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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escowtz et al. (11,584,049) in view of Mannhalter et al. (2022/0219409), Neerincx et al. (2018/0257282) and Fukuzawa et al. (2019/0358875).
Regarding claims 1, 11, Escowtz et al. discloses a molding method, comprising the steps of:
placing an assemblage 118 of fiber-bundle-based preforms in a mold cavity 100 of a female mold portion of a mold tool – see col. 6, lines 52-54,
each fiber-bundle-based preform 118 consisting essentially of a first resin and a plurality of fibers – see col. 14, lines 49-50, wherein
a volume of the assemblage 118 is less than a volume of the mold cavity 100 when the mold tool is fully closed, a void volume therefore remaining – see Fig. 1, and wherein
a height of the assemblage 118 is no greater than a height of the cavity of the fully closed mold tool;
placing an injection charge 116 in a first plunger cavity 104 that is in fluidic communication with the mold cavity,
the injection charge consisting 104/116 essentially of a second resin with or without fibers – see col. 14, lines 47-50, wherein
any fibers in the injection charge are less than about 25 millimeters in length and less than a length of the fibers in the fiber-bundle-based preforms – see col. 1, lines 23-26;
closing the mold cavity, thereby placing a male mold portion and the female mold portion into abutting relation – Fig. 1, 100, 102A, 104A, 104B, 05B; and liquefying the second resin;
wherein the pressure applied by the injection charge consolidates the first resin, the second resin – Fig. 3-4, col. 14, lines 28-50,
the plurality of fibers from the fiber-bundle-based preforms, and the fibers, if present, from the injection charge, collectively referenced as the “molding constituents” – see col. 2, lines 20-24; and after a period of time,
cooling the consolidated molding constituents to form the part – see col. 8, lines 44-46.
However, Escowitz et al. fails to disclose the steps of molding the fiber-bundle-based in a compression mold.
Mannhalter et al. discloses a method for compression molding an article, providing feed constituents including fiber plies 114, preforms 111, and resin-only constituent 110 into a compression mold cavity 108 formed by a male mold half 102 and a female mold half 106. Mannhalter et al. further discloses that at compression molding process is more desirable compared to injection molding for cost effective and is capable of producing a product via a single-step process and without post processing [005]-[0006].
Neerincx et al. discloses a method for forming a product by injection molding, however, the same injection molding apparatus can also be used for compact injection molding (CIM) and fragmented injection compression molding (FICM) [0189], wherein a movable insert actuator is configured to move the movable mold insert adjusting a molding cavity shape, a molding cavity depth, a molding cavity volume [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Escowitz’s by providing a CIM/FICM mold that is usable for both injection and compression molding as taught by Neerincx to improve flexibility of uses and so that Escowitz’s mold could be used in a regular injection molding or in a compression molding method as taught by Mannhalter et al. because Mannhalter et al. a compression molding process for fiber assemblage product is more desirable compared to injection molding for cost effective and is capable of producing a product via a single-step process and without post processing.
Escowitz et al. further fails to discloses the step of introducing the injection charge into the mold cavity by advancing a first plunger in a first plunger cavity, the injection charge filling the void volume, thereby pressurizing the mold cavity, wherein the mold cavity is pressurized to a pressure suitable for compression molding; liquefying the first resin.
Fukuzawa et al. a method for forming a molded part, comprising a plunger 64 slidably extends into a plunger cavity 52 extending into a mold core 22 opposite the injection gate 38 providing fluid communication between a runner 32 and a part cavity 36, a first pin 56 causes the plunger 64 to move within the plunger cavity 52 for pulling material into the plunger cavity 52 or for pushing material out of the plunger cavity 52 [0023]-[0024]. Fukuzawa et al. further discloses that the plunger 64 is particularly effective in reducing internal stresses or volumetric shrinkage deviation between different areas in molded parts 10 when used in conjunction with a fan gate 38′, which minimizes the material flow speed into the part cavity 36, since material can be injected therein until the last stage of the mold holding and curing process due to the highest material temperature there [0001], [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Escowitz et al. with a plunger and plunger cavity connected with the material injection gate for injection material into the mold cavity as taught by Fukuzawa et al. in order to reduce internal stresses or volumetric shrinkage deviation between different areas in the molding product, especially this application would be more useful for a lengthy product using different materials.
Regarding claims 2, 12, Escowitz et al. further discloses that the total volume of the assemblage of preforms are selected based on different variables and it would have been within the capabilities of those skilled in the art to determined each of these conditions and/or the volume of the assemblage – see col. 11, line 60 to col. 12, line 11.
Regarding claims 3, 13, wherein the injection pressure can be from 200-16,000psi depending on the type of injection is performed – see col. 3, lines 16-17.
Regarding claims 4, 14, wherein the first resin and the second resin are liquefied at the same time, or co-melting of like resins – see col. 3, lines 25-26.
Regarding claims 5-6, and 15-16, wherein the injection charge consists of the second resin and fibers having a length of less than about 10 millimeters – see col. 10, lines 32-34, claim 16.
Regarding claims 7-9, and 17-19, Escowitz et al. further discloses that each individual fibers can be formed of a single material or multiple material – see col. 10, lines 39-46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination of Escowitz et al. and Fukuzawa et al. with a plurality of plungers and corresponding plunger cavities for each of the materials in order to keep those material at uniform conditions prior to feeding them into the mold cavity, to reduce internal stresses or volumetric shrinkage deviation between different areas in molded parts when more than one material being used.
Regarding claims 10, and 20, Escowitz et al. discloses that it is within the capabilities of those skilled in the art to determine a desired fiber alignment to satisfy part requirements based on anticipated loading conditions and be able to estimate the anticipated stress vectors arising in an in-use part, and know where in the part the fibers should be positioned, and how they should be aligned, to provide the requisite part performance – see col. 12, lines 3-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
The applicant argued that Escowitz (11,584,049) fails to disclose a compression molding tool that is not substantially pressuring the assemblage during the molding process. Mannhalter (2022/0219409) discloses that fiber assemblage is molded via a compression-molding process would be more cost effective and that a single molding process could be done without post processing [0006], while Neerincx (2018/0257282) discloses that the same mold apparatus can be used for CIM or FICM in which a mold insert can be used to adjust the mold cavity, the shape of the mold cavity, the mold cavity depth or a molding cavity volume in a compression molding process, wherein during an injection compression molding process, less pressure is needed compared to a standard injection molding process [0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the molding method of Escowitz by using an injection/compression or compression mold apparatus as taught by Neerincx and/or Mannhalter in order to gradually adjust the volume of the mold and reduce the mold clamping force (Neerincx) or to improve the molding of the fiber assemblage by reducing the processing steps (Mannhalter).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743