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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 11, 2025.
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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12485624. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Pat. 12485624 teaches all of the instantly claimed limitations. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the claims, “first thermoplastic composite” and “second thermoplastic composite” are recited as both an acronym (FTPC and STPC respectively) and in long form interchangeably. Consistent formatting is requested.
Claim 12 includes an acronym for the “first region” and “second region”. Examiner suggests including the acronym on the first recitation of “first region” and “second region” and requests consistent formatting throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8, 10, and 13 recite the limitation “a first region contiguous with the bonding surface”. It is unclear which of the previously recited FTPC and STPC are being referenced. For examination purposes, it will be assumed the limitation should read “a first region contiguous with the FTPC bonding surface”.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claims 8 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al (US Pat. 5444220 cited in IDS).
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).
Regarding Claim 2, Hansen further teaches the interface layer is a unitary body configured to occupy substantially all of a bond region between the first thermoplastic composite and the second thermoplastic composite (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 first thermoplastic composite and the second thermoplastic composite (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 first thermoplastic composite and the second thermoplastic composite (Col. 7, Lines 4-50- discussing the susceptor having solid copper selvage strips on the edges).
Regarding Claim 8, Hansen further teaches the first thermoplastic composite 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);
wherein the first region is configured to have a first response when subjected to the electromagnetic field, and the second region is configured to have a second response when subjected to the electromagnetic field, and the first response is different from the second response (Col. 9, Lines 54-64- the bonding surface adjacent to the susceptor will melt more than the opposite surface of composite part 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Hansen further teaches the first response includes reaching a melting temperature of the first region in a period of time T1, and the second response includes reaching a melting temperature of the second region in a 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).
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.
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 Leatherman (US Pat. 3900360 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 5, Hansen does 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 method of Hansen 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 Van Ingen (PGPub 2020/0276769 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 10, Hansen teaches the first thermoplastic composite 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) but does 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, Hansen further teaches the first region (FR) is configured to reach an FR melting temperature in a period of time T1, and the second region (SR) is configured to reach a SR melting temperature in a 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 teaches the first thermoplastic composite 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) but does 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
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 1/26/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748