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 Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 12/11/2025. Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Tyler (US 2005/0102940) teaches coating the core and frame as opposed to the second door skin. However, the adhesive on the frame and core is sandwiched between the core and frame and the second door skin and other processes known in the prior art teach application directly to the second door skin. Thus, unless Applicant can articulate a specific advantage, coating the skin as opposed to the frame and core appears to be nothing more than a functionally equivalent method of applying the adhesive between the frame/core and then second skin that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. It would have been apparent coating the skin in the same locations relative to the final bonding location when coating the frame and core would have disposed the final adhesive equivalently. Applicant states nothing to refute this.
Applicant further argues Tyler doesn’t teach applying plural lines of adhesive on the second skin as is now claimed. However, it is known adhesive application can occur by a variety of different methods and in different patterns to achieve the same effect of applying adhesive to bond the frame/core to the skin. The Examiner submits known methods of applying adhesive in known locations and in known quantities are obvious if the specific pattern applied by those methods could have been applied by the known disposition methods to achieve the desired quantities in the desired locations, and if there is no evidence the disposition pattern has any effect irrespective of quantity and location. Thus, the exact pattern of disposition applied by known methods to achieve known quantities in known locations is not considered inventive on its own unless there is some evidence the pattern itself has some utility distinct from the coating method, coating quantity, and coating location. For example, if it is known to coat a frame with an adhesive bead, a smaller frame may have a single bead, whereas a larger frame may have a wavy bead, or two or three beads to achieve equivalent coating weight. Adhesives coating variations in a specific location to achieve a specific quantity are well-known and are considered design choices in adhesive deposition to achieve desired coating weight in a desired area. Such coating variations cannot be considered inventive on their own unless it is demonstrated the deposition variation has some process effect other than merely applying adhesive in a desired location at a desired quantity. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (indicating matters relating to design only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art).
Tyler teaches the adhesive may be coated selectively around the perimeter frame and/or on the core (See page 4, paragraph [0034], indicating “[p]ortions of the perimeter frame P and/or core C may be selectively coated by adjusting spray headers or other coating device used for applying the adhesive” wherein the core is optional, see page 3, paragraph [0032], thus making abundantly to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the frame forms the secure connection and any adhesive on the core is merely supplementary to the structural frame connection to ensure the core remains locked in place) and further indicates adhesive coating of skin is adjustable for selective coating of the interior surface portion in desired areas and in desired amounts (See page 3, paragraph [0028]-[0029], indicating multiple nozzles may apply an “even coat or adhesive” or “may be adjusted for selectively coating portions of the interior surface” of the skin wherein “[t]he width and thickness of the adhesive applied may also be adjusted depending on the desired amount of adhesive and/or the width of the door being assembled”).
This suggests adhesive application is highly variable in amount, pattern, shape, etc. based on need and that the frame and core components may be coated in separate steps or separate amounts, which would have been desirable to apply different quantities to different areas to achieve desired bonding in desired locations for the structural bonding amount required for the frame and the supplementary amount to stabilize the core. As stated above, it would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that a strong bond to the frame is more important to bonding stability than strong bonding to the core since the frame defines the perimeter bond and the core need not exist at all.
As stated above, similar coating as is taught on the frame and core in Tyler may have predictably been applied as a functionally equivalent alternative to the skin in same desired quantities/patterns thereon so achieve the exactly same deposition of adhesive between the frame/core and second skin as is desired for bonding (See, for example, Liang et al., US 2012/0027999, pages 3-4, paragraphs [0041]-[0045], teaching a process wherein after the frame and core are bonded to one skin, adhesive for bonding the second skin, referred to as the top door skin, is applied directly to the skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core). Thus, if the perimeter of the skin bonds to the frame, adhesive could have predictably been coated on the frame itself, or on the perimeter of the skin to be bonded to the frame, in order to bonding the adhesive between the frame and skin with equivalent effect. As argued, the perimeter region would have predictably been coated separately form the core region in order to dispose a desired amount of bonding adhesive here where it is more essentially, thus saving costs by using less in the core region, where it is less necessary.
Although Applicant argues the specific two bead pattern around the perimeter is not taught explicitly, it is clear adhesive application methods are highly variable and may occur in a wide variety of desired pattern to equivalent effect to depose a desired amount of adhesive in a desired location between the desired materials to be bonded, i.e. the fame and skin. It has been shown similar automated door making processes using similar adhesives coat the adhesive in beads via nozzles that may dispense any glue pattern as desired to achieve a desired coating weight over the frame (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0036] and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], wherein the adhesive may be coated in a variety of method including spraying or bead coatings in a variety of selective patterns). There is no indication in the instant specification or in the prior art that the specific coating pattern of adhesive, whether applied via spraying or beads, has any effect on bonding other than to applied a desired amount of adhesive in desired areas. Further, Liang et al. clearly teaches applying PUR adhesive to door skins in beads/lines without any specific limitation (See page 3, paragraph [0040]). Thus, evidence suggests whether one larger bead, two medium beads, three smaller beads, or an equivalent spray or roll coating amount are applied, the bonding effect would have been expected to have been similar if similar adhesive quantities are supplied unless there is evidence to the contrary. This suggests the number of beads is nothing other than a design choice and/or a method of coating a desired adhesive amount.
Thus, Examiner submits it would have been an obvious design choice to bead coat the frame in any suitable bead pattern the produces the desired coating weight on the frame after bonding, such as with two spaced beads. If Applicant’s coating of two beads creates a specific process advantage, Applicant must provide evidence to demonstrate the superiority of two beads to spraying, one bead or three beads irrespective of the adhesive material quantity applied. Otherwise, Examiner submits choices such as bead size, unit weight, and spacing would have been obvious selections in when using known adhesive coating method where the pattern is easily varied, such as bead coating, to produce the desired adhesive coating over the frame, such as is desired known in door bonding. As such, Examiner submits two beads would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as suitable deposition to produce a desired coating volume of the adhesive on the frame after pressing. Note changes in configuration are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
To refute this interpretation that two beads is merely a choice of coating pattern that has no effect on result other than to coat the adhesive in desired quantities and locations, Applicant must present evidence the two bead pattern on the frame has some specific advantages other dispositions patterns of adhesive in similar quantities would not process. At the very least, Applicant must demonstrate the pattern matters for reasons other than merely controlling adhesive quantity and location. No such evidence has been presented.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/428,999 in view of Tyler (US 2005/0102940) and Liang et al. (US 2012/0027999).
Application No. 18/428,999 claims pre-assembling stiles and rails to a first door skin via hot met adhesives, such as PUR reactive adhesives, with green strength in a predetermined time, applying adhesive to the interior of the first skin, applying a core, applying adhesive to the second skin, placing the second skin and pressing. The only difference is the location of the coating on the second skin as a perimeter and interior and Application No. 18/428,999 teach perimeter coating but does not explicitly teach two beads. However, adhesives coating variation in a specific location to achieve a specific quantity are well-known and are considered design choices in adhesive deposition to achieve desired coating weight in a desired area. Such coating variations cannot be considered inventive on their own unless it is demonstrated the deposition variation has some process effect other than merely applying adhesive in a desired location at a desired quantity. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); see also In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (indicating matters relating to design only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art).
Tyler teaches the adhesive may be coated selectively around the perimeter frame and/or on the core (See page 4, paragraph [0034]) and further indicate adhesive coating of skin is adjustable for selective coating of the interior surface portion in desired areas and in desired amounts (See page 3, paragraph [0029]). This suggests frame and core components may be coated in separate steps or separate amounts, which may be desirable to apply different quantities to different areas to achieve desired bonding since it is clear the frame and core may be different materials that have different bonding characteristics. It also would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a strong bond to the frame is more important to bonding stability than strong bonding to the core since the frame defines the perimeter and the core need not exists at all. Although Tyler does not specifically teach coating the second skin directly, and instead coats the frame and core to bond the second skin [F2], it would have been apparent coating the second skin with similar adhesive quantities as are desired in the area of the frame and core would have had a similar bonding effect since it would dispose adhesive in the same areas between the frame, core and second skin. Further, Application No. 18/428,999 claims adhesive coating directly on the subsequently applied skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the perimeter of the second skin with a selectively higher amount of adhesive, and then subsequently coat a lower per area amount on the core. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable method of adhesively bonding the skin to the frame and core while securing a more secure bond to the frame and reducing adhesive supply to the core where it is less necessary, thus saving costs. Examiner submits coating the perimeter before the core is an obvious process choice in carrying out the coating produce. The holdings in Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959), In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and In re Gibson, 39, F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) indicate that the selection of any order or sequence in the steps of a process is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144(IV)(C).
The remaining claims such as bead coating and the process times, etc. are standard process variations as explained in the rejections below. Examiner notes roll coating and bead coating are well-known alternatives in adhesive application in door formation (See, for example, Liang et al. page 3, paragraph [0036] and page 3 paragraph [0040], teaching each of roll coating a nozzle applied adhesive as a bead as suitable alternative adhesive application methods). As described herein, there specific pattern or method of adhesive is not inventive if the method, quantity and location would have been obvious
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting 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.
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) 1-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 2005/0102940) in view of Liang et al. (US 2012/0027999).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Tyler teaches a method of assembling a door (See Abstract), comprising:
providing a first assembled half door including a first door skin [F1] and a frame comprising stiles and rails (See page 3, paragraph [0029], teaching stiles and rails are pre-assembled on a door facing [F1], i.e. a first door skin, via adhesive bonding);
applying a first adhesive to a first interior surface of the first door skin (See page 3, paragraph [0028], wherein adhesive is applied to the interior of each first door skin [F1]);
positioning one or more of a: core insert, lock block and blocking component on the interior surface of the first door skin (See page 3, paragraph [0032], wherein a core is placed onto the interior adhesive applied to the first door skin [F1]).
Tyler further teaches applying adhesive between a second door skin [F] by selectively coating portions of the perimeter frame and/or the core, thus indicating the frame may be separately coated (See page 4, paragraph [0034]), and
pressing the complete door (See page 4, paragraph [0037]);
wherein the adhesive is a polyurethane reactive (PUR) configured to achieve green strength within a predetermined time to prevent movement of components relative to one another (See page 3, paragraph [0028], wherein the adhesive is quick acting polyurethane reactive adhesive that has “sufficient tackiness,” i.e. green strength, so components do not shift).
As stated above, Tyler teaches the adhesive may be coated selectively around the perimeter frame and/or on the core (See page 4, paragraph [0034], indicating “[p]ortions of the perimeter frame P and/or core C may be selectively coated by adjusting spray headers or other coating device used for applying the adhesive” wherein the core is optional, see page 3, paragraph [0032], thus making abundantly to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the frame forms the secure connection and any adhesive on the core is merely supplementary to the structural frame connection to ensure the core remains locked in place) and further indicates adhesive coating of skin is adjustable for selective coating of the interior surface portion in desired areas and in desired amounts (See page 3, paragraph [0028]-[0029], indicating multiple nozzles may apply an “even coat or adhesive” or “may be adjusted for selectively coating portions of the interior surface” of the skin wherein “[t]he width and thickness of the adhesive applied may also be adjusted depending on the desired amount of adhesive and/or the width of the door being assembled”). This suggests adhesive application is highly variable in amount, pattern, shape, etc. based on need and that the frame and core components may be coated in separate steps or separate amounts, which would have been desirable to apply different quantities to different areas to achieve desired bonding in desired locations for the structural bonding amount required for the frame and the supplementary amount to stabilize the core. As stated above, it would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that a strong bond to the frame is more important to bonding stability than strong bonding to the core since the frame defines the perimeter bond and the core need not exist at all.
Although Tyler does not specifically teach coating the second skin directly, and instead coats the frame and core to bond the second skin [F2], it would have been apparent coating the second skin with similar adhesive quantities as are desired in the area of the frame and core would have had a similar bonding effect since it would have disposed adhesive in the same areas between the frame, core and second skin. Further, such adhesive coating of the subsequently applied skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core is well-known in similar door making processes, and thus predictably a suitable alternative for adhesive bonding the second door skin to the frame and core to adhesive coating the frame and core (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraphs [0041]-[0045], teaching a process wherein after the frame and core are bonded to one skin, adhesive for bonding the second skin, referred to as the top door skin, is applied directly to the skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core). This means if the perimeter of the skin bonds to the frame, such as in Tyler, adhesive could have predictably been coating on the frame itself, or on the perimeter of the skin to be bonded to the frame, in order to bonding the adhesive between the frame and skin to equivalent effect.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the perimeter of the second skin in Tyler, such as with a selectively higher amount of adhesive, and then subsequently coat the core, such as with a lower per area amount of adhesive. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable and functional equivalent alternative method of adhesively bonding the skin to the frame and core while securing a more secure bond to the frame and reducing adhesive supply to the core where it is less necessary, thus saving costs. Examiner submits coating the perimeter before the core is an obvious process choice in carrying out the coating process. The holdings in Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959), In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and In re Gibson, 39, F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) indicate that the selection of any order or sequence in the steps of a process is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144(IV)(C).
Further, it is clear adhesive application methods are highly variable and may occur in a wide variety of desired pattern to equivalent effect to depose a desired amount of adhesive between the desired materials to be bonded, i.e. the fame and skin. Similar automated door making processes using similar adhesives coat the adhesive in beads via nozzles that may dispense any glue pattern as desired to achieve a desired coating weight over the frame (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0036] and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], wherein the adhesive may be coated in a variety of method including spraying or bead coatings in a variety of selective patterns). There is no indication in the instant specification or in the prior art that the specific coating pattern of adhesive, whether applied via spraying or beads, has any effect on bonding other than to applied a desired amount of adhesive in desired areas.
Thus, whether one larger bead, three smaller beads, or an equivalent spray or roll coating amount are applied, the bonding effect would have been expected to have been similar unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since Liang et al. clearly teach applying PUR adhesive to door skins in beads/lines without any specific limitation (See page 3, paragraph [0040]), it would have been apparent various bead patterns or line amounts, i.e. two beads, could have been utilized to dispose desired adhesive in desired amounts, such as in the skin portions to be bonded to the frame area, where significant adhesive is known to be required to make a structural bond. Thus, Examiner submit it would have been an obvious design choice to bead coat the skin to be bonded to the frame in any suitable bead pattern the produces the desired coating weight on the frame after bonding, such as with two spaced beads. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable method and pattern for disposing desired adhesive quantities in an area known to require adhesive deposition so as to implement structural adhesive bonding between the door frame and the skin. As such, such Examiner submits two beads would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as suitable deposition in known bead coatings processes used in such application to produce a desired coating volume of the adhesive on the frame after pressing. It is further noted changes in configuration are a matter of choice and are considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 2, Tyler teaches the open time is variable and may be less than a minute or much longer depending on the formulation of the specific adhesive (See page 3, paragraph [0028]). This at least renders obvious open times of slightly under one minute such as 40-60 seconds.
Regarding Claims 3-6 and 20, as described above, Tyler and Liang teach selective coating of the adhesive as described to coat in a desired amount of adhesive, such as 0.042-0.24 g/in2 coating weight over the frame (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0036] and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], teaching 6 to 35 g/sft, which is 0.042-0.24 g/in2 to be coated in a variety of method including spraying or bead coatings in a variety of selective patterns). It would have been apparent the unit coating weight of the bead should be higher than the coating weight of the adhesive over the frame since the bead will spread out over a larger area during bonding. Examiner submits two beads with 0.30 g/in or 0.6 g/in total, and spaced 0.562 from a centerline, i.e. 1.24 inches apart, will suitable produce the desired adhesive coating in Tyler. Examiner notes spacing beads evenly from a center line of the frame on the skin would have predictably ensured even coverage over the frame, which is clearly desirable in standard adhesive bonding to ensure secure attachment. Assuming a 3 inches frame width, which is certainly within known amounts, the coating weight per area would be 0.2 g/in2 (0.6 g/in / 3 in = 0.2 g/in sq), which the desired range of Liang et al. Thus, Examiner submits the claimed bead size, unit weight, and spacing would have been obvious selections in bead coating to produce the desired adhesive coating over the frame, such as is desired known in door bonding. As such, such beads would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as suitable beads to produce a desired coating volume of the adhesive on the frame after pressing.
Regarding Claims 7-10, 12 and 13, Tyler teaches the time from initial adhesive application prior to frame or core attachment until final door compression in a compression station, i.e. a press, of both skins on the frame and core, is only one minute in the automated assembly (See page 4, paragraphs [0037] and [0040]), which suggests each step may occur over much smaller amounts of time (note coating the first skin, attaching the frame, attaching the core, coating second and third adhesive for the frame and core to attach the second skin, attaching the second skin, and pressing must all occur within that 60 seconds). As described above, Tyler teaches perimeter coating to bond the entire frame, and coating the perimeter first is an obvious process design choice. Examiner further submits variations in process times would have been expected based on design expectations, and absent a significant differentiation or unexpected results, such the timing of process aspect are considered standard and obvious for optimization. Thus, longer times will allow for more precision or higher quality in manufacture while shorter times allow larger production and lower costs, and thus varying times based on design need is considered an obvious process choice to optimize the process as desired. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, Examiner submits Tyler teaches placing the second door skin [F2] in position via a gantry having suction cups (See page 4, paragraph [0035]). Although no pressure is taught, it is clear some attachment pressure must be present to adhesive. Further, Examiner submits light pressure, such as 2-3 psi, would have at least been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure a secure bond via press placement. Examiner submits a 2-3 psi placement pressure would have predictably compressed adhesive beads, thus creating secure attachment, but not created a large process barrier such as may occur with higher pressures. Doing so would have ensured the placement is secure so the during subsequently pressing within the press, the skin is assured to be correctly located.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Tyler teaches pressing for only a few seconds and less than 12 seconds (See page 4, paragraph [0037]), thus rendering obvious 4-5 seconds, which falls within this range. Further, although Tyler is silent as to pressure, 100 psi is known as a final pressing pressure for bonding doors (See, for example, Liang et al., page 4, paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler and Liang et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Allen et al. (US 2013/0274401).
Regarding Claim 16, Tyler and Liang et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Tyler further teaches a hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive (See page 3, paragraph [0028]), but fails to specifically teach isocyanate. However, hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesives are well-known to be polyisocyanates that allow cross-linking in the presence of water (See, for example, Allen et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]). Since such isocyanate groups are standards in polyurethane reactive hot melts such as in Tyler, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention such PUR reactive hot melt would have been suitable. Any such adhesive is reasonably described as being a polyurethane and isocyanate adhesive as claimed.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler and Liang et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Stroup et (US 2005/0028921)
Regarding Claim 18 and 19, Tyler and Liang et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Tyler does specifically teach and arranged of core inserts. However, it is well-known lock blocks are assembled within the frame after the frame has been applied to the skins, thus making such lock blocks “core inserts.” These core insert lock blocks are known to have variety configurations and designs within the core area to structurally support the door (See, for example, Stroup et al., page 5, paragraphs [0045]-[0046]), such as staggered or a parallel. Note rectangular lock block place in a square configuration, which is obvious to provide structural support as is known for lock blocks would have the adjacent block in parallel and the diagonal blocks staggered relative to each other. Further, any desired location would have been a design choice to structurally support the door as needed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize parallel and staggered core inserts. Doing so would have predictably enabled structural support as desired by locating lock block in desired support areas.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights