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 9 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1-5, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to Claims 1-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-8 has been withdrawn. These claims are now allowable.
For new amended independent claim 9, a new rejection has been made Fenske (US 6077465) listed in IDS, in view of Walters (US 5958166) further in view of Bruck (US 20150033559). As argued by the applicant that Walters discusses repairing plies using a series of templates (see Walters, col. 2, lines 44-48), Walters does not disclose (1) comparing each of the plurality of damaged areas with a repairing template having a predetermined shape and size and (2) determining whether or not to repair the plastic divider based on the comparison, as claimed. However examiner maintains that Walters did disclose that (1) comparing each of the plurality of damaged areas with a repairing template having a predetermined shape and size and (2) determining whether or not to repair the plastic divider based on the comparison (Col 6 line 55-60) as discussed in the 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 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(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenske (US 6077465) listed in IDS, in view of Walters (US 5958166) further in view of Bruck (US 20150033559).
Regarding Claim 9 Fenske discloses method for repairing plastic divider according to claim 1A method for repairing plastic dividers comprising longitudinal internal cavities (Figure 1, window-10 with grids and hollow space in between ), comprising the following steps: identifying a …damaged areas to be repaired in a plastic divider (Figure 3, damaged area-22), extracting the ..of damaged areas by means of cuts (Col 2 , line 41-45), thereby defining a ..of gaps in the plastic divider, preparing a… of inserts of undamaged material, (Figure 3C, insert-24, Col 2line 44-45; Figure 3A-3B, filler material-26, Col 2 line 45-46).
comprising the following steps: identifying a …damaged areas to be repaired in a plastic divider (Figure 3, damaged area-22), extracting the ..of damaged areas by means of cuts (Col 2 , line 41-45), thereby defining a ..of gaps in the plastic divider, preparing a… of inserts of undamaged material, and attaching, by means of heat welds with filler material and there being defined between the cut made in the plastic divider and the inner edge of the insert a filling space for filling with the filler material (Figure 3C, insert-24, Col 2line 44-45; Figure 3A-3B, filler material-26, Col 2 line 45-46).
Further, Fenske didn’t particularly disclose that the step of extracting the damaged areas to be repaired, with a curved path are used. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of repairing damaged composite structure , Walters discloses that step of extracting the damaged areas to be repaired, with a curved path are used (Figure 2, damaged area-22 for which insert block-25 is half circular, col 4 line 1-4) and - wherein for in the step of preparing the inserts, inserts are machined which comprise a straight or angular outer edge , aligned with the edges of the divider (Figure 2, block-25, col 4 line 29-31), and a curvilinear inner edge parallel to the curved path of the cut for extracting the damaged area to be repaired (Figure -2, Col 4 line 20-24).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Fenske’s teaching of repairing of the plastic divider with that of Walters teaching of repairing curved damage area by the inserts that are machined for the purpose of optimal fitting of the inserts in the damaged area.
However, Fenske/Walters did not disclose that the plurality of inserts of undamaged material in the gaps, wherein for the step of extracting the plurality of damaged areas, cuts with a curved path are used, and wherein in the step of preparing the plurality of inserts, each of the plurality of inserts is machined to include a straight or angular outer edge, aligned with edges of the plastic divider, and a curvilinear inner edge parallel to the curved path of the cut used to extract a corresponding damaged area to be repaired.
However, Fenske discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the repair. Walters discloses that step of extracting the damaged areas to be repaired, with a curved path are used (Figure 2, damaged area-22 for which insert block-25 is half circular, col 4 line 1-4) and - wherein for in the step of preparing the inserts, inserts are machined which comprise a straight or angular outer edge , aligned with the edges of the divider (Figure 2, block-25, col 4 line 29-31), It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the repaired plurality of damaged area with preparing plurality of inserts of undamaged material , since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the damaged areas for the purpose of optimal production costs as it would save time to do all at once .
Fenske/Walters discloses wherein the step of identifying the damaged areas to be repaired comprises comparing the damaged areas with a repairing template and comparing each of the …of damaged areas with a repairing template having a predetermined shape and size , (Figure 2, damaged area-22, Col 2 line 46-48, Col 6 line 55-59, Walters), varying the position of said template on said damaged areas until determining a repairing pattern of the damaged areas to be repaired (Col 2 line 46-48, Col 5 line 55-59) wherein all the damaged areas are encompassed with the minimum number of positions of the repairing template and determining whether or not to repair the plastic divider based on the comparison (Col 5 line 50-55) .
Fenske/Walters didn’t disclose comparing each of the plurality of damaged areas with a repairing template having a predetermined shape and size , however It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the comparison of plurality of damaged area , since it have been held that a mere duplication of steps of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the comparison steps for the purpose of optimal production costs as it would save time to do all at once .
Further, Fenske/Walters didn’t disclose that the step of attaching by means of heat weld the inserts of undamaged material in the gaps. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of repairing a component substrate with fusing the filler within, Bruck discloses that repair opening are filled with filler material and attached to the substrate with laser/heat welding which is where the heat conduction welding, as the laser beam melts the mating parts along a common joint (Figure 2, Figure10, steps 1-02, 104, 106, [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Fenske/Walters teaching with that of Bruck’s heat welding with the filler for the purpose of strong bond between the insert and the filler for fusing them together.
Regarding Claim 10, Fenske/Walters disclose that the repairing template has a half circular segment shape (Figure 2, damaged area-22 is half circular so the repairing template should be half circular, Walters).
Regarding Claim 11-12, Fenske/Walters disclose that the repairing template has a half circular segment shape (Figure 2, damaged area-22 is half circular so the repairing template should be half circular, Walters) but didn’t disclose that circular segment has a radius , chord and height are within the claimed range . Walters disclose that the repair template which has a semi circular pattern has finite dimension of radius, chord and height. The area of the damaged region will play a crucial part in determining the dimension of the template pattern; to measure the dimensions of the damaged area which would not involve undue experimentation and is within the knowledge of ordinary skilled in the art ;therefore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range diameter/chord/ height will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the range is critical.
Regarding Claim 13-14, Fenske/Walters disclose that the repairing template has a half circular segment shape (Figure 2, damaged area-22 is half circular so the repairing template should be half circular, Walters) but didn’t disclose that half circular segment has a radius , chord and height are within the claimed range . Walters disclose that the repair template of the half circular pattern has finite dimension of the radius chord and height. The area of the damaged region will play a crucial part in determining the dimension of the template pattern; to measure the dimensions of the damaged area which would not involve undue experimentation and is within the knowledge of ordinary skilled in the art. However , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of diameter/chord/height will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the range is critical.
Regarding Claim 15, Fenske/Walters disclose wherein before the step of extracting the damaged areas to be repaired (Col 2 line 41-45, Fenske), a step of accepting the repair is performed if the number of positions of the repairing template in the repairing pattern is comprised between one and five (Figure 2, damaged area-22, Col 2 line 46-48, repairing template-26 is showing one repairing pattern, Walters).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-8 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 1, Fenske method for repairing plastic dividers comprising longitudinal internal cavities (Figure 1, a window frame-10 with grids and hollow spaces in between), comprising the following steps: - identifying damaged areas to be repaired in the plastic dividers (Figure 3, damaged area-22), - extracting the damaged areas to be repaired previously identified by means of cuts (Col 2 line 41-45), some gaps being defined, - preparing inserts of undamaged material and with a shape matching said gaps (Figure 3C, patch/insert-24, Col 2 line 44-45), and - attaching, by means of …(6) with filler material, the inserts (Figure 3A-B, filler material-26, Col 2line 45-46) of undamaged material in the gaps; - wherein for the step of extracting the damaged areas to be repaired, cuts Col 1line 50-55). Further, Fenske disclose that the damaged area there being defined between the cut made in the divider and the inner edge of the insert a filling space for filling with the filler material (Figure 3a-b, filler-26) but didn’t disclose that in the plastic divider, wherein a first edge of the gap in the plastic divider comprises a first pair of plastic layers separated by a first longitudinal internal cavity, wherein a second edge of the insert comprises a second pair of plastic layers separated by a second longitudinal internal cavity, and wherein a first portion of the filler material penetrates into the first longitudinal internal cavity between the first pair of plastic layers and a second portion of the filler material penetrates into the second longitudinal internal cavity between the second pair of plastic layers is deemed novel and unobvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140141190.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741