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 .
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.
Claim 21 is 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. The originally filed disclosure does not teach or clearly convey that applicant had possession of the concept of melting the thermoplastic liner during the process.
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 3, 7-13, and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 3, as stated in previous communications, thermoplastic materials are not curable, so it is unclear how the precured resin material can be a thermoplastic. As the scope of this claim cannot be determined, no rejection can be made. While there is support for the liner being a pre-cured material, i.e. a thermosetting material, there is no suggestion that the liner is made of both a thermosetting and thermoplastic layer. There is support for it being thermosetting resin applied to fiber, but a fiber layer would not be a “solid” layer.
Regarding claims 7-13 and 19-21, it is unclear what “processing” is performed on thermoplastic liner particularly since the disclosure does not suggest what that processing is. Is this the compaction which is separate from the press? The disclosure does not teach melting the thermoplastic and why would it be melted when the thermosetting resin has been applied? They would just mix.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what is occurring since the claims states that the second layer is a liquid resin which excess quantities of it not applied to itself are not recycled? For the purposes of examination, this is considered to refer to the third layer of resin.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington(US Publication 2018/0370185) in view of Hackert.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Darlington discloses providing first and second facesheets comprising a layer of thermoplastic with a layer of thermosetting adhesive joined thereto, applying them to either side of a core made of foam, and curing the thermoset.([0003];[0009];[0015] The reference does not disclose how to make the laminate in a continuous process. Hackert is directed to a similar process of joining thermoplastic film to either side of a foam core and bonding them using an adhesive(Abstract, Col. 1, ll. 18-20; Figure 1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a method similar to Hackert to make the laminates of Darlington since this would allow a continuous process, speeding up production. Providing the resin onto the third layer does not require providing it in the process as the claim does not require the steps to occur in the order provided. The curing occurs separately from any processing of the thermoplastic such as cutting to size.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Hackert shows the core panels can be provided transverse to the machine direction.(Figure 1)
Regarding claim 9, Hackert discloses a conveyor which moves in a linear direction.(2)
Regarding claim 10, while Hackert does not disclose the specifics of how the panels are moved transversely, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a mechanical device such as a robot since this would improve the processing speed versus doing it by hand.
Regarding claim 14, Darlington discloses heat and pressure are used to bond the layers together.([0029] Hackert discloses maintaining the layers in a first direction when forming the laminate.(Figure 1) While the references do not teach whether the excess resin is recycled, there are only two choices, i.e. it is recycled or it is not, and thus they are obvious alternatives in the art. It is noted the claim does not require a location where the resin is applied.
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Darlington discloses a thermoset material between the thermoplastic and the core which is cured.([0003];[0015)
Regarding claim 17, applying the resin to the second layer before the core is applied is providing it between the second layer and the core. It cannot be provided between them after they are stacked on one another since they would be contacting, thus not allowing anything between them.
Regarding claim 18, while the references do not teach whether the excess resin is recycled, there are only two choices, i.e. it is recycled or it is not, and thus they are obvious alternatives in the art. It is noted the claim does not require a location where the resin is applied.
Regarding claim 20, Darlington discloses the uncured thermoset is impregnated into the fibers.[0028] It is extremely well known and conventional that during such impregnation the resin is liquid as otherwise how would it impregnate all the fibers?
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington and Hackert as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fanucci et al.
Regarding claim 12, Hackert discloses sealing the sides of a panel to protect the sides.(Abstract) Although Hackert is making a different type of product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to seal the sides to protect them as taught by Hackert et al.(Abstract)
Regarding claim 13, while none of the references disclose inspection, inspecting is extremely well-known and conventional in the aerospace arts, which Darlington is directed to[0002], and it would have been obvious for this reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the process of claim 2 including providing a precured material in the first zone which is a separate material from the uncured resin provided in the first zone onto the core. It is noted that a precured solid resin material is considered to mean a material that is curable and has already been cured, i.e. not a thermoplastic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to claims 2, 7, and 14 have overcome the rejections over Hackert and Klein and thus those rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s argument about claims 7 and 14 that Darlington provides a pre-impregnated layer and thus does not disclose a separately provided uncured resin on the first layer, the claims do not require the steps to occur in the order listed. Therefore, the uncured resin can be provided to the first layer before the core is provided onto it. The resin is impregnated into the fiber layer which is provided to the first layer. This would be in line with Hackert having precoated foils as well.
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 BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights