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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 02/02/2024 and 06/05/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 recite the limitation " the second first force" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as – the second force --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lechner et al. (US 2023/0211565-of record).
With respect to claim 1, Lechner teaches a compliant consolidation block (“a force applicator 40”, Fig. 4) comprising:
a non-articulating component (“a biasing structure 58”, Pa [0046]);
a first articulating self-aligning component (“a carriage structure 46”, Pa [0043]) coupled to the non-articulating component, wherein the first articulating self-aligning component is configured to articulate with respect to the non-articulating component (Fig. 4); and
two second articulating self-aligning components (“the plurality of rollers 42”, Pa [0043]) coupled to the first articulating self-aligning component, wherein each of the two second articulating self-aligning components are individually configured to articulate with respect to the first articulating self-aligning component (“the plurality of rollers 42 may be mounted to a carriage structure 46 allowing the plurality of rollers 42 to collectively act as a single structure.”, Pa [0043]).
With respect to claim 2, Lechner as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that a first force applied by the non-articulating component is divided by the first articulating self-aligning component such that a second force is applied to each of the second articulating self-aligning components, the second force being half of the first force (“The force applied by the biasing structure 58 may increase the uniformity of the force applied to the workpiece by the force applicator 40.”, Pa [0046]).
With respect to claim 3, Lechner as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that each of the second articulating self-aligning components apply the second force as a consolidation pressure distribution in order to consolidate a first polymer composite component and a second polymer composite component into one component (“a force applicator 40 may include a biasing structure 58 (e.g., one or more springs, pneumatic cylinders, hydraulic cylinders, a weight, etc.) operable to force the roller(s) 42 or a belt assembly 48 in a direction toward (and in some embodiments against) a thermoplastic component workpiece 26.”, Pa [0046]).
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.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechner et al. (US 2023/0211565-of record) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 9, in another embodiment, Lechner as applied to claim 2 above further teaches that a plurality of intermediary support rollers 142I are attached to a carriage for mounting the intermediary support rollers 1421 in concert, and the intermediary support rollers 142I help to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26 along the length of the belt assembly 48 (Pa [0044]), and combinations of different force applicator 40 configurations may be used (Pa [0045]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to combine a plurality of intermediary support rollers 142I (the claimed third articulating self-aligning components) attached to a carriage with the force applicator 40 in Fig. 4 in order to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26.
With respect to claim 10, Lechner as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that the second force applied by the first articulating self-aligning component is divided by each of the second articulating self-aligning components such that a third force is applied to each of the third articulating self-aligning components, the third force being half of the second force or a quarter of the first force (“the intermediary support rollers 142I help to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26 along the length of the belt assembly 48”, Pa [0044]).
Claims 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechner et al. (US 2023/0211565-of record) in view of Shen et al. (US 2024/0217184).
With respect to claim 11, Lechner teaches an ultrasonic welder (“the thermoplastic component welding subsystem 24 may use an alternative welding process such as ultrasonic welding”, Pa [0058]), the ultrasonic welder comprising:
a roller (“leading force applicators 40L”, Pa [0042]); and
a compliant consolidation block (“a force applicator 40”, Fig. 4), the compliant consolidation block comprising:
a non-articulating component (“a biasing structure 58”, Pa [0046]);
a first articulating self-aligning component (“a carriage structure 46”, Pa [0043]) coupled to the non-articulating component, wherein the first articulating self-aligning component is configured to articulate with respect to the non-articulating component (Fig. 4); and
two second articulating self-aligning components (“the plurality of rollers 42”, Pa [0043]) coupled to the first articulating self-aligning component, wherein each of the two second articulating self-aligning components are individually configured to articulate with respect to the first articulating self-aligning component (“the plurality of rollers 42 may be mounted to a carriage structure 46 allowing the plurality of rollers 42 to collectively act as a single structure.”, Pa [0043]).
Lechner is silent to a sonotrode.
In the same field of endeavor, an ultrasonic welding device, Shen teaches that the linear ultrasonic welding technique utilizes an ultrasonic welding device 24 that includes a member 26 (often referred to as a “sonotrode” or a “horn”) that engages with an exposed surface (“engagement surface 27”) of one of the parts 20, 22 to be welded that is opposite where the weld region surfaces 20A, 22A are in contact with one another (Pa [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lechner with the teachings of Shen and provide sonotrode for the purpose of ultrasonic welding.
With respect to claim 12, Lechner as applied to claim 11 above further teaches that a first force applied by the non-articulating component is divided by the first articulating self-aligning component such that a second force is applied to each of the second articulating self-aligning components, the second force being half of the first force (“The force applied by the biasing structure 58 may increase the uniformity of the force applied to the workpiece by the force applicator 40.”, Pa [0046]).
With respect to claim 13, Lechner as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that each of the second articulating self-aligning components apply the second force as a consolidation pressure distribution in order to consolidate a first polymer composite component and a second polymer composite component into one component (“a force applicator 40 may include a biasing structure 58 (e.g., one or more springs, pneumatic cylinders, hydraulic cylinders, a weight, etc.) operable to force the roller(s) 42 or a belt assembly 48 in a direction toward (and in some embodiments against) a thermoplastic component workpiece 26.”, Pa [0046]).
With respect to claim 19, in another embodiment, Lechner as applied to claim 12 above further teaches that a plurality of intermediary support rollers 142I are attached to a carriage for mounting the intermediary support rollers 1421 in concert, and the intermediary support rollers 142I help to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26 along the length of the belt assembly 48 (Pa [0044]), and combinations of different force applicator 40 configurations may be used (Pa [0045]). Thus, one would have found it obvious to combine a plurality of intermediary support rollers 142I (the claimed third articulating self-aligning components) attached to a carriage with the force applicator 40 in Fig. 4 in order to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26.
With respect to claim 20, Lechner as applied to claim 19 above further teaches that the second force applied by the first articulating self-aligning component is divided by each of the second articulating self-aligning components such that a third force is applied to each of the third articulating self-aligning components, the third force being half of the second force or a quarter of the first force (“the intermediary support rollers 142I help to increase the uniformity of the force applied against the thermoplastic component workpieces 26 along the length of the belt assembly 48”, Pa [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 4 and 14, the prior art (Lechner et al., US 2023/0211565) teaches that the first articulating self-aligning component (“a carriage structure 46”) is coupled to the non-articulating component (“a biasing structure 58”) (Fig. 4), but does not teach or suggest that the first articulating self-aligning component is coupled to the non-articulating component via a pin that is configured to slide within the confines of voids in the non-articulating component.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the prior art (Lechner et al., US 2023/0211565) teaches that each of the second articulating self-aligning components (“the plurality of rollers 42”) are individually coupled to the first articulating self-aligning component (“a carriage structure 46”) (Fig. 4), but does not teach or suggest that each of the second articulating self-aligning components are individually coupled to the first articulating self-aligning component via a pin that is configured to slide within the confines of voids in the first articulating self-aligning component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742