DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application; Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/29/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
4/13/2026
10/24/2025
4/23/2025
01/15/2025
11/19/2024
4/25/2023
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-7 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuno, et al., Effect of side die pressure and adaptive die temperature control in press forming of U-beam using carbon fiber-reinforced PA6 sheets, Journal of Composite Materials 2017; 51(30): 4273-4286 (hereinafter “Tatsuno at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “a heat treatment tooling fixture configured to receive a fibrous preform.” A heat treatment tooling is taught. (Tatsuno at 4276, col. 1 – Press machine and die; all figs).
Claim 1 further requires “at least one zone, wherein each zone comprises: a plurality of temperature control channels disposed in the heat treatment tooling fixture and configured to receive a fluid for regulating a temperature of the fibrous preform.” At least one zone with temperature control channels are taught. (Tatsuno at 4278, Fig. 9).
Claim 1 further requires “an inlet temperature sensor configured to measure an inlet temperature of the fluid entering the plurality of temperature control channels” and “an outlet temperature sensor configured to measure an exit temperature of the fluid exiting the plurality of temperature control channels.” Tatsuno teaches that “[t]he heating/cooling process was selectively done by circulating the heating or cooling oil through the die.” (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1). This was done with a “heating/controlling system,” from a commercial manufacturer. Id. Temperatures are measured. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1). A photograph of a room full of electronics connecting to the tooling is shown. (Tatsuno at 4276, Fig. 3). Collectively, all of this more than reasonably conveys sensors to measure the fluid. There is no point in attempting to “control” heat transfer without knowing the temperatures of the heat transfer medium. While Tatsuno may not literally sue the words “inlet temperature sensor,” temperature sensors are known. Tatsuno teaches that thermocouples are used to measure the sheet temperatures. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 2; passim). Even in view of all of the teachings above and the Tatsuno reference as a whole, to the extent Tatsuno can somehow be construed as containing no sensors for measuring the fluids (no such concession is made), use of a sensor is an obvious expedient, reflecting application of known components (here a thermocouple, taught by Tatsuno) to achieve predictable results (measuring the temperature). One would be motivated to measure the temperature to control heat transfer, the stated goal of Tatsuno. (Tatsuno “Title,” abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “a controller configured to receive a first signal from the inlet temperature sensor and a second signal from the outlet temperature sensor, wherein the first signal corresponds to the inlet temperature of the fluid entering the plurality of temperature control channels and the second signal corresponds to the exit temperature of the fluid exiting the plurality of temperature control channels.” What is understood as a controller is taught. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1: “The heating/cooling system (Matsui MFG. Co., Ltd) was used to control the die temperature.”).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the controller is configured to monitor the first signal and the second signal for regulating at least one of: a flow rate of the fluid; or a temperature of the fluid.” As understood, the controller is so configured. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1: “The heating/cooling system (Matsui MFG. Co., Ltd) was used to control the die temperature.”). The separate heating cooling systems connected to the upper/lower dies and sidewalls more than reasonably suggests monitoring first signals, second signals, etc. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1).
As to Claim 2, this claim refers to the material worked on by an apparatus, and is not accorded patentable weight. MPEP 2115.
As to Claim 3, the discussion accompanying Claim 1 is relied upon. Measuring inlet and outlet temperatures is basic heat transfer. As discussed above, Tatsuno teaches separate heating cooling systems connected to the upper/lower dies and sidewalls. (Tatsuno at 4278, col. 1). There is no point in having a heating/cooling system if one cannot ascertain whether a cryogenic fluid or molten salt is flowing through it.
As to Claim 4, Tatsuno teaches “circulating the heating or cooling coil through the die.” This more than reasonably suggest flow meters, signals, etc. connected to the control system.
As to Claim 5, Tatsano teaches heating and cooling the die. (Tatsano at 4284, col. 2). This would necessarily involve measuring temperatures, calculating differences, and regulating flow.
As to Claim 6, Tatsuno teaches maintaining the resin in the sheets above their melting point. (Tatsano at 4284, col. 2). This is construed as a controller so configured.
As to Claim 7, the concentration of channels “near a middle” decreases towards an outside edge. (Tatsano at 4275, Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vossel, et al., Influence of the Die Temperature Control on Solidification and the Casting Process, International Journal of Metalcasting 2020; 14(4): 907-925 (cited by Applicants, hereinafter “Vossel at __”) is noted as relevant. Vossel provides a discussion of the design of a heating/cooling system and instrumentation for a similar casting process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights