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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 50, 58 and 91 are amended. Claims 2 – 11, 13 – 17, 20 – 28, 30 – 31, 36 – 37, 44, 47 – 49, 53 – 57, 59 – 90 are canceled. Claims 1, 12, 18 – 19, 29, 32, 25, 38 – 43, 45 – 46, 50 – 52 and 91 are pending and under examination. 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, 29, 32, 35, 43, 50 – 52, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garabedian (US Pat. No. 4,334,850) in view of Shimotomai (US Pat. No. 6,481,482 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Garabedian teaches a tool (100) for fabrication of a thermoplastic panel (Col. 1 lines 34 – 68, cont. Col. 2 lines 1 – 54; Col. 9 lines 21 – 32 “thermoplastic materials can be processed”), comprising:
a sealed vessel defining a volume (Col. 15 lines 31 – 38 “The apparatus is then closed bringing frames P1 and P2 as well as the support frames S1 and S2 together with the gaskets 6 in gas sealing contact to provide a chamber.”), the sealed vessel comprising a first fluid port (13) and a second fluid port (16);
a membrane (diaphragms 4, 5, 141, 151 and envelopes 14 and 15; Col. 17 lines 21 – 28) within the volume (see FIGs. 3 – 4) and dividing the volume into a first chamber and a second chamber below the first chamber (e.g., diaphragm 5 and/or 151 dividing the volume into a first chamber between diaphragm 5 and/or 151 and frames P1 and/or S1, and a second chamber below the first chamber between diaphragm 5 and/or 151 and frames P2 and/or S2; see FIGs. 3 – 4),
the first chamber configured to receive a first skin (e.g., master sheet 7) and a core (e.g., microporous parting sheet 10, and the wire screen 11) of the thermoplastic panel (Col. 15 lines 31 – 63) and configured to selectively apply a first fluidic pressure to the first skin and the core in response to receiving a first fluid via the first fluid port (e.g., 12 and/or 13; see Col. 15 lines 45 – 55 and Col. 16 lines 21 – 41),
the membrane (4, 5, 141, 151 and 14, 15) configured to abut a surface of the thermoplastic panel (see FIGs. 3 – 4) 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 m(e.g., 16; Col. 16 lines 21 – 41); and
a heater (heating cores 3; heating cores/elements 81,89) configured to selectively direct heat toward the first chamber (e.g., see FIG. 1 and Col. 6 lines 67 – 68 cont. Col. 7 lines 1 – 16, and see FIGs. 3 – 4, and Col. 14 lines 66 – 68 cont. Col. 15 lines 1 – 10).
Garabedian does not explicitly disclose, wherein the sealed vessel further comprises a lid.
Garabedian, however, discloses the sealed vessel comprises pressure frames or members P1 and/or supports S1,(see FIGs. 3 – 4), which are capable of being 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 (see e.g., Col. 15 lines 31 – 68 cont. Col. 16 lines 1 – 3 “After formation, the fluid pressure is relieved through conduits 13 and 16 and thus from the envelopes 14 and 15 and then the apparatus is opened thus moving the platens 1 and 2 away from each other”, and Col. 16 lines 55 – 59 “After formation, the fluid pressure is relieved through conduits 13 and 16 and thus from the envelopes 14 and 15 and then the apparatus is opened thus moving the platens 1 and 2 away from each other.”) – e.g., said supports S1 being analogous to the claimed “lid”.
Shimotomai teaches a laminating method and a laminating apparatus for manufacturing large-type photovoltaic modules analogous to the claimed thermoplastic panels (Col. 2 lines 33 – 40, Col. 5 lines 33 – 41, FIG. 1), the laminating apparatus comprising, inter alia, a vacuum vessel main body 7, a lid 8 of the vacuum vessel 7, a diaphragm 9 fitted to the inside of the lid 8, an upper chamber 10 formed between a lower surface of the inside of the lid 8 and an upper surface of the diaphragm 9, a heating plate11 incorporating a heater fitted to the vacuum vessel 7, a lower chamber 12 formed between an upper surface of the inside of the vacuum vessel main body 7 and a lower surface of the diaphragm 9, wherein “the vacuum vessel main body 7 can be put in an airtight situation by closing the lid 8 through a sealing member 13 provided on the periphery of the vacuum vessel main body to be brought into contact with the lid 8” (analogous to the claimed “a sealed vessel defining a volume”) (Shimotomai Col. 5 lines 42 – 57, FIGs. 2, 4 – 7).
“After the laminated body is formed, the lid 8 is removed and the multilayer material A is taken out.” (Col. 6 lines 28 – 43). Consequently, it reasonably flows from Shimotomai disclosure that said lid 8 would inherently be capable of being configured to be open, thereby opening the sealed vessel to provide access to the first chamber for positioning the materials needed for the fabrication of the multilayer material A (e.g., a first skin and a core) inside the first chamber, as claimed in claim 1.
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 modify the tool for fabrication of a thermoplastic panel of Garabedian (e.g., Garabedian’s embodiment in FIG. 4 Col. 16, lines 4 – 27) with the vacuum vessel main body 7 and lid 8 in the laminating apparatus of Shimotomai, wherein the lid is capable of being configured to open the sealed vessel to provide access to the first chamber for positioning and/or removing the materials needed for the fabrication of the multilayer material A (e.g., a first skin and a core) inside the first chamber, for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art, e.g., put in an airtight situation the sealed vessel by closing the lid 8 through a sealing member 13 provided on the periphery of the vacuum vessel main body to be brought into contact with the lid 8. (Shimotomai Col. 5 lines 42 – 57). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 12, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the membrane (4, 5, 141, 151 and 14, 15) comprises a metal alloy. (Col. 6 lines 13 – 28 “The diaphragm or envelope may be of any suitable material which will withstand the pressure and heat of operation including suitably selected metal sheets, plastic sheets, plastic and fabric combinations or the like. Metal alloys having extremely low coefficients of expansion are particularly useful for the diaphragm or the diaphragm wall of the envelope.”).
Regarding claim 29, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the first fluid comprises at least one of a dry air, an inert gas and a nitrogen gas. (Garabedian Col. 7 lines 40 – 42 “the fluid may be gaseous in which event air, or an inert gas such as nitrogen are suitable”).
Regarding claim 32, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the second fluid (e.g., the fluid supplied by the second conduit 16) comprises at least one of a dry air, an inert gas, a nitrogen gas, a mineral-based oil and a synthetic-based oil (e.g., see Garabedian Col. 7 lines 38 – 42 “The fluid may be a liquid such as water, hydraulic fluid, heat transfer fluid or the like or, alternatively, the fluid may be gaseous in which event air, or an inert gas such as nitrogen are suitable.”; Col. 5 lines 16 – 19 “the fluid pressure is applied by either one diaphragm or by two opposed diaphragms either or both of which may be one face of a sealed envelope.”).
Regarding claim 35, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater is disposed below the second chamber (e.g., see Garabedian FIGs. 3 – 4 heating cores 3 incorporated in platen 2).
Regarding claim 43, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater is 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 Garabedian Col. 3 lines 57 – 62 “The plastic is then heated to at least its fusion or melt temperature and while so heated there is applied across the gas release means (comprised of the microporous parting sheet and the wire screen) a fluid-like pressure sufficient to cause the plastic material to fuse to a coherent sheet.”; Col. 5 lines 10 – 16 “When the invention is used to join two sheets or pieces of plastic material, they may be placed in juxtaposed edge to edge relationship or in overlapped relationship with powdered plastic between the meeting or overlapped edges. A fluid-like pressure is then applied to the joint while heating the same into or close to the melting temperature”).
Regarding claim 50, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the lid is configured to close to seal the first chamber (see Shimotomai Col. 5 lines 42 – 57, and Garabedian Col. 15 lines 35 – 38 “The apparatus is then closed bringing frames P1 and P2 as well as the support frames S1 and S2 together with the gaskets 6 in gas sealing contact to provide a chamber.”).
Regarding claim 51, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of-claim 50, wherein the heater is disposed above the first chamber within the lid (e.g., see Garabedian FIGs. 3 – 4 heating cores 3 are disposed in the platen 1 which is above the first chamber withing the lid).
Regarding claim 52, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 51, 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 (e.g., Garabedian Col 15 lines 43 – 45 “Either or both of the platens 1, 2 is heated to a temperature sufficient to melt the plastic particles making up the layer 8 (or the layers 8, 9, etc.).”).
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.
Garabedian/Shimotomai 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 weld section around a perimeter of the membrane.
Garabedian, however, discloses a membrane (e.g., 151, FIG. 4) comprising a middle section Mms and a weld section Mws around a perimeter of the membrane (see the annotated copy of Garabedian’s FIG. 4 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
423
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above annotated figure, the annotations were added by the examiner to facilitate the discussion of Garabedian. In the above figure, the membrane 151 comprises a thicker middle section and a thinner section around the perimeter, which is analogous to the claimed membrane, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0032] “The thickness of the membrane 110 may vary between a thicker middle section and a thinner weld section around the perimeter.” Therefore, anticipating the claim tool as currently claimed in claim 91.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garabedian in view of Shimotomai (US Pat. No. 6,481,482 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2005/0025929 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the examiner notes that the limitations in claim 18 are directed to “the core”, which is the material or article worked upon by the claim tool. That is, said core is not part of the structure of the tool being claimed, rather part of a product made by the tool being claimed. Therefore, said core does not impart patentability to the claimed tool. See MPEP 2115 “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).
Nonetheless, although Garabedian/Shimotomai is silent to the core comprising at least one of an air permeable thermoplastic foam and an air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure, said features are well known and common in the thermoplastic panel fabrication arts. For example, Smith et al. teaches a sandwich panel with interior barrier and manufacturing method for use in making sandwich panels where a honeycomb or foam core is bonded to thermosetting or thermoplastic prepreg composite skins and cured using heat and pressure in a mold to form the final sandwich panel [0013, 0023, 0043]. Smith et al. discloses an exemplary sandwich panel 40 (FIG. 2), wherein the panel 40 includes a foam core 42 , wherein the foam core 42 “can be made from any of the foams used in sandwich panel construction provided that the foam is sufficiently porous to allow transport of pressurizing gases and/or liquid uniformly against the barrier 44” [0027] – hence, analogous to the claimed “air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure”.
[0013] “The use of an interior barrier and core counter pressure not only reduces the amount of voids and imperfections in the final composite skin, but also provides a permanent interior barrier that remains as an integral part of the panel. A permanent internal barrier is useful in situations where the final skins may be porous or susceptible to the development of cracks.”
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 provided the core in the thermoplastic panel made by the tool of Garabedian/Shimotomai with an interior barrier and core, wherein the core comprises at least one of an air permeable thermoplastic foam (e.g., Smith et al. 42) and an air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure (e.g., Smith et al. 12), as suggested by the prior art, since Smith et al. [0013] teaches that “The use of an interior barrier and core counter pressure not only reduces the amount of voids and imperfections in the final composite skin, but also provides a permanent interior barrier that remains as an integral part of the panel.” See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 19, Garabedian/Shimotomai/Smith teaches the tool of claim 18, wherein the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure (e.g., Smith et al. 12) comprises an array of hollow cells orthogonal to the first skin (see Smith et al. FIG. 1), the array of hollow cells formed by cell walls (Smith et al. FIG. 1 walls 30 [0022]), the cell walls having a plurality of breather holes (Smith et al. perforations or vent holes 32 FIG. 1 [0022 – 0023]) such that the air permeable thermoplastic honeycomb structure is air permeable from cell to cell (Smith et al. [0022 – 0023]).
Claim(s) 38 – 42, and 45 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garabedian in view of Shimotomai (US Pat. No. 6,481,482 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dems et al. (WO 2009/073543 A2; of record).
Regarding claim 38, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 1, wherein the heater (heating cores 3) comprises a plurality of electric cartridge heaters distributed across the sealed vessel in relation to a face of the first skin (e.g., see FIGs. 3 – 4 and Col. 6 lines 29 – 32 “The heat may be supplied to one or both platens in a number of ways. Common heat bars or heat elements of the electrical resistance type are satisfactory in many applications”), except for explicitly disclosing, 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.
The examiner notes that the limitations “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” are directed to the manner of operating the claimed tool. The examiner has considered the limitations to the extend they further limit the claimed apparatus structure. However, 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).
Like Garabedian/Shimotomai, 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; see [0228] “the mold may be heated by any element or means for controlling the temperature of the elastic fibers. Said controller or controlling means may include a heater or means for heating said fabric to a temperature and for a time sufficient to relax the fibers' residual stresses and deform the fabric and an element or means for quenching, e.g., rapid active cooling, the fabric to a temperature below the crystallization temperature of the polymer of the elastic fibers.”), capable of selectively apply electrical power to the plurality of electric cartridge heaters (e.g., embedded resistance heaters, see FIG. 14) 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 have modify the tool of Garabedian/Shimotomai with a heating controller (e.g., Dems controller or controlling means) in operative communication with the heater (e.g., Garabedian 3, Dems resistance heater(s)) capable of selectively apply electrical power to the plurality of electric cartridge heaters (e.g., Garabedian 3, Dems resistance heater(s)) 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 (e.g., Stevens heating unit 13) is capable of being configured to remove electrical power from the plurality of electric cartridge heaters (e.g., Garabedian 3, Dems resistance heater(s)) 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, 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, Garabedian/Shimotomai/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, Garabedian/Shimotomai/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, Garabedian/Shimotomai/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 Garabedian/Shimotomai/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. 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, Garabedian/Shimotomai/Dems teaches the tool of claim 41, Garabedian Col. 6 lines 29 – 44 discloses, “The heat may be supplied to one or both platens in a number of ways. Common heat bars or heat elements of the electrical resistance type are satisfactory in many applications although a more versatile means of supplying heat is by using infrared radiation… In either event with either system quite accurate temperature control is possible from less than about 200 °F (94 °C) to an excess of about 2,000 °F (1093 °C) which latter temperature far exceeds any normal temperature requirement when working with plastics.” – 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 Garabedian predetermined temperature ranges that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 45, Garabedian/Shimotomai teaches the tool of claim 43, except for, wherein the sealed vessel further comprises: an inlet fluid port; and an outlet fluid port, and 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.
Dems teaches a tool comprising an inlet fluid port (e.g., chilled air supply FIG. 14); and an outlet fluid port (e.g., see quenched cooling air FIG. 14), and wherein the tool further comprises: a heat exchanger (see FIG. 14) comprising a plurality of cooling channels (e.g., air line connection FIG. 14) in fluid communication with the inlet fluid port and the outlet fluid port (see FIG. 14), the heat exchanger disposed proximate to the heater on an opposing side of the heater in relation to the first chamber (see FIG. 14), 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 (e.g., see FIG. 14 and [0237 – 0238] “After the prescribed molding time has elapsed, a solenoid or other valve is open which allows for the flow of chilled air to effuse out of the face of the female mold via a plurality of holes, which cools the elastic fibers to below their crystallization temperature which for ethylene/α-olefin interpolymers is often below about 110°C”; “the mold may be heated by any element or means for controlling the temperature of the elastic fibers. Said controller or controlling means may include a heater or means for heating said fabric to a temperature and for a time sufficient to relax the fibers' residual stresses and deform the fabric and an element or means for quenching, e.g., rapid active cooling, the fabric to a temperature below the crystallization temperature of the polymer of the elastic fibers.”).
Dems further discloses that “active cooling or quenching assists in the resulting molded fabrics having substantially equivalent or less retraction, deformation, and/or dimensional change” [0231].
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 modify the tool of Garabedian/Shimotomai with an inlet fluid port; and an outlet fluid port, as suggested by the prior art, and wherein the tool further comprises: a heat exchanger (e.g., Dems means for active cooling and/or quenching) 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, as taught by Dems, for the purpose of, as suggested by Dems, obtain a molded panel with less retraction, deformation, and/or dimensional change, since Dems teaches that such active cooling or quenching assists in the resulting molded fabrics having substantially equivalent or less retraction, deformation, and/or dimensional change [0231]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Regarding claim 46, Garabedian/Shimotomai/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 (see Dems FIG. 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 18 – 19, 29, 32, 25, 38 – 43, 45 – 46, 50 – 52 and 91 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gutowski et al. (US Pat. No. 5,578,158): Discloses systems and methods of forming and shaping thermoformable material, the system includes a housing having a top portion and a bottom portion, first and second diaphragms supported in the housing, and an external reinforcing element in contact with either side of the thermoformable workpiece. “The cover assembly 30 includes a cover plate 31 (analogous to the claimed “lid”) having a central viewing hole 32 formed therein, and a secondary cover support structure 33, preferably formed from a sheet of transparent polycarbonate material. The assembly 30, when secured to the housing 12, forms a substantially pressure-tight seal. The viewing hole 32 allows a system operator to view and monitor the shaping process.” (Col. 5 lines 58 – 65).
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
Prosecution Insights