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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 requires the same pump to both pull vacuum in the vacuum zone and pressurize the vacuum zone. While the specification supports a first pump for pulling vacuum and second pump for pressurizing, the specification does not support a single pump capable of performing both functions. Additionally, the specification does not support the system being capable of both pressuring a vacuum zone, and pulling a vacuum within the same vacuum zone. Rather, the specification only supports pulling a vacuum in a first vacuum zone and pressurizing a second vacuum zone.
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 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites “a pressure relief valve connected to the rigid chamber configured to release pressure above a set point.” This limitation is not clear because claim 21 already recites “a pressure relief valve connected to the rigid chamber, the pressure relief valve configured to release pressure above a set point”. The difference between the two limitations is not clear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 recites “a pressure relief valve connected to the rigid chamber configured to release pressure above a set point.” Claim 21, upon which claim 22 is dependent, recites “a pressure relief valve connected to the rigid chamber, the pressure relief valve configured to release pressure above a set point to prevent over pressurization of the rigid chamber.” The claim 21 limitation is more limiting, and thus claim 22 does not further limit claim 21, nor does it contain all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altan in view of Watson et al. (US 2016/0207256).
As to claim 21 Altan discloses a system that comprises: a rigid chamber 104 that comprises walls and a cavity 112 formed by the walls (fig 1, 14); and seals (gaskets, para 37) connected to the walls of the rigid chamber (fig 1, 14, para 37), the seals configured to maintain a vacuum zone (figs 1-4, 14, para 35-52) formed within the cavity between the rigid chamber and a cure tool 102 when a positive pressure or a negative pressure is within the vacuum zone (figs 1, 14, para 35-52); a pump (pump system shown in fig 14) connected to the vacuum zone, the pump configured to: pull a vacuum within the vacuum zone (via 140, para 40-46, 52, figs 1-4, 14); release the vacuum within the vacuum zone (figs 1-4, para 46); and pressurize (via 136) the vacuum zone to greater than atmospheric pressure (para 45) during debulking (para 40-46, 52, figs 1-4, 14)
Altan does not expressly disclose a pressure relief valve connected to rigid chamber configured to relieve pressure above a set point to prevent over pressurization of the rigid chamber. Watson discloses a pressure relief valve 26 connected to a rigid chamber configured to relieve pressure above a certain set point to prevent over pressurization of the rigid chamber (fig 1, 3, 5, para 39, 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Altan such that a pressure relief valve is connected to rigid chamber and configured to relieve pressure above a set point to prevent over pressurization of the rigid chamber as taught by Watson above as such a modification enables the pressure to be controlled (para 46-47).
As to claim 23, Altan discloses the cure tool 102, the cure tool configured to support a composite laminate during curing (fig 14, para 38-39, 46); and a number of retention clamps (para 37) configured to hold the rigid chamber against the cure tool (para 37).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altan and Watson, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hirano et al. (US 3912542).
Hirano discloses retention clamps 11 connected to a cure tool 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the retention clamps of Altan and Watson to be connected to the cure tool as taught by Hirano above as such has a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Although the same references are used, the grounds of rejection are new as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments. The references meet the claims for the reasons detailed in the body of the rejection above.
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 CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights