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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 under 35 USC 102 and 103 in view of Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220) and Carey (PGPub 2012/0145684).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12485624 in view of Carey (PGPub 2012/0145684).
U.S. Pat. 12485624 teaches all of the instantly claimed limitations except a first region and a second region of the FTCP component have different electromagnetic absorbing characteristics such that, when subjected to a substantially same amount of electromagnetic energy imparted by the electromagnetic field, the first region absorbs the electromagnetic energy differently than the second region.
Examiner notes the language is not identical regarding the limitation of “applying an electromagnetic field to at least portions of the first thermoplastic composite component, the second thermoplastic composite component, and the interface layer while the normal force is applied, and maintaining the application of the electromagnetic field until the at least portions of the first thermoplastic composite component, the second thermoplastic composite component, and the interface layer create a weld pool” but instead teaches applying an electromagnetic field such that a portion of each component is at or above its respective melting temperature which is effectively creating a weld pool.
Carey teaches an alternative method for thermally processing a substrate (Abstract) wherein the properties of the substrate are modified to preferentially melt a first region rather than a second region when exposed to the same amount of electromagnetic [0039] energy [0045]; [0054] in order to create a melting point contrast in the substrate and optimize the final formed product [0045] during thermal processing [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of U.S. Pat. 12485624 to include modifying the electromagnetic absorption properties of the substrate as taught by Carey with reasonable expectation of success to create a melting point contrast in the substrate and optimize the final formed product [0045] during thermal processing [0041] thus meeting the instant limitation of a first region and a second region of the FTCP component have different electromagnetic absorbing characteristics such that, when subjected to a substantially same amount of electromagnetic energy imparted by the electromagnetic field, the first region absorbs the electromagnetic energy differently than the second region.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220 cited in IDS) in view of Carey (PGPub 2012/0145684).
Regarding Claim 1, Hansen teaches a method of blind welding thermoplastic composite components (Abstract), comprising:
providing a first thermoplastic composite (FTPC) component having a thickness that extends between an outer surface and an opposite FTPC bonding surface (Fig. 1- composite part 10);
providing a second thermoplastic composite (STPC) component having a STPC bonding surface (Fig. 1- composite part 12);
providing an interface layer comprising a thermoplastic material (Fig. 1- susceptor 14 and thermoplastic resin 16);
disposing the interface layer between the FTPC bonding surface and the STPC bonding surface, such that the FTPC bonding surface is contiguous with the interface layer, and the STPC bonding surface is contiguous with the interface layer (Fig. 1- susceptor 14 and thermoplastic resin 16 disposed between composite parts 10 and 12);
applying a normal force to the outer surface of the first thermoplastic composite component without an application of an opposing second normal force to the second thermoplastic component (Col. 4, Lines 6-9);
applying an electromagnetic field to at least portions of the first thermoplastic composite component, the second thermoplastic composite component, and the interface layer while the normal force is applied (Fig. 6; discussion throughout of coil), and maintaining the application of the electromagnetic field until the at least portions of the first thermoplastic composite component, the second thermoplastic composite component, and the interface layer create a weld pool (Col. 9, Lines 54-64); and
removing the application of the electromagnetic field after the weld pool is created (Fig. 6; discussion throughout of coil- the field is necessarily removed),
wherein the FTCP component includes a first region contiguous with the bonding surface (Fig. 1- bonding surface of composite part 10) and a second region contiguous with the outer surface (Fig. 1- opposite surface of composite part 10).
Hansen further teaches the bonding surface adjacent to the susceptor will melt more than the opposite surface of composite part 10 (Col. 9, Lines 54-64) but does not specify the first region and the second region have different electromagnetic absorbing characteristics such that, when subjected to a substantially same amount of electromagnetic energy imparted by the electromagnetic field, the first region absorbs the electromagnetic energy differently than the second region.
Carey teaches an alternative method for thermally processing a substrate (Abstract) wherein the properties of the substrate are modified to preferentially melt a first region rather than a second region when exposed to the same amount of electromagnetic [0039] energy [0045]; [0054] in order to create a melting point contrast in the substrate and optimize the final formed product [0045] during thermal processing [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hansen to include modifying the electromagnetic absorption properties of the substrate as taught by Carey with reasonable expectation of success to create a melting point contrast in the substrate and optimize the final formed product [0045] during thermal processing [0041].
Regarding Claim 2, Hansen further teaches the interface layer is a unitary body configured to occupy substantially all of a bond region between the FTPC component and the STPC component (Fig. 1- see unitary body of susceptor 14 and thermoplastic resin 16 occupying the bond region between composite parts 10 and 12).
Regarding Claim 3, Hansen further teaches the interface layer occupies substantially all of the bond region between the FTPC component and the STPC component (Fig. 1- see susceptor 14 and thermoplastic resin 16 occupying the bond region between composite parts 10 and 12) subsequent to the weld pool creation (Col. 9, Lines 54-64).
Regarding Claim 4, Hansen further teaches the thermoplastic material of the interface layer is homogenous (Col. 8 Line 61-Col. 9, Line 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Hansen further teaches the interface layer includes an electrically conductive material (Fig. 1- susceptor 14 (susceptors are conductive)).
Regarding Claim 7, Hansen further teaches the interface layer comprises a plurality of independent segments configured to collectively occupy substantially all of a bond region between the FTPC component and the STPC component (Col. 7, Lines 4-50- discussing the susceptor having solid copper selvage strips on the edges).
Regarding Claim 9, Carey further teaches the first region will preferentially melt over the second region [0045] thus meeting the instant limitation of the first region is configured to reach a first region melting temperature in a first period of time T1, and the second region is configured to reach a second region melting temperature in a second period of time T2, and T1 is less than T2.
Hansen also teaches the first region is configured to reach a first region melting temperature in a first period of time T1, and the second region is configured to reach a second region melting temperature in a second period of time T2, and T1 is less than T2 (Col. 9, Lines 54-64- the bonding surface adjacent to the susceptor will melt more quickly than the opposite surface of composite part 10).
Regarding Claim 21, Carey further teaches the first region will preferentially melt over the second region when subjected to the substantially same amount of energy [0045] thus meeting the instant limitation of when subjected to the substantially same amount of the electromagnetic energy, at least one of: the first region is configured to absorb the electromagnetic energy faster than the second region; or the first region is configured to absorb a greater amount of the electromagnetic energy than the second region.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220 cited in IDS) in view of Carey (PGPub 2012/0145684) and Leatherman (US Pat. 3900360 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 5, Hansen and Carey do not specify the interface layer includes a fibrous material distributed in a matrix of said thermoplastic material.
Leatherman teaches an alternative method of blind welding thermoplastic composite components (Abstract) wherein the interface layer includes a fibrous material distributed in a matrix of said thermoplastic material (Fig. 3- strands 27) in order to render the interface layer pliant (Col. 4, Lines 13-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hansen and Carey to include fibrous material in the matrix as taught by Leatherman with reasonable expectation of success to render the interface layer pliant (Col. 4, Lines 13-33).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220 cited in IDS) in view of Carey (PGPub 2012/0145684) and Van Ingen (PGPub 2020/0276769 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 10, Hansen and Carey do not specify an isolation region disposed between the first region and the second region; wherein the isolation region is configured to be more thermally insulative than the first region.
Van Ingen teaches an alternative method of blind welding thermoplastic composite components (Abstract) comprising an isolation region disposed between the first region and the second region [0086]; wherein the isolation region is configured to be more thermally insulative than the first region [0086] in order to prevent heat from passing between layers [0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hansen to include a thermally insulative isolation region as taught by Van Ingen with reasonable expectation of success to prevent heat from passing between layers [0086].
Regarding Claim 11, Van Ingen further teaches the isolation region is configured to be more thermally insulative than both the first region and the second region [0086].
Regarding Claim 12, Carey further teaches the first region will preferentially melt over the second region [0045] thus meeting the instant limitation of the first region is configured to reach a first region melting temperature in a first period of time T1, and the second region is configured to reach a second region melting temperature in a second period of time T2, and T1 is less than T2.
Hansen also teaches the first region is configured to reach a first region melting temperature in a first period of time T1, and the second region is configured to reach a second region melting temperature in a second period of time T2, and T1 is less than T2 (Col. 9, Lines 54-64- the bonding surface adjacent to the susceptor will melt more quickly than the opposite surface of composite part 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Hansen and Carey do not specify an isolation region disposed between the first region and the second region; wherein the isolation region is configured to be more electrically insulative than the first region, or the second region, or both.
Van Ingen teaches an alternative method of blind welding thermoplastic composite components (Abstract) comprising an isolation region disposed between the first region and the second region [0026]; wherein the isolation region is configured to be more electrically insulative than the first region, or the second region, or both [0026] in order to prevent eddy currents from developing in each layer [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hansen to include a electrically insulative isolation region as taught by Van Ingen with reasonable expectation of success to prevent eddy currents from developing in each layer [0026].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Einziger et al (PGPub 2013/0146590) teaches an alternative method of applying electromagnetic energy based on the differing energy absorption characteristics of multiple regions within an object.
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 5/27/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights