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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-10 regarding 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections for claim 11 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. The new prior art for independent claim 11 was required based on the amendments to the claim. The prior art of Crawford is not used in this office action.
Other arguments for claim 11 are drawn to amendments to the claim, which will be discussed in the rejections of this office action.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that applicant’s arguments on pages 11-15 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 12-17 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference of Crawford applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments regarding the prior arts of Sweeney and Shmidt-Bleker are drawn to their incorporation with the art of Crawford.
Amendments to claims 11-12, and cancellation of claims 1-10, 16, & 18-20 are acknowledged.
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 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.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nohr (US5455074A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
11. A layup manufacturing process of a composite part, consisting of: applying an epoxy to a first layer of composite material; laying a second layer of composite material onto the first layer to shape the second layer of composite material as a layup, said epoxy disposed between said first layer and said second layer; repeating the applying step and the laying step at least once until the layup is shaped as the composite part; and heating the epoxy in the layup with a dielectric barrier discharge applicator to cure the layup to form the composite part.
With respect to claim 11, the prior art of Nohr teaches a layup manufacturing process of a composite laminate part, consisting of: applying an adhesive composition to a first layer of composite material [Claim 1(A)]. The adhesive composition comprises a cycloaliphatic diepoxide monomer at 60-94 wt% [Col. 4, lines 13-57]. Although not explicitly stated by Nohr, this is understood by the Examiner to teach an ‘epoxy’ composition.
Nohr teaches laying a second layer of composite material onto the first layer to shape the second layer of composite material as a layup, said epoxy-based composition disposed between said first layer and said second layer [Claim 1(C)].
Nohr teaches an embodiment repeating the applying step and the laying step at least once to use a third sheet/layer until the layup is shaped as the composite part [Claim 13(D),(E)&(2nd D)].
Nohr teaches excimer lamps of the dielectric barrier discharge applicator emit incoherent, pulsed ultraviolet radiation, which heats the composite structure leading to the formation and curing of the composite part [Col. 6, lines 29-66; Col. 7, lines 40-45].
Although not explicitly taught by Nohr, it would have been understood and prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the layers of the composite structure would be heated due to the energy imparted by the UV radiation from the DBD applicator.
Claims 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohr (US5455074A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11, and further in view of Sweeney et al. (“Dielectric Barrier Discharge Applicator for Heating Carbon Nanotube-Loaded Interfaces and Enhancing 3D-Printed Bond Strength”). Claim elements are presented in italics.
12. The layup manufacturing process of claim 11, wherein the heating step comprises: positioning the dielectric barrier discharge applicator proximal to the layup, said dielectric barrier discharge applicator comprising a pair of electrodes with a dielectric layer and air gap positioned therebetween; heating resistively the composite material in the layup with a plasma produced when an electric current is applied across the pair of electrodes in the dielectric barrier discharge applicator; and transferring heat from the composite material in the layup to the epoxy to cure the layup in the shape of the composite part.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, Nohr teaches a dielectric barrier discharge applicator for curing a plurality of composite layers.
Nohr teaches the DBD applicator is held approximately 1cm from the layup [Col. 7, lines 33-34].
Nohr is silent on the detailed operation of the dielectric barrier discharge applicator, including its electrodes and the design of the applicator.
However, the prior art of Sweeney teaches the heating step comprises: positioning a dielectric barrier discharge applicator proximal to the layup (Fig. 3A-B), said dielectric barrier discharge applicator comprising a pair of electrodes with a dielectric layer and air gap positioned therebetween [P. 2310, left column]; heating resistively the composite material in the layup with a plasma produced when an electric current is applied across the pair of electrodes in the dielectric barrier discharge [P. 2311, Left col., last ¶ - Right column]; and transferring heat to a composite material comprising nanotubes loaded at interfaces between deposited polymeric layers to cure the layup in the shape of the composite part [P. 2310].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the composite material heating and curing means of a dielectric barrier discharge applicator, taught by Sweeney, in place of the DBD applicator in the process taught by Nohr. This modification would predictably result in the dielectric barrier discharge applicator of Sweeney heating the composite material and curing the surrounding epoxy in the process taught by Nohr. Sweeney teaches a process comprising a dielectric barrier discharge applicator would result in parts produced having isotropic strength equivalent to their injection-molded counterparts [P. 2314, Left column]; this advantage would also be a predictable result in the modified process of Nohr, in view of Sweeney.
13. The layup manufacturing process of claim 12, wherein the dielectric barrier discharge applicator is stationary.
With respect to claim 13, Nohr teaches the location (Fig. 1, items 122, 124) of the dielectric barrier discharge applicator is mounted and stationary, but adjustable to correct gap distance [Col. 8, lines 39-48].
14. The layup manufacturing process of claim 12, wherein the dielectric barrier discharge applicator is movable relative to the layup.
With respect to claim 14, Nohr teaches the dielectric barrier discharge applicator is movable relative to the layup, as the layup is conveyed at a set line speed by rollers (Fig. 1, items 138, 140; [Col. 7, lines 3-15]).
17. The layup manufacturing process of claim 12, wherein the composite material is a carbon fiber reinforced composite material or a composite material filled with carbon nanotubes, carbon black or chopped fibers.
With respect to claim 17, Nohr teaches the layer films are non-woven webs of cellulosic and/or polyolefin fibers [Col. 2, lines 55-62].
Nohr is silent on the composite material being a carbon fiber reinforced composite material or a composite material filled with carbon nanotubes, carbon black or chopped fibers.
However, Sweeney teaches the DBD process works effectively with nanotube-loaded polymers to provide additional heat for bonding material layers together [P. 2310]. Carbon nanotube (CNT) loading is well-known within the art to provide additional mechanical strength to a composite product.
If increased mechanical strength of the composite product taught by Nohr were desired, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of carbon nanotube loading, taught by Sweeney, to improve the DBD applicator curing method of Nohr, in view of Sweeney in the same way.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohr (US5455074A), in view of Sweeney et al. (“Dielectric Barrier Discharge Applicator for Heating Carbon Nanotube-Loaded Interfaces and Enhancing 3D-Printed Bond Strength”), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 12, as evidenced by Schmidt-Bleker (EP3346808A1).
15. The layup manufacturing process of claim 12, wherein the dielectric barrier discharge applicator is a hand-held dielectric barrier discharge applicator.
With respect to claim 15, Nohr, in view of Sweeney, teaches a DBD applicator mounted within a bonding assembly.
Nohr, in view of Sweeney, is silent on the dielectric barrier discharge applicator being a hand-held dielectric barrier discharge applicator.
However, it would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that if the applicator were not mounted to the assembly, the DBD applicator could be held by an operator at its desired place during operation; as “an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.” See MPEP 2144.04(III).
The prior art of Schmidt-Bleker provides evidence that a dielectric barrier discharge applicator [0028] can be manually held, as shown by a hand-held dielectric barrier discharge applicator (Fig. 17; [0210]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of a handheld dielectric barrier discharge applicator, taught by Schmidt-Bleker, to improve the similar process of Nohr, in view of Sweeney in the same way if desired based on the configuration of the assembly, or if the applicator mount was broken.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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 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 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748