DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardon (US 5,322,665) in view of Honka (US 5,106,568).
As to claim 1, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) the evacuable bag covers the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Honka teaches (a) pressing a composite material (14) contained in a similar envelope (top 16 plus bottom 16) against a heated (Fig. 2) forming tool (12) by evacuating an evacuable bag (20). Honka teaches (b) the evacuable bag (20) covers the entirety of the preform (14) and the envelope (16) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Honka’s unsealing the evacuable bag (20) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Honka envelope into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Honka teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 2, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in tool. In the substitution above, Honka’s evacuable bag is used in place of the Bernardon tool. In Honka, the forming tool is located/positioned on a base and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 3 and 4, Honka provides to the combination an evacuable bag in the form of a membrane or receptacle (20) containing covering an entirety of the forming tool (12).
As to claim 5, Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:48-52), which would inherently result in cooling to ambient/room temperature. While Bernardon does not specifically teach what temperature is reached before unsealing the evacuated envelope, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to allow the Bernardon evacuated envelope to reach room temperature (meets preform does not exceed ambient by more than 80°C) before unsealing/opening the evacuated envelope. Additionally or alternatively, since (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient/room temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient/room temperature is inherent and (iii) unsealing of the evacuated envelope is inherent, at most the claim recites a particular order of these steps which are already taught by Bernardon. One would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result.
As to claims 6, 14, 15, Bernardon teaches that when the cure cycle is finished, the evacuated envelope/vacuum bag is removed from the press (5:48-52). Bernardon does not disclose a cooling step or release of vacuum within the press, and therefore the evacuated envelope/vacuum bag is interpreted to be at the cure temperature when removed. Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process.
As to claims 7 and 8, Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. The Bernardon method comprises impregnating with a resin matrix (Fig. 4A or alternatively Fig. 4B).
As to claims 9 and 16, Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. However, Bernardon is silent to a prepreg. Honka teaches a similar forming process which uses prepregs (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Honka prepregs into Bernardon as an obvious interchangeable substitute composite material for the resin and fiber preform already provided by Bernardon. Bernardon provides a base process which differed from the claimed process by the use of a prepreg in place of a fiber preform and separate resin already provided by Bernardon. However, the substituted prepreg and its function (a composite preform) was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (a shaped composite part like that already shown by Honka).
As to claims 11-15, Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient temperature, (iii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Honka from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While these claims recite a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Honka, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 17, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Honka’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Honka, the forming tool is located/positioned on a base and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient temperature, (iii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Honka from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Honka, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 18, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) an evacuable bag comprising a flexible membrane of air tight material covering the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Honka teaches (a) pressing a composite material (14) contained in a similar envelope (top 16 plus bottom 16) against a heated (Fig. 2) forming tool (12) by evacuating an evacuable bag (20). Honka teaches (b) the evacuable bag (20) formed from an air-tight flexible membrane (“impermeable membrane”) covering the entirety of the preform (14) and the envelope (16) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Honka’s unsealing the evacuable bag (20) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Honka envelope into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Honka teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 19, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Honka’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Honka, the forming tool is located/positioned on a base and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature by less than 20 C and (ii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Honka from the forming tool are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Honka, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 20, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) the evacuable bag covers the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Honka teaches (a) pressing a composite material (14) contained in a similar envelope (top 16 plus bottom 16) against a heated (Fig. 2) forming tool (12) by evacuating an evacuable bag (20). Honka teaches (b) the evacuable bag (20) covers the entirety of the preform (14) and the envelope (16) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Honka’s unsealing the evacuable bag (20) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Honka envelope into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Honka teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 21, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Honka’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Honka, the forming tool is located/positioned on a base and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature and (ii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Honka from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Honka, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernardon (US 5,322,665) in view of Pridie (US 20090091052).
As to claim 1, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) the evacuable bag covers the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Pridie teaches (a) pressing a composite material ([0016]) encased in layers (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10) against a form(ing) tool (Fig. 2) by evacuating an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6). Pridie teaches (b) the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) covers the entirety of the preform (Fig. 3, charge 12) and the envelope (encased between 9 and 10) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Pridie envelope (Fig. 3, item 6) into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Pridie teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 2, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in tool. In the substitution above, Pridie’s evacuable bag is used in place of the Bernardon tool. In Pridie, the forming tool (Fig. 2, Form Tool) is located/positioned on a base (Fig. 3, item 1) and the evacuable bag is attached to the base (by tape 5) on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
As to claims 3 and 4, Bernardon already teaches an evacuable envelope (Fig. 3A generally) which is independently evacuable relative to the other parts of the device and forms a sealed enclosure that is separate from the evacuable bag introduced by Pridie. Pridie provides to the combination an evacuable bag in the form of a membrane or receptacle (Fig. 3, item 6) containing covering an entirety of the forming tool (See Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:48-52), which would inherently result in cooling to ambient/room temperature. While Bernardon does not specifically teach what temperature is reached before unsealing the evacuated envelope, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to allow the Bernardon evacuated envelope to reach room temperature (meets preform does not exceed ambient by more than 80°C) before unsealing/opening the evacuated envelope. Additionally or alternatively, since (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient/room temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient/room temperature is inherent and (iii) unsealing of the evacuated envelope is inherent, at most the claim recites a particular order of these steps which are already taught by Bernardon. One would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result.
As to claims 6, 14, 15, Bernardon teaches that when the cure cycle is finished, the evacuated envelope/vacuum bag is removed from the press (5:48-52). Bernardon does not disclose a cooling step or release of vacuum within the press, and therefore the evacuated envelope/vacuum bag is interpreted to be at the cure temperature when removed. Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process.
As to claims 7 and 8, Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. The Bernardon method comprises impregnating with a resin matrix (Fig. 4A or alternatively Fig. 4B).
As to claims 9 and 16, Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. However, Bernardon is silent to a prepreg. Pridie teaches a similar forming process which uses prepreg plies ([0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Pridie prepregs into Bernardon as an obvious interchangeable substitute composite material for the resin and fiber preform already provided by Bernardon. Bernardon provides a base process which differed from the claimed process by the use of a prepreg in place of a fiber preform and separate resin already provided by Bernardon. However, the substituted prepreg and its function (a composite preform) was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (a shaped composite part like that already provided by Pridie).
As to claims 11-15, Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient temperature, (iii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Pridie from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While these claims recite a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Pridie, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 17, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Pridie’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Pridie, the forming tool is located/positioned on a base and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient temperature, (iii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Pridie from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Pridie, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 18, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) an evacuable bag comprising a flexible membrane of air tight material covering the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Pridie teaches (a) pressing a composite material ([0016]) encased in layers (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10) against a form(ing) tool (Fig. 2) by evacuating an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6). Pridie teaches (b) the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) covers the entirety of the preform (Fig. 3, charge 12) and the encasing layers (encased between 9 and 10) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Pridie envelope into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Pridie teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 19, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Honka’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Pridie, the form(ing) tool is located/positioned on a base (1) and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature by less than 20 C and (ii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Pridie from the forming tool are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Pridie, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
As to claim 20, Bernardon teaches a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag).
Bernardon is silent to (a) pressing the envelope against the forming tool using an evacuable bag, (b) the evacuable bag covers the entirety of the evacuable envelope, and (c) unsealing the evacuable bag while maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state.
Pridie teaches (a) pressing a composite material ([0016]) encased in layers (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10) against a form(ing) tool (Fig. 2) by evacuating an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6). Pridie teaches (b) the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) covers the entirety of the preform (Fig. 3, charge 12) and the encasing layers (encased between 9 and 10) in which the preform is contained. In the combination with Bernardon’s pressing the envelope in an evacuated state, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Pridie envelope into Bernardon because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Bernardon differs from the claimed process by the device or step used to apply pressure to the envelope since Bernardon uses a rigid tool instead of a bag. Pridie teaches that the substituted component (an evacuable bag) and its function (apply pressure to form fiber material to a tool) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one pressure applying means (evacuable bag) for another (Bernardon’s tool) and the result would have been predictable (article is still formed to shape of mold).
As to claim 21, Bernardon inherently inserts the fiber preform material in an evacuable bag positioned on a forming tool. Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. In the substitution above (see rejection of claim 1), Pridie’s evacuable bag is used in place of the top Bernardon tool, and the evacuable bag covers an entirety of the forming tool as shown below. In Pridie, the form(ing) tool is located/positioned on a base (1) and the evacuable bag is attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool to cover an entirety of the forming tool.
Bernardon teaches that the cure temperature on the forming tool exceeds ambient temperature (5:45, “heated to the resin cure temperature.”) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable. Bernardon teaches that at the end of the cure cycle the article is removed from the tool (5:45-52), The claimed steps of (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient temperature and (ii) removal of the evacuable envelope of Pridie from the forming tool, and (iv) removing/unsealing the evacuable envelope are inherent in the combination in order for the Bernardon article to be used for its intended purpose. While this claim recites a particular order of performing these steps already taught by Bernardon and/or Pridie, one would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result regardless of the order of these steps after the cure cycle is performed on the Bernardon tool.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pridie (US 20090091052) in view of Bernardon (US 5,322,665).
As to claim 1, Pridie teaches providing a forming tool (Fig. 2, Form Tool) and encasing a composite preform within an envelope (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10). Pridie covers an entirety of the envelope (9 and 10) with an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) that comprises a flexible air-tight membrane ([0035], Wrightlon WL7400 is capable of being draped and/or rolled). Pridie evacuates air from the evacuable bag ([0036]) to press the envelope against the forming tool. Pridie heats the composite preform ([0044]), and at the end of the process the evacuable bag would inherently be unsealed.
Pridie does not specifically teach (a) that the envelope is evacuable to form an air-tight enclosure, (b) evacuating air from the evacuable envelope, and maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state when opening the evacuable bag.
Bernardon teaches (a) a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and (b) evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag). In the combination, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article, however, the fact that the Bernardon envisions a permanently sealed evacuable envelope in some embodiments supports the view that the claimed order of steps would be obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bernardon evacuable envelope and step of evacuating into Pridie because Pridie already teaches/suggests encasment ([0034]) and evacuating the whole assembly ([0036]), and Bernadon provides a device for encasement of the composite material and a mechanism for evacuating the composite materials while encased, within the scope of the Pridie teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 2, Pridie provides a form(ing) tool positioned on a base (1) and an evacuable bag attached to the base on opposite sides of the forming tool and covering the entirety of the forming tool (Figs. 2-3). As to claims 3 and 4, Pridie provides an evacuable bag and Bernardon provides to the combination an independently evacuable envelope (Fig. 3A) separate from the Pridie evacuable bag. As to claim 5, Pridie heats in an autoclave ([0044]). While Pridie does not specifically teach what temperature is reached before unsealing the apparatus, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to allow the Bernardon evacuated envelope to reach room temperature (meets preform does not exceed ambient by more than 80°C) before unsealing/opening the evacuated envelope. Additionally or alternatively, since (i) cooling to a temperature exceeding ambient/room temperature, (ii) cooling to ambient/room temperature is inherent and (iii) unsealing of the evacuated envelope is inherent, at most the claim recites a particular order of these steps which are already taught by Bernardon. One would have found it obvious to perform these steps in any order, and the same article would result. As to claims 6, 11-16, while Pridie and Bernardon do not specifically teach the temperature of the forming tool when the evacuable envelope is removed from the forming tool or the temperature of the fiber preform material when the (Bernardon) evacuable envelope is unsealed, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the evacuable envelope could be removed and unsealed at any temperature up to the curing temperature once the part has been cured into its final configuration. The Bernardon evacuable envelope would remain evacuated when removed from the Pridie forming tool in light of Bernardon’s disclosure that it can be “permanently sealed”, but even in the alternative, this represents an obvious difference in the order of steps (removal, unsealing). Additionally, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable, one would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process. As to claims 7 and 8, Bernardon teaches that the fiber preform and resin are separate, and therefore the fiber preform is dry. The Bernardon method comprises impregnating with a resin matrix (Fig. 4A or alternatively Fig. 4B), and one would have recognized this to be an obvious interchangeable substitute for the prepreg already taught by Pridie. As to claim 9, Pridie already teaches a prepreg ([0049]). As to claim 17, Pridie positions the form(ing) tool on a base and an evacuable bag attached to and covering the entirety of the forming tool (see Fig. 2). While Pridie and Bernardon do not specifically teach the temperature of the forming tool when the evacuable envelope is removed from the forming tool or the temperature of the fiber preform material when the (Bernardon) evacuable envelope is unsealed, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the evacuable envelope could be removed and unsealed at any temperature up to the curing temperature once the part has been cured into its final configuration. Additionally, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable, one would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the steps of removing the evacuable envelope from the forming tool, cooling, and unsealing of the evacuable envelope could be performed in any order.
As to claim 18, Pridie teaches providing a forming tool (Fig. 2, Form Tool) and encasing a composite preform within an envelope (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10). Pridie covers an entirety of the envelope (9 and 10) with an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) that comprises a flexible air-tight membrane ([0035], Wrightlon WL7400 is capable of being draped and/or rolled). Pridie evacuates air from the evacuable bag ([0036]) which covers the entirety of the envelope and forming to press the envelope against the forming tool. Pridie heats the composite preform ([0044]) on the tool ([0046]), and at the end of the process the evacuable bag would inherently be unsealed.
Pridie does not specifically teach (a) that the envelope is evacuable to form an air-tight enclosure, (b) evacuating air from the evacuable envelope, and maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state when opening the evacuable bag.
Bernardon teaches (a) a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and (b) evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag). In the combination, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the (permanently sealed) evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article, however, the fact that the Bernardon envisions a permanently sealed evacuable envelope in some embodiments supports the view that the claimed order of steps would be obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bernardon evacuable envelope and step of evacuating into Pridie because Pridie already teaches/suggests encasment ([0034]) and evacuating the whole assembly ([0036]), and Bernadon provides a device for encasement of the composite material and a mechanism for evacuating the composite materials while encased, within the scope of the Pridie teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 19, Pridie positions the form(ing) tool on a base and an evacuable bag attached to and covering the entirety of the forming tool (see Fig. 2). The Pridie fiber preform is disclosed as a prepreg ([0032]). While Pridie and Bernardon do not specifically teach the temperature of the forming tool when the evacuable envelope is removed from the forming tool or the temperature of the fiber preform material when the (Bernardon) evacuable envelope is unsealed, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the evacuable envelope could be removed and unsealed at any temperature up to the curing temperature once the part has been cured into its final configuration. Additionally, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable, one would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process. The steps of removing the evacuable envelope from the forming tool, cooling, and unsealing of the evacuable envelope could obviously be performed in any order and no difference in the resulting product would occur.
As to claim 20, Pridie teaches providing a forming tool (Fig. 2, Form Tool) and encasing a fiber preform within an envelope (Fig. 3, items 9 and 10). Pridie covers an entirety of the envelope (9 and 10) and forming tool with an evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) that comprises a flexible air-tight membrane ([0035], Wrightlon WL7400 is capable of being draped and/or rolled). Pridie evacuates air from the evacuable bag ([0036]) which covers the entirety of the envelope and forming to press the envelope against the forming tool. Pridie heats the composite preform ([0044]) on the tool ([0046]), and at the end of the process the evacuable bag would inherently be unsealed.
Pridie does not specifically teach (a) that the envelope is evacuable to form an air-tight enclosure, (b) evacuating air from the evacuable envelope, and maintaining the evacuable envelope in the evacuated state when opening the evacuable bag.
Bernardon teaches (a) a method comprising enclosing a fiber preform material (36) within an evacuable envelope (33) to form an air-tight enclosure, and (b) evacuating (4:31-35) air from the evacuable envelope (33). Bernardon presses the envelope against a heated forming tool (Fig. 7B, item 62) to shape the fiber preform material. Bernardon opens the mold and removes the envelope from the forming tool while the part is depicted as remaining in the envelope under vacuum (Fig. 7B, Cured Part in Bag). In the combination, Pridie’s unsealing the evacuable bag (Fig. 3, item 6) would inherently occur while the Bernardon envelope is maintained in the (permanently sealed) evacuated state. Alternatively, this is interpreted to be an obvious rearrangement in the order of steps that would not affect the resulting article, however, the fact that the Bernardon envisions a permanently sealed evacuable envelope supports the view that the envelope would remain evacuated until removed from the forming tool.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bernardon evacuable envelope and step of evacuating into Pridie because Pridie already teaches/suggests encasment ([0034]) and evacuating the whole assembly ([0036]), and Bernadon provides a device for encasement of the composite material and a mechanism for evacuating the composite materials while encased, within the scope of the Pridie teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 21, Pridie positions the form(ing) tool on a base and an evacuable bag attached to and covering the entirety of the forming tool (see Fig. 2). The Pridie fiber preform is disclosed as a prepreg ([0032]). While Pridie and Bernardon do not specifically teach the temperature of the forming tool when the evacuable envelope is removed from the forming tool or the temperature of the fiber preform material when the (Bernardon) evacuable envelope is unsealed, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the evacuable envelope could be removed and unsealed at any temperature up to the curing temperature once the part has been cured into its final configuration. Additionally, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the cure/tool temperature to be a result effective variable, one would have optimized the cure temperature and arrived at a temperature within the claimed range (at least 25°C above ambient) in order to optimize the curing process. The steps of removing the evacuable envelope from the forming tool, cooling, and unsealing of the evacuable envelope could obviously be performed in any order and no difference in the resulting (cured and hardened) product would occur.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Bernardon in view of Honka remains improper. On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the claim requires two distinct structures (a. inner evacuable envelope, and b. separate outer evacuable bag) which are separately evacuated. Applicant asserts on page 9 that Bernardon is not analogous and provides only a single enclosure that surrounds the workpiece, and that Honka does not disclose any such dual envelope configuration. Applicant argues that Honka’s nonporous release sheets are not an enclosure. On page 10, Applicant argues that “the impermeable membrane 20 in Honka performs the same role as the vacuum bag of Bernardon.” Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Berndon with Honka effectively requires that the vacuum bag of Honka be treated as an additional pressure-applying bag outside the vacuum bag that is already present and disclosed in Bernardon. Applicant argues that “a susbstitution of the vacuum bag in Honka for the vacuum bag of Bernardon would merely replace one vacuum bag with another vacuum bag.
On page 11 Applicant underscores the fact that evacuable envelope and evacuable bag are distinct structures and have different functional roles in the method of claim 1. Regarding the order of steps, Applicant argues that the pending claims do not merely recite a particular ordering of conventional molding steps and instead recite specific operational relationships between an envelope and separate evacuable bag.
On page 12, Applicant argues that the claims (18, 20, and 4) emphasize the separate evacuable bag. On page 13, Applicant argues that Bernardon encloses material “within a single vacuum bag” and Honka likewise describes a conventional vacuum bag, and each disclose “only a single enclosure surrounding the composite material”
Response
After careful consideration of these arguments, the Examiner believes the Applicant has not correctly interpreted the basis of the rejection. In Bernardon, application of vacuum to the equivalent of the claimed “evacuable envelope” shown in Bernardon’s Fig. 3A does not shape the article to its final desired shape. It merely places the composite material under vacuum. See Bernardon’s Fig. 5. Something else is necessary to form the material in Bernardon’s Fig. 5 to the desired shape. In Bernardon, this is accomplished by pressing down (see down arrow in Bernardon’s Fig. 7B) onto the bag while the bag sits on a second forming tool. Therefore, Bernardon’s process should be viewed as providing a vacuum envelope, and a second part for shaping the bag to the forming tool. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address this fact, but the Examiner believes that this is where the disconnect lies between the rejection over Bernardon in view of Honka and Applicant’s arguments.
Only after acknowledging that Bernardon provides two parts - an evacuable envelope and a device for shaping that evacuable envelope to a tool – can the discussion move to Honka. While Bernardon provides a device for shaping the evacuable envelope to a forming tool (a top mold or forming tool), the Examiner’s position remains that one would have recognized a composite material could be shaped to a forming tool in different and substitutable ways. As substitutable alternatives to the top mold or forming tool of Bernardon, hand or roller shaping to a mold is known in the art. However, it is also conventional to use a vacuum bag which presses a preform down onto a forming tool using the pressure difference between the vacuum inside the bag and atmospheric pressure outside the vacuum bag, and this is what Honka shows. It is an oversimplification to suggest that Bernardon and Honka each disclose “only a single enclosure surrounding the composite material” because Bernardon and Honka use vacuum differently. In Bernardon, the vacuum is applied to a preform within an envelope, and the shaping is performed with a top mold or forming tool. Honka uses vacuum differently to apply pressure against a forming tool specifically for the purpose of shaping a preform to a forming tool. The rejection takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the Bernardon top mold or forming tool with the Honka vacuum bag.
Regarding the argument alleging that Bernardon is non-analogous, Bernardon provides a composite shaping process and is clearly within Applicant’s field of endeavor. However, it is noted that a decision on appeal determining Bernardon as non-analogous would likely obviate all rejections which rely on Bernardon.
It is noted that many of the dependent claims recite particular temperatures in relation to the disassembly or removal process of the part. The Examiner maintains that these remain an obvious difference in the order of steps. However, the Examiner invites evidence about how the cured/hardened part is structurally changed based on what temperature the vacuum bag is removed or the evacuable enclosure is removed from the forming tool. The references cited in the rejections above show that it is known to cure with heating (at an elevated temperature), and there is currently no evidence showing that the order of cooling (or partial cooling), removal of the vacuum bag, or release of the vacuum in the evacuable envelope has any effect on the resulting article. The Examiner maintains that one could have arranged these steps after curing in any order without changing the resulting article (which is a cured/hardened part). Even though Applicant argues that these steps recite specific operational relationships between an envelope and separate evacuable bag, it has not been established that any particular order of these operational relationships has any effect on the resulting article that shows the particular order of cooling and disassembly of the tool to be critical or change the resulting article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
