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 11 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Stroup et al. (US 2005/0028921) requires 10-15 seconds to get a water tight bond. Although it is not clear this is true since the adhesive are hot melt and are a pressed subsequently, it would appear half door pressing times may be varied significantly, and balanced with full door pressing to achieve desired properties. However, even if Applicant is right, there is no indication Applicant has achieved the superior properties of Stroup et al. while pressing for 1/5th the time. Typically omitting an element, i.e. longer pressing times, while also losing the function, i.e. water tight bond, is not considered inventive. See MPEP 2144.04(II). It is noted Applicant uses commercial adhesives similar to those in Stroup et al. and does not appear to use novel pressing techniques, and thus if Applicant is able to get a significant reduction in pressing times while maintain the quality of longer times, Applicant provides little description or evidence as to how this is accomplished.
Regardless, a new rejection below provides direct support that pressing times of just a few seconds are well known in the prior art for adhering door frames to skins when using similar PUR hot melts as in Stroup et al.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroup et al. (US 2005/0028921) in view of Tyler (US 2005/0102940).
Regarding Claims 1, 2 and 18, Stroup et al. teaches an automated method of assembling a door (See Abstract), comprising:
applying a first adhesive to a first surface of a frame including first surfaces of plural stiles and rails (See page 3, paragraph [0033] and page 4, paragraph [0041], wherein adhesive is roller coated onto the frame, formed from stiles and rails);
assembling the first surface of the frame on an interior surface of a first door skin to assemble a half door, wherein the first adhesive is a polyurethane reactive (PUR) adhesive configured to achieve green strength within a predetermined time to prevent movement of components relative to one another (See page 4, paragraph [0040], wherein the adhesive attaching the frame and skin is a polyurethane (PUR) reactive adhesive that has a setting time of less than 5 minutes and as low as 10 seconds, wherein such setting causes bonding and thus creates a green strength to prevent movement within a predetermined time as claimed).
Stroup et al. teaches pressing the half door at 100 psi and gives 10-15 seconds as an example, but also indicates no pressing is required at all in the half door (See page 5, paragraph [0044]). Since the adhesive may have setting times of up to 5 minutes or as low as 10 seconds (See page 4, paragraph [0040]) and the entire process of making a door may be up to 200 seconds or as low as 12 seconds or less (See page 6, paragraph [0058]). This suggests to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention 10-15 second pressing is not limiting and times above and below these times would have predictably been suitable depending on the adhesive utilized, process constraints, and desired properties. Further, it is known in door pressing using similar PUR hot melts, such as are used in Stroup et al., may be pressed for only a few seconds to suitable joined skin and frame (See, for example, Tyler et al., page 4, paragraph [0037]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize lower pressing times of only a few seconds, such as 2-3 seconds, in pressing the half door. Doing so would have predictably been suitable to join door frame to skin when using similar adhesives and would have predictably allowed for more efficient manufacturing times.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Stroup teaches roll coating the frame (See page 4, paragraph [0041]), which implies or at least renders obvious the application of a continuous layer of adhesive. Such a continuous coating layer creates a film layer, and thus is considered a film coating. Note nothing indicates parts of the frame should remain uncoated and thus coating the entire surface of the frame would have been at least obvious to implement a secure bond. Nothing in the claim indicates the adhesive need be a film prior to coating and thus the coating itself may provide the film.
Regarding Claim 5, Stroup et al. teaches the setting time may be varied from less than 5 minutes to as low as 10 seconds, indicating setting times to be varied (See page 4, paragraph [0040]). It is well known the quicker setting times, which secures the adhesive strength, also reduce open times, which is suitable tackiness for bonding. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that while reducing setting time allows the bond to be secured quickly, extending open time provides a longer window for bonding. Since the specification teaches that the adhesive’s setting time can be varied, it would have been obvious that the open time could likewise be adjusted within a similar timeframe. Thus, for adhesives that set in under five minutes, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide an open time of about one to four minutes to balance bonding flexibility with fast strength development, thus allowing more time to secure pieces for bonding if desired.
Regarding Claim 6, the viscosity of hot-melt PUR adhesives is readily controllable by adjusting application temperature (or adding rheology modifiers), such as within the claimed range. Examiner notes lower viscosities (i.e. higher temperature adhesive) allow for better penetration but lower coating accuracy since the coated viscosity is less likely to flow while higher viscosity will not penetrate substrates as well, but will retain form where coated. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). It would have been apparent a viscosity of about 7,000–9,500 cP, which is similar to that of molasses at room temperature, would have predictably been a suitable coating viscosity, remaining fluid enough for uniform transfer and wetting in roll coating while being sufficiently viscous to remain of the surface where placed. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use routine experimentation to arrive at the best viscosity for the adhesive, such as that which is claimed, in order to achieve desired coating so as to meet customer specifications or consumer demands.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroup et al. and Tyler et al. as applied to Claim 6, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 2012/0027999).
Regarding Claim 7, Stroup et al. and Tyler et al. teach the method of Claim 6 as described above. Stroup et al. is silent as to the coating weight. However, in similar door manufacturing processes using similar adhesives, it is known to utilize coating weights of 0.042-0.24 g/in2 over the frame (See, for example, Liang et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0036], teaching 6 to 35 g/sft, which is 0.042-0.24 g/in2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize coating weight with the claimed range. Such coating weights would have predictably been suitable because they fall within known suitable adhesive coating weight ranges for reactive PUR door making such as in Stroup et al.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroup et al., Tyler et al., and Liang et al.as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Technomelt PUR 763A Technical Data Sheet, October 2013 (hereinafter “Technomelt”).
Regarding Claim 8, Stroup et al. and Liang et al. teach the method of Claim 7 as described above. The cited reference provides no information about application temperatures and thus known application temperatures for similar adhesives would have predictably been relevant and suitable. Further, similar polyurethane hot melt adhesives, such as are used in Stroup et al., are known to be coated in the claimed temperature range (See, for example, Technomelt, Application section, teaching a reactive polyurethane hot melt adhesive is suitable applied at 265-285 F). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary to apply any known hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive as the hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive in Stroup at known conditions suitable for application, such as 265-285 F. Such adhesives and application conditions would have predictably been suitable for the application of the hot melt reactive polyurethane adhesive described in Stroup.
Regarding Claims 9-13, Stroup teaches pressing the half door at up to 100 psi for 10-15 seconds (See page 5, paragraph [0044]) and teaches the general assembly process of both skins on the frame and core may 200 seconds minute in the automated assembly, but is clearly variable within a desired range (See page 6, paragraph [0058], indicating the process may be long or it may be 200 seconds or less or as low as 12 seconds or less), which suggests each step may also occur over variable times. Examiner submits variations in process times would have been expected based on design requirements and expectations, and absent a significant differentiation or unexpected results, such process variations related to time are considered standard and obvious. Examiner submits longer time may allow for more precision or stronger bonding in manufacture while shorter times allow larger production volume and lower costs but less control over quality, 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 Claims 14-15, Stroup et al. teaches applying adhesive to the frame to bond the second door skin (See page 5, paragraph [0048]). Although Stroup et al. does not specifically teach coating the second skin directly, such adhesive coating the subsequently applied skin so as to effect bonding to the frame and core is well-known in similar door making and thus a suitable alternative to 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to coat the second skin in Stroup in the area of the frame, as opposed to on the frame directly. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable alternative method application method of adhesively bonding the skin to the frame.
Regarding Claim 16, Stroup et al. teaches pressing in a press the assembled second door skin and half door to secure them together, i.e. to create a desired green strength (See page 6, paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 17, it is known in similar door manufacturing processes using hot melt PUR adhesives that the adhesive used to bond each side skin to the frame need not be the same (See, for example, Tyler, pages 3-4, paragraph [0034], indicating the PUR adhesives applied on each side of the frame need not be the same). This implies adhesives with slightly different properties are suitable since different adhesives will have at least slightly varying properties. Since Stroup et al. teaches separate pressing processes for the attachment of each skin to the frame, a variability in the assembly and pressing parameters in different adhesives would have been easily be tolerated due to the ability to vary each pressing process. Further, it would have been advantageous to vary the pressing/assembling properties of the adhesives since the first coated adhesive endures two pressing procedures while the second only endures one. In order to make a door with symmetrical characteristics, the bonding green strength for each adhesive must be the same, and thus it would have been desirable to have each adhesive end up bonding to the frame with the same strength. Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize different adhesives with different assembly and pressing parameters, but the same final green strength. Different adhesives are known to be suitable for similar door making and since each of the doors undergo separate pressing processes (i.e. twice pressed vs. once press), it would have predictably been suitable if not advantageous to account for the processing different experienced by the adhesive so as to achieve a similar bonding result of each side of the frame.
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