CTFR 18/424,352 CTFR 80489 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. FINAL REJECTION Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11, in the context of moving one of the pallet halves, recites “moving, by controlling a relative pressure in a pressure regulator”. This limitation is not supported by the original specification. The pressure regulator is discussed in paragraphs (para) 49, 50, 85, 92 and claim 8 (all para numbers refer to applicant’s Publication). These sections do not disclose “a relative pressure in a pressure regulator” nor do they disclose controlling of the relative pressure. Additionally, the specification does not disclose the pressure regulator causes the moving. Rather, para 50 discloses just the opposite – The forming equipment initiates and causes the moving because the pressure applied by the forming equipment is greater than the force applied by the pressure regulators. Claim 11 recites “wherein the relative pressure is regulated relative to a force on the expandable pallet from forming equipment during forming of the laminated charge”. As discussed above, the specification does not support a “relative pressure in a pressure regulator”. Additionally, the limitation “regulated relative to” is not supported. Claim 12 recites “the pressure regulator is connected between the second pair of vacuum ports, opposite the interfacing surface, of the first pallet half.” The specification does not support the regulator being connected between the pair of vacuum ports. At best, the specification supports connecting the regulator to the first pair of ports (fig 7, para 81). Claim 16 recites “moving, by controlling a relative pressure in a pressure regulator connected between the second pair of vacuum ports to a side of the first pallet half, the first pallet half during forming the laminated charge, wherein the relative pressure is relative to a force of the forming equipment on the first pallet half.” This specification does not support this limitation for the reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 11-12 above. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11-23 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 11 recites “moving, by controlling a relative pressure in a pressure regulator”. It’s not clear how the controlling of the relative pressure causes the moving. See 112(a) rejection above. Claim 11 recites “the relative pressure is regulated relative to a force on the expandable pallet from forming equipment”. It’s not clear how the relative pressure is regulated, as the specification does not discuss a “relative pressure”, nor regulation of any relative pressure. See 112(a) rejection above. Claim 11 recites “vacuum holding, using a second vacuum path”. Is the “vacuum holding” in the limitation the same or different than the previously recited vacuum holding. Claim 11 requires that “a second pair of vacuum ports located between and extending parallel and above the first pair of vacuum ports”. It’s not clear how the second pair of vacuum ports are between and above the first pair. Claim 12 recites “the pressure regulator is connected between the second pair of vacuum ports, opposite the interfacing surface, of the first pallet half.” It’s not clear how the pressure regulator is connected between the second pair of ports. Claims 14 and 15 recite “moving at least one of the first pallet half or the second pallet half.” It’s not clear if the “moving” is the same moving step previously recited. Claim 16 recites “moving, by controlling a relative pressure in a pressure regulator connected between the second pair of vacuum ports to a side of the first pallet half, the first pallet half during forming the laminated charge, wherein the relative pressure is relative to a force of the forming equipment on the first pallet half.” This limitation is indefinite for the same reasons detailed in the 112(b) rejection of claim 11 above. Claim 22 recites ”to expand the recess”. Is this expanding of the recess the same or different than the previously recited expanding recess step. Claims 22 and 23 recite “moving at least one of the first pallet half or the second pallet half.” It’s not clear if the “moving” is the same moving step previously recited. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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. /CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/424,352 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/424,352 Page 3 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/424,352 Page 4 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights