of about 240 °C and about 280 C, about 250 °C and about 270 °C, about 255 °C and about 265 °C, about 310 °C and about 350 °C and about 335 °C and about 375 °C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Johnston and/or Park et al. predetermined temperature ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 45, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 43, wherein the tool further comprises: a heat exchanger comprising a plurality of cooling channels in fluid communication with the inlet fluid port and the outlet fluid port, the heat exchanger disposed proximate to the heater on an opposing side of the heater in relation to the first chamber, the heat exchanger configured to transfer heat from the bond line of the thermoplastic panel to a working fluid flowing through the plurality of cooling channels in response to receiving the working fluid via the inlet fluid port (Stevens [0026] discloses “If it is necessary for the operation of the laminator 1, the unit 13 can also simultaneously have a cooling function or be supplemented by an additional cooling device.”; Johnston Col. 4 lines 40 – 65 discloses “a refrigerating element 73 is positioned within the cavity 66”, Col. 5 lines 50 – 53 “the pressure chamber 80 may be provided with a refrigerated plate such as that shown in FIGS. 8 and 9.”; Dems et al. also discloses the use of heat exchangers in combination with the tool, see Dems et al. [0229]-[0230]), except for specifically disclosing, wherein the sealed vessel further comprises: an inlet fluid port; and an outlet fluid port.
Steven, however, discloses that a membrane presses having channels for the inlet and outlet of a fluid admitted to the membrane, and with a press control are known in the art. See [0004] “It is provided that the press comprises two supply tanks for two fluids with different temperature adjustment, provided with working valves which can be controlled to be opened and closed by the press control, and that the membrane press comprises a conveying device for the fluids. In one embodiment of this membrane press, below a first membrane, a second elastic membrane is provided which forms, via a frame with the first membrane, a second pressure-proof chamber into which a working fluid can be pressed through inlets and outlets depending on the individual process steps.” Further discloses [0022] the device 30 for the evacuation and/or aeration of the space comprises the line 27 and valve arrangement 32, as well as a vacuum pump 34, and that--by means of this or another line 14, 24 and valve arrangement 36 and by means of this vacuum pump 38--the lower part and the top part of the chamber as well can each be void of air and aerated” – hence, lines 14, 24, and 27 are analogous to the claimed an inlet fluid port and an outlet fluid port under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the lines 14, 24, and/or 27 in the tool of Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue the modification for the purpose of, as suggested by Steven, e.g., [0004] provide that the press comprises separate inlet and outlets to receive from and evacuate to, two supply tanks for two fluids with different temperature adjustment. See 2144.04 (VI) (B)
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 46, Stevens/Johnston/Park/Dems teaches the tool of claim 45, wherein the heat exchanger is configured to route the working fluid through the plurality of cooling channels and out the outlet fluid port (Dems et al. [0229]-[0230]).
Response to Arguments
34. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 18 and 19 have been 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 are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CH 191057 A: See FIG. 2 a tool for the fabrication of laminated structures comprising a tool volume, wherein a fluid inlet 13 and outlet 2 to a chamber D1, and a chamber D comprising a fluid inlet 5 outlet 6, the chambers divided by membranes 17, 18, which divide the tool volume in the first chamber D1, and the second chamber D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742