DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the additional plastic layers (P1, P2) are not friction-modifying layers that aid in the manufacturing of a final part, but ultimately do not form a portion of the final. Instead the plastic layers are added to the plastic material to increase the thickness of and locally strength a plastic portion of a final part. To be sure Bassan makes no mention of friction or using any materials to modify friction during the manufacturing part.” Applicant appears to be arguing the intended function of the layer. Examiner respectfully maintains that “friction-modifying” is interpreted as only a name for the layer. In order to require the function of “friction-modifying” - it is suggested to claim it with “configured to” language. However, it is further noted that under broadest reasonable interpretation and absent any particular characteristics “friction-modifying” would include both eliminating (decreasing) and increasing friction; therefore, any material would meet this limitation.
Applicant further argues that Bassan does not discloses a part assembly made of two sheets of the same metallic material and a friction-modifying layer applied onto a first outer one of the two sheets where the friction-modifying layer is made of a material that is different than the metallic material of the two sheets. Examiner respectfully maintains that Bassan discloses a part assembly made of two sheets (L1, L2) of the same metallic material (light alloy) and a friction-modifying layer (P) applied onto a first outer one of the two sheets where the friction-modifying layer is made of a material (plastic material) that is different than the metallic material of the two sheets [as described in paragraph 0042], as seen in Figure 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassan et al. (hereafter “Bassan”)(US 2018/009019).
Bassan discloses a method of mitigating wrinkles during a manufacture of a super-plastically formed part, the method comprising:
arranging a plurality of flat sheets into a part assembly, as seen in Figures 1A, 1B & 3,
applying a friction-modifying layer to the first outer sheet of the part assembly, as seen in Figures 1A, 1B & 3,
placing the part assembly on a lower die (2) of a die system such that the first outer sheet is facing the lower die; and
moving an upper die (3) of the die system in a forming direction toward the lower die to stretch and compress the part assembly between the upper die and the lower die and to super-plastically form the part assembly into a formed part (Q).
Bassan discloses multiple embodiments of arranging sheets and layers that become the formed part.
In one embodiment, Bassan discloses arranging a plurality of flat sheets into a part assembly, the plurality of flat sheets comprising a first outer sheet (L1) and a second outer sheet (L2) each made of the same metallic material [light alloy, paragraph 42];
applying a friction-modifying layer (P) to the first outer sheet of the part assembly,
wherein: the friction-modifying layer is made of a material that is different (plastic material)from the metallic material of the first outer sheet and the second outer sheet [paragraph 42].
In another embodiment, Bassan discloses wherein the first outer sheet comprises a first portion (portion where P1 is placed) having a first percentage of coverage and a second portion (portion where P2 is placed) having a second percentage of coverage, as seen in Figure 1B;
the friction-modifying layer is applied at a first thickness in the first portion and a second thickness in the second portion; and the first thickness and the second thickness are different thicknesses, as seen in Figure 1B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide both the particular material composition and the particular coverage & thickness of the sheets & layer as described in Bassan’s embodiments because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results; such as, high degree of strength and reliable in use [Bassan: paragraphs 0009 & 0019] [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 8, Bassan discloses wherein the friction-modifying layer (P1, P2) is configured to precisely control a state of stress within the part assembly when super-plastically forming the part assembly into the formed part.
With regards to claim 10, Bassan discloses wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, as seen in Figures 1B.
With regards to claim 11, Bassan discloses another embodiment as seen in Figure 3, where the plurality of flat sheets further comprises at least one inner sheet (P) disposed between the first outer sheet (L1) and the second outer sheet (L2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of flat sheets to further comprise at least one inner sheet disposed between the first outer sheet and the second outer sheet as described in Bassan's embodiments because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
With regards to claim 12, Bassan discloses a method of mitigating wrinkles during a manufacture of a super-plastically formed part, the method comprising:
subjecting a part assembly to a super-plastic forming process, as seen in Figures 2A-2F; and
controlling a state of stress within the part assembly during the super-plastic forming process by non-uniformly applying a friction-modifying layer (P1, P2) to an outer sheet of the part assembly prior to the super-plastic forming process, such that a thickness of the friction-modifying layer at least one wrinkle-prone location of the outer sheet is different than a thickness of the friction-modifying layer at other locations of the outer sheet, as seen in Figure 1B.
With regards to claim 13, Bassan discloses wherein the thickness of the friction-modifying layer at the at least one wrinkle-prone location is less than the thickness of the friction-modifying layer at other locations of the outer sheet, as seen in Figure 1B.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassan in view of Kulkarni et al. (hereafter “Kulkarni”)(US Patent 7,672,816).
Bassan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising simulating a super-plastic formation of a simulated part assembly into a simulated formed part to predict at least one wrinkle-prone location within the simulated formed part. Kulkarni is relied upon to teach predicting via simulations wrinkle prone locations on a workpiece prior to forming [as described in at least the Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bassan’s method with a simulating step because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassan.
Bassan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for further comprising, prior to applying the friction-modifying layer, increasing a surface irregularity in an irregular portion of the first outer sheet of the part assembly. It is considered to be well-known that prior to applying additional layers surface preparation is completed including applying adhesive or increasing a surface irregularity. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to increasing a surface irregularity to prepare the surface prior to applying another layer, since it would have been obvious to try this technique when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. SR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassan.
Bassan discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein: the first outer sheet further comprises a third portion having a third percentage of coverage; the friction-modifying layer is applied at a third thickness in the third portion; and the third thickness is different than the first thickness and the second thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional or third portion with a third thickness, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights