DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 and 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 1, 3-16 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the composite stringer package" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-16 and 21 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 15-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, in view of Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV.
Regarding claim 1, KNUTSON teaches: A system for constructing a compacted stringer package (KNUTSON teaches a system for constructing a stringer [Abstract; 0036].), the system comprising: a compression housing comprising: a tray (KNUTSON teaches a tray (110) [Figs. 2A-2B; 0049]); and a lid that is rigid and movable relative to the tray such that the compression housing is in an open stare or in a closed state (KNUTSON teaches a lid (130) that is rigid and movable [Figs. 2A-2C; ].); a compression layer that is positioned over the tray (KNUTSON teaches a compression layer (120) that is positioned over the tray [Fig. 3A; 0048].); and a . . . layer that is positioned over the compression layer, opposite the tray (KNUTSON teaches a breather layer (132) that is positioned over the compression layer, opposite the tray [Fig. 2A; 0060].), wherein, with the compression housing in the open state, the tray receives a portion of the composite stringer package such that the compression layer is between the tray and the composite stringer package (KNUTSON teaches the compression layer (120) is between the tray and the composite stringer (190) [Figs. 3A-3C; 0058-0059].); and wherein, with the compression housing in the closed stated; the lid and the compression layer form a sealed chamber (KNUTSON teaches the lid (130) and the compression layer (120) form a sealed chamber [0060].); the . . . layer is positioned between the lid and the compression layer and within the sealed chamber (KNUTSON teaches the breather layer is positioned between the lid (130) and the compression layer (120) within the sealed chamber [Figs. 2A-2F; 0060].); and the . . . layer distributes vacuum within the sealed chamber (KNUTSON teaches the breather layer (132) distributes vacuum within the sealed chamber [0060].); the composite stringer package is positioned between the lid and the compression layer within the sealed chamber (KNUTSON teaches the composite stringer package (190) is between the lid (130) and the compression layer (120) within the sealed chamber [Figs. 3A-3C; 0058].); and the compression layer draws the composite stringer package away from the tray and toward the lid and compacts the composite stringer package against the lid in response to application of vacuum within the sealed chamber (KNUTSON teaches the compression layer (120) draws the composite stringer package (190) away from the tray (110) and toward the lid (130) and compacts the stringer package against the lid in response to application of vacuum within the sealed chamber [Figs. 3A-3C; 0061].).
KNUTSON is silent as to a breather layer. In the same field of endeavor, pressure systems, ISAKOV teaches a breather layer (832) coupled to a cover (802) [0109; 0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, by having a breather layer coupled to the cover (lid), as suggested by ISAKOV, in order to allow volatile substance to be drawn into the vacuum [0115].
Regarding claim 4, KNUTSON teaches: wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the lid is in contact with the compression layer and a vacuum seal is formed between the lid and the compression layer (KNUTSON teaches the compression layer (120) and the lid (130) is in contact and a seal is formed [Fig. 3A-3C; 0018].).
Regarding claim 5, ISAKOV further teaches: further comprising at least one barrier layer, wherein with the compression housing in the closed state, the at least one barrier layer is positioned between the compression layer and the breather layer (ISAKOV teaches a barrier layer (release layer 836) that is between the breather layer and the object [Fig. 8A; 0118].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, by having a barrier layer, as suggested by ISAKOV, in order to be able to be in direct contact with the product/object and apply pressure [0229; 0117].
Regarding claim 6, ISAKOV further teaches: wherein the breather layer is coupled to the lid (ISAKOV teaches a breather layer (832) coupled to a cover (802) [0109; 0115]).
Regarding claim 7, ISAKOV further teaches: further comprising a vacuum port located on the lid (ISAKOV teaches a vacuum port (832) coupled to the cover (802) [0109; Fig. 8A].), wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, vacuum is applied to the sealed chamber through the breather layer via the vacuum port (ISAKOV teaches vacuum is applied to the sealed chamber through the breather layer (832) [0109-0110; 0115; Fig. 8A; 0113].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, by having a vacuum port in the lid and applied vacuum to the sealed chamber, as suggested by ISAKOV, in order to provide a compression force [0112].
Regarding claim 8, ISAKOV further teaches: further comprising a vacuum system that is coupled to the vacuum port (ISAKOV teaches a vacuum system coupled to the vacuum port [Fig. 8A; 0110].), wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the vacuum system is selectively controlled to apply vacuum within the sealed chamber (ISAKOV teaches the vacuum system is controlled to apply a vacuum within the sealed chamber [0109-0110; 0115; Fig. 8A; 0112-0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, by having a vacuum system connected to the port in the lid and applied vacuum to the sealed chamber, as suggested by ISAKOV, in order to provide a compression force [0112].
Regarding claim 9, KNUTSON teaches: further comprising a lip seal positioned between the tray and the compression layer (KNUTSON teaches a lip seal [0018; Figs. 3A-3C].).
Regarding claim 15, ISAKOV further teaches: wherein the lid comprises at least one of a composite material, a metallic material, a polymeric material, and a polycarbonate material (ISAKOV teaches the cover can be made from aluminum [0098]. ISAKOV also teaches the cover can be made of metal inserts or rubber [0230].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, by having a cover made of a metal or rubber material, as suggested by ISAKOV, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Regarding claim 16, KNUTSON teaches: wherein the compression layer is flexible (KNUTSON teaches the compression layer (120) is flexible [0054].).
Regarding claim 21, KNUTSON teaches: wherein the compression layer comprises at least one of a rubber material, a polymeric material, and a silicone material (KNUTSON teaches the compression layer (120) is made of silicone [0054].).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evens et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0132523), hereinafter EVENS.
Regarding claim 3, KNUTSON teaches: wherein: the tray comprises: a receptacle (KNUTSON teaches the tray (110) with a receptacle [Figs. 2A-2E, 3A-3C].); and raised edges that surround the receptacle (KNUTSON teaches the tray has raised edges that surround the receptacle [Figs. 2A-2E, 3A-3C].); . . . and second portion of the compression layer extends over the raised edges (KNUTSON teaches the second portion of the compression layer (120) extends over the raised edges [Figs. 2A-2E; 3A-3C].); and with the compression housing in the closed state, the second portion of the compression layer is compressed between the raised edges and the lid (KNUTSON teaches the second portion of the compression layer (120) is compressed between the raised edges and the lid (130) [Figs. 2C, 3C].). KNUTSON is silent as to the first portion of the compression layer lining the receptacle. In the same field of endeavor, composite systems, EVENS teaches a first portion of a compression layer (110) lines the receptable and a second portion of the layer extends over the raised edges [Fig. 8]. EVENS teaches the second portion is compressed between the raised edges and the lid (116) [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having the compression layer over the raised edges and compressed, as suggested by EVENS, in order to facilitate escape of volatiles [0036].
Regarding claim 5, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, composite systems, EVENS further teaches: further comprising at least one barrier layer (EVENS teaches one barrier layer (104) [Fig. 7]), wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the at least one barrier layer is positioned between the compression layer and the breather layer (EVENS shows the barrier layer is positioned between the compression layer (110) and the breather layer (114) [Fig. 7]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having a barrier layer, as suggested by EVENS, in order to distribute an accurate measurement of temperature [0044].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pham et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0139857), hereinafter PHAM.
Regarding claim 4, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, composites, PHAM teaches in a closed state, the lid (34) is in contact with the compression layer (32) and a vacuum seal is formed between the lid and the compression layer [0028; Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having the lid in contact with the compression layer and vacuum seal both, as suggested by PHAM, in order to form a seal and a vacuum chamber [0010; 0028].
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (U.S. 8,444,127), hereinafter WATSON.
Regarding claim 9, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, composites, WATSON teaches a lip seal (104) is positioned between the tray (52) and a compression layer (110) [Fig. 7; Col. 9, lines 50-54]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SHAW and SPEXARTH, by having a lip seal between the tray and compression layer, as suggested by WATSON, in order to form a seal between all layers and secure them [Col. 9, lines 54-58].
Regarding claim 11, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a seal layer positioned over the lid, wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the seal layer is in contact with the compression layer and a vacuum seal is formed between the seal layer and the compression layer. In the same field of endeavor, composites systems, WATSON further teaches: further comprising a seal layer positioned over the lid (WATSON teaches a seal layer (102) [Col. 9, lines 50-51; Fig. 7]), wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the seal layer is in contact with the compression layer and a vacuum seal is formed between the seal layer and the compression layer (WATSON teaches the seal layer (102) is in contact with the compression layer (110) and a vacuum seal is formed [Fig. 7; Col. 9, lines 50-56]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having a seal layer, as suggested by WATSON, in order to form a seal between all layers and secure them [Col. 9, lines 54-58].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YOUSEFPOUR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0072816), hereinafter YOUSEFPOUR.
Regarding claim 10, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a gasket that is coupled to the lid, wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the gasket is in contact with the compression layer and a vacuum seal is formed between the gasket and the compression layer. In the same field of endeavor, composites, YOUSEFPOUR teaches a gasket (30) that are coupled to the lid and the gasket is in contact with the compression layer (15) [Fig. 4) and a vacuum seal is formed between the gasket and compression layer [0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having gaskets between the lid and compression layer to form a vacuum, as suggested by YOUSEFPOUR, in order to form an edge seal [0081].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, and Watson et al. (U.S. 8,444,127), hereinafter WATSON, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of YOUSEFPOUR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0072816), hereinafter YOUSEFPOUR.
Regarding claim 12, KNUTSON, ISAKOV and WATSON teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the compression layer and the seal layer comprise the same material. YOUSEFPOUR teaches the two bag materials (15/25) [Fig. 4] are the same material as both may be rubber materials [0062-0063]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON, ISAKOV and WATSON, by having the two vacuum bags be made of rubber material, as suggested by YOUSEFPOUR, in order to be durable and appropriate to resist abuse associated with regular use [0062-0063].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jagos et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0014887), hereinafter JAGOS.
Regarding claim 13, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising at least one end plug that is positioned on the tray, wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the at least one end plug is positioned between the compression layer and the breather layer. In the same field of endeavor, composites, JAGOS teaches at least one end plug (30) positioned on the tray (10) and the plug is positioned between all the layers [Fig. 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having end plugs to hold the layers, as suggested by JAGOS, in order to improve mold preparation and demold for quicker cycle times [0002].
Regarding claim 14, JAGOS further teaches: further comprising at least one end-plug support that is positioned between the tray and the compression layer (JAGOS shows a plug support (50) positioned between the tray and layers [Fig. 4]), wherein, with the compression housing in the closed state, the at least one end-plug support receives a portion of the at least one end plug (JAGOS shows the plug (30) is received by the plug support (50) [Figs. 2-4]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having end plugs to hold the layers, as suggested by JAGOS, in order to improve mold preparation and demold for quicker cycle times [0002].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0260840), hereinafter KNUTSON, and Isakov et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0330943), hereinafter ISAKOV, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2012/0125534), hereinafter WATSON 2.
Regarding claim 15, KNUTSON and ISAKOV teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, composites, WATSON 2 teaches a lid (2) that comprises a strongback support tooling (8) that is made of stiff material, such as a panel made of honeycomb composite material [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KNUTSON and ISAKOV, by having a composite lid, as suggested by WATSON 2, in order to create a vacuum chamber [0033].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant can 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 on (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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748