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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1, 9, 30, 52, and 90 on 09/08/2025.
Response to Arguments
The arguments are primarily drawn to the amendments. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal (PG-PUB 2020/0122442) in view of Both (PG-PUB 2021/0362443), Roche (PG-PUB 2016/0271839), and Childers (PG-PUB 2018/0236732).
Regarding claim 1, Dalal teaches a process capable of stamp forming a workpiece (Figure 9), the method comprising:
positioning the workpiece between a first stamping tool and a second stamping tool, the first stamping tool defining a first forming face and the second stamping tool defining a second forming face opposing the first forming face [0042]-[0043], [0048], [0061]; and
compressing the workpiece between the first forming face and the second forming face in response to the first stamping tool and the second stamping tool being approximated (Figure 9-12 and [0050]-[0052], [0055]).
Dalal teaches the stack can be used to from non-flat or non-planar components [0039], and the panel can be molded into a desired shape [0059].
Dalal does not teach:
(1) an elastomeric layer opposing the first stamping tool, the elastomeric layer disposed between the first stamping tool and a second stamping tool, wherein the elastomeric layer defining a first compliant stamping surface opposing the first forming face and a second compliant stamping surface opposing the second forming face and compressing the workpiece between the first forming face and the first compliant stamping surface;
(2) removably securing the elastomer layer to the second stamping tool; and
(3) the first stamping tool defining a first forming face with multiple geometrical portions.
As to (1), Both teaches a process of manufacturing a fiber composite component, comprising a step of arranging a semifinished part between a first and second membrane. Both teaches a first membrane laid on a lower mold and a second membrane laid on the fiber composite semifinished part and thus the first membrane [0015], and the membranes are made of silicone [0025] and a release coating [0023]. Both teaches the first and second membranes are arranged to be free from undulations and folds in order to prevent damage to the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part [0015]. Both teaches deforming and consolidating the semifinished part (Figure 2 and [0016]-[0017], [0036]-[0037]). Both teaches by means of the first membrane and the second membrane, shear stresses between the fiber composite semifinished part and the pressing device are prevented or reduced, such that the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part is not damaged, or is only minimally damaged, during the deformation process [0016]-[0017]. Both teaches the membranes have a release coating on the sides facing the semifinished part to reduce a level of friction between the membrane and composite part [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Dalal with a first and second rubber membrane disposed on the tools for the benefit of reducing friction and shear stresses the composite material and tool, thereby preventing damage to the composite material during the shaping and consolidation process as taught by Both.
As to (2), Roche teaches a process of manufacturing a carbon fiber article, the process comprising laying up a release material on a tool (Figure 3-4 and [0050]-[0051]); securing the release material using vacuum pressure (Figure 4-5 and [0051]-[0055]); shaping prepreg materials [0054]; and removing the shaped preform (Figure 9 and [0058]).
Both teaches the first membrane and the second membrane are preferably tensioned or are at least arranged so as to be free from undulations and folds, in order
to prevent damage to the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part during the further course of the method, but does not explicitly disclose the arrangement, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention of Dalal in view of Both vacuum conduits of Roche, a known suitable mechanism for fixing release layers, to yield the predictable result of fixing layers to a tool surface to reduce wrinkles and folds in the elastomeric layers as desired by Both. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate vacuum conduits on both tool for removably securing the elastomeric layers to the tool surfaces of Dalal.
As to (3), Childers teaches a process of manufacturing a composite sandwich structure (Abstract and [0009]-[0010]). Childers teaches the composite sandwiches structures are commonly used for aircraft interior parts which require contoured shapes or other non-planar (e.g., complex) shapes [0002]- [0005]. Childers teaches a composite sandwich with a flat or non-curves surface with a surface feature (e.g., notch 128). Childers teaches the shape is provided by a first die half having a flat or curved tool surface and one or more protrusions, and a second die half having a flat or curved tool surface corresponding to the shape of the tool surface of the first die half [0080].
Both Dalal and Childers are drawn the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing composite sandwich structures into non-flat and non-planar structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Dalal with a first forming face with a flat or curved tool surface and protrusion(s) (i.e., multiple geometrical portions) and a second forming face with a matching flat or curved tool surface as taught Childers, a known suitable technique for applying shape to laminates, to yield the predictable result of providing a composite sandwich structure with surface feature(s) suitable for use in aircraft interiors as taught by Childers.
Regarding claim 2, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the elastomeric layer comprises an elastomeric sheet (Both, [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 2, wherein the elastomeric sheet has an even thickness (Both, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising positioning the elastomeric layer between the first stamping tool and the second stamping tool (Both, Figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, in response to reaching a predetermined pressure during the compressing (Dalal [0050], [0055]-[0058]), the method further comprising:
deforming the first compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a first geometry of the first forming face;
deforming the second compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a second geometry of the second forming face; and
deforming the workpiece based on the first geometry of the first forming face, the
deformed first compliant stamping surface, the deformed second compliant stamping surface and the second geometry of the second forming face (Dalal, Figures 9-10 and 14 and Both, Figure 2 and [0016]-[0017], [0036]-[0037]).
During the compressing and consolidating, the shape of the elastomeric layer would naturally conform to the first geometry of the first forming face due to the inherent properties of the compliant elastomeric layer of Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers.
Regarding claim 9, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 7, wherein the first geometry of the first forming face comprises at least one of protruding portion or a step portion (Childers, Figure 8 and [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 7, wherein the second geometry of the second forming face matches the first geometry of the first forming face (Dalal, Figures 9-10).
Regarding claim 11, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the workpiece is a thermoplastic composite material comprising reinforcement fibers embedded in a thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 11, further comprising preheating the workpiece to at least a predetermined melting temperature of the thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0049], [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 11, further comprising: preheating the first stamping tool, the second stamping tool and the elastomeric layer to a predetermined solidification temperature for the thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0051], [0055], [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 11, further comprising: consolidating the workpiece in response to reaching a predetermined pressure during the compressing (Dalal, [0050], [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 18, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising naturally isolating the manufactured article by separating the first stamping tool and the second stamping tool to release the workpiece; and removing the workpiece from between the first forming face and the first compliant stamping surface in order to remove the manufactured article for further processing or use.
Regarding claim 19, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising: positioning a second elastomeric layer between the second stamping tool and the workpiece along a stamping axis, the second elastomeric layer defining a third compliant stamping surface opposing the second compliant stamping surface and a fourth compliant stamping surface facing the workpiece and opposing the second forming face (see rejection of claim 1, Both, Figures 1 and 2 and Roche, Figure 3-5 and [0051]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 20, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 19, wherein the second elastomeric layer is removably secured to the first stamping tool (Roche, Figure 3-5 and [0051]-[0055]).
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal (PG-PUB 2020/0122442) in view of Both (PG-PUB 2021/0362443), Roche (PG-PUB 2016/0271839), and Childers (PG-PUB 2018/0236732), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Smith (PG-PUB 2007/0095459).
Regarding claim 8, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 7, in response to reaching a predetermined pressure during the compressing (Dalal [0050], [0055]-[0058]), the method further comprising:
deforming the first compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a first geometry of the first forming face;
deforming the second compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a second geometry of the second forming face; and
deforming the workpiece based on the first geometry of the first forming face, the
deformed first compliant stamping surface, the deformed second compliant stamping surface and the second geometry of the second forming face (Dalal, Figures 9-10 and 14).
Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches forming a fully consolidated composite sandwich panel by compressing the stack until the at least one core sheet becomes fully consolidated (Dalal, [0016], [0042], [0046]).
Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers does not teach the predetermined pressure comprises at least one of about 400 psi or higher, about 300 psi or higher, about 200 psi or higher and about 100 psi or higher.
Smith teaches molding a sandwich panel with a press (Figures 1-6), wherein the molding process occurs at relatively low pressure [0033]. Smith teaches the external pressure applied to the skins is between 15 to 150 psi [0032]-[0033].
Dalal is silent to the particular pressures applied during compressing and the parameters for consolidating the composite sandwich panel, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Dalal with the compressing parameter of 150 psi, a known suitable pressure applied for pressing a sandwich panel as taught by Smith, to yield the predictable result of forming a compressed sandwich panel.
During the compressing and consolidating, the shape of the elastomeric layer would naturally conform to the first geometry of the first forming face due to the inherent properties of the compliant elastomeric layer of Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers, including at 150 psi as taught by Smith. Given that the first geometry of the first forming face and the second geometry of the second forming face are coupled and matching (Dalal, Figures 9-10), the second compliant stamping force that conforms to the first geometry would be matching to the shape of the second geometry.
Claims 22 and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal (PG-PUB 2020/0122442) in view of Both (PG-PUB 2021/0362443), Roche (PG-PUB 2016/0271839), and Childers (PG-PUB 2018/0236732), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Aijima (PG-PUB 2008/0217806).
Regarding claim 22, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the workpiece formed by a stack of layers can be used to form non-flat or non-planar composites (Dalal, [0039]).
Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers does not teach positioning a second elastomeric layer between the elastomeric layer and the workpiece along a stamping axis, the second elastomeric layer defining a third compliant stamping surface opposing the first forming face and a fourth compliant stamping surface facing the workpiece and opposing the second forming face.
Aijima teaches a process of manufacturing a laminate comprising a plurality of prepregs (Figures 1 and 3, item 20 and 30) and prepreg peel plies (Figure 1 and 3, item 40). Aijima teaches using a pair of mold to form the composite (Figure 3 and [0040]-[0041]) and peeling the prepreg peel plies (Figure 4 and [0042]) in order to manufacture the composite with stepped portions (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers with the technique of Aijima utilizing multiple layers of peel plies to distribute compressive force throughout the stack when manufacturing non-flat or non-planar composites as suggested by Dalal. Accordingly, as suggested with the technique of Aijima, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate multiple elastomeric layers (e.g., a second elastomeric layer) of Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers to provide a non-flat or non-planar composite.
Regarding claim 24, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 22, in response to reaching a predetermined pressure during the compressing (Dalal [0050], [0055]-[0058]), the method further comprising:
deforming the first compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a first geometry of the first forming face;
deforming the second compliant stamping surface of the elastomeric layer based on a second geometry of the second forming face; and
deforming the workpiece based on the first geometry of the first forming face, the
deformed first compliant stamping surface, the deformed second compliant stamping surface and the second geometry of the second forming face (Dalal, Figures 9-10 and 14).
During the compressing and consolidating, the shape of the elastomeric layer would naturally conform to the first geometry of the first forming face due to the inherent properties of the compliant elastomeric layer of Dalal in view of Both, Roche, and Childers. Given that the first geometry of the first forming face and the second geometry of the second forming face are matching (Dalal, Figures 9-10), the second compliant stamping force that conforms to the first geometry would be matching of the shape of the second geometry.
Regarding claim 25, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 22, wherein the workpiece is a thermoplastic composite material comprising reinforcement fibers embedded in a thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 26, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 25, further comprising preheating the workpiece to at least a predetermined melting temperature of the thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0049], [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 27, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 25, further comprising preheating the first stamping tool, the second stamping tool, the elastomeric layer, and the second elastomeric layer to a predetermined solidification temperature for the thermoplastic matrix material (Dalal, [0049], [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 28, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 25, further comprising: consolidating the workpiece in response to reaching a predetermined pressure during the compressing (Dalal, [0050], [0055]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 29, Dalal in view of Both, Roche, Childers, and Aijima teaches the process as applied to claim 22, further comprising naturally isolating the molded article by separating the first stamping tool and the second stamping tool to release the workpiece; removing the second elastomeric layer and the workpiece from between the second forming face and the first compliant stamping surface; and removing the workpiece from the fourth compliant stamping surface of the second elastomeric layer.in order to remove the manufactured article for further processing or use.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal (PG-PUB 2020/0122442) in view of Both (PG-PUB 2021/0362443) and Roche (PG-PUB 2016/0271839).
Regarding claim 30, Dalal teaches a process capable of stamp forming a workpiece (Figure 9), the method comprising:
positioning the workpiece between a first stamping tool and second stamping tool, the first stamping tool defining a first forming face and the second stamping tool defining a second forming face opposing the first forming face [0042]-[0043], [0048], [0061]; and
compressing the workpiece between the first forming face and the second forming face in response to the first stamping tool and the second stamping tool being approximated (Figure 9-12 and [0050]-[0052], [0055]).
Dalal does not teach:
(1) an rubber elastomeric layer opposing the first stamping tool, the elastomeric layer disposed between the first stamping tool and a second stamping tool, wherein the elastomeric layer defining a first compliant stamping surface opposing the first forming face and a second compliant stamping surface opposing the second forming face and compressing the workpiece between the first forming face and the first compliant stamping surface and
(2) removably securing the rubber elastomer layer to the second stamping tool.
As to (1), Both teaches a process of manufacturing a fiber composite component, comprising a step of arranging a semifinished part between a first and second membrane. Both teaches a first membrane laid on a lower mold and a second membrane laid on the fiber composite semifinished part and thus the first membrane [0015], and the membranes are made of silicone [0025]. Both teaches the first and second membranes are arranged to be free from undulations and folds in order to prevent damage to the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part [0015]. Both teaches deforming and consolidating the semifinished part (Figure 2 and [0016]-[0017], [0036]-[0037]. Both teaches by means of the first membrane and the second membrane, shear stresses between the fiber composite semifinished part and the pressing device are prevented or reduced, such that the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part is not damaged, or is only minimally damaged, during the deformation
process [0016]-[0017]. Both teaches the membranes have a release coating on the sides facing the semifinished part to reduce a level of friction between the membrane and composite part [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Dalal with a first and second rubber membrane disposed on the tools for the benefit of reducing friction and shear stresses the composite material and tool, thereby preventing damage during the shaping and consolidation process as taught by Both.
Both teaches the first membrane and the second membrane are preferably tensioned or are at least arranged so as to be free from undulations and folds, in order
to prevent damage to the surface of the fiber composite semifinished part during the further course of the method, but does not explicitly disclose the arrangement, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere.
As to (2), Roche teaches a process of manufacturing a carbon fiber article, the process comprising laying up a release material on a tool (Figure 3-4 and [0050]-[0051]); securing the release material using vacuum pressure (Figure 4-5 and [0051]-[0055]); shaping prepreg materials [0054]; and removing the shaped preform (Figure 9 and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention of Dalal with a release sheet and vacuum conduits of Roche, a known technique for workpiece removal, to improve workpiece removal from the tool surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the release sheets and vacuum conduits on both tool surfaces to provide workpiece removal along both surfaces for easy removal from the first and second tool surfaces of Dalal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights