DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address the Bernardon reference (see page 9) even though it is the base reference and provides most of the findings of fact pertinent to the pending claim rejections. Instead, Applicant argues against Honka (see pages 10-11), discussing at length the nonporous release sheets (16) on page 10 of the arguments. The Examiner notes that these nonporous release sheets were mentioned to illustrate the similarity of the Honka process to that already disclosed by Bernardon. The Honka nonporous release sheets cover both faces of the preform in the same manner as the evacuable envelope already disclosed in Bernardon. However, the rejection was not based on this similarity. Instead, the Examiner notes that Bernardon teaches a bottom forming tool, but Bernardon differs from the claimed invention by the fact that Bernardon presses the material in the bag against the bottom forming tool using a top forming tool, instead of the claimed evacuable bag. However, this does not mean that an evacuable bag renders the claimed invention allowable. Honka uses an evacuable bag to press a preform against a bottom forming tool. In light of the similar pressing process, the Examiner took the position that one would have found it obvious to use the Honka bag as an interchangeable substitute for the Bernardon upper mold. This position is the central issue in the pending rejection, and does not appear to be addressed in Applicant’s arguments. The Examiner maintains the view that this is an obvious interchangeable substitute, and the Examiner is available to discuss this substitution in an interview.
The Examiner notes the new/amended features drawn to when and how the preform is cooled, when the evacuable bag is removed, and the preform released from the evacuable envelope. It is generally obvious to perform prior art process steps in any order when the order does not lead to a structural difference in the resulting article. See MPEP 2144.04 and Ex parte Rubin and In re Burhans cited therein. Rubin is particularly relevant here as it deals with physical steps of laminating, which are similar to the cooling and removal of an evacuable bag and envelope in this case. Stepping back to consider the instant claims and rejection, if the substitution of Honka’s evacuable bag for the top mold in the existing heating/curing/molding process of Bernardon is valid, it is unclear how the order of cooling, removing the evacuable bag and removal of the evacuable envelope distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. There is no discussion or evidence that any particular order of these steps changes the resulting article. Once curing of the article is achieved, it is unclear how the order of removing the evacuable bag, evacuable enveloper, or cooling of the article to a temperature exceeding or at ambient temperature would change the resulting article. Applicant is invited to provide arguments on this point.
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 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