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 .
Election/Restrictions
As all the claims now read on thermoplastic or generic material as the outer later, the species restriction has been withdrawn.
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 7-16 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 7, it is unclear what is required by curing the thermoset separately from the thermoplastic as a thermoplastic is not curable. What is required by “curing” the thermoplastic? Hardening it is a cooling step and curing the thermoset would be a heating step, but the claim language implies they both could occur in the same step. For the purposes of examination this is considered to require curing the thermoset not occur at temperature where the thermoplastic melts or significantly softens.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what resin material is being referred to when the claim refers to excess material not being recycled as the resin material is not claimed as part of the core but the claim requires excess resin material not provided to the core is not recycled. This is the same language used to refer to the presumably liquid resin in claim 7 except that resin is clearly an adhesive resin and in claim 14 the resin layer is the outer layer as claim 15 requires providing an adhesive resin.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hackert(US Patent 4,216,046).
Hackert discloses a manufacturing surface in a first direction(2), providing a first resin layer(1), discontinuous core materials(4), a second resin layer(7) applying heat and pressure to bond them together(Col. 2, ll. 60-61), removing the formed article from the manufacturing surface(Figure 1), and maintaining them in the first direction until they’re removed from the manufacturing surface. There is no suggestion that excess resin material is recycled.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein(US Patent 5,453,142).
Klein discloses a method of making a composite structure comprising providing a first thermoplastic layer(4, Col. 3, ll. 50), core materials(1), a second thermoplastic layer(3), and providing a curable adhesive on the thermoplastic sheets(Col. 3, ll. 53-57. While the reference does not explicitly state the adhesive is a thermoset or that it is cured, it is cross-linkable and one in the art would appreciate the adhesive would be corss0linke,i.e. cured since that is how such adhesives bond. While the reference does not disclose it is a thermoset, thermosetting adhesive are a very well-known and conventional type of curable adhesive and would have been obvious for this reason. The reference does not explicitly state the core material are provided discontinuously. However, Figure 4 shows the slats are discontinuous. There is no suggestion that excess resin is recycled.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Svensson et al.(US Patent 4,961,810).
Klein teaches a thermoset adhesive but does not disclose spraying the adhesive on the facesheets or core. Svensson et al. disclose it is known in the sandwich panel arts to spray he core with an adhesive(26) as well as apply adhesive to the facesheets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to spray the adhesive on the core in addition to applying it to the facesheets since this is known in the panels forming arts as shown for example by Svensson et al.(26) There is no suggestion excess resin is recirculated.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darlington(US Publication 2018/0370185) in view of Hackert.
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.
Regarding claim 8, 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 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)
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Darlington discloses a thermoset material between the thermoplastic and the core which is cured.([0003];[0015)
Claim(s) 2-6, 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 sl.(US Publication 2002/0014302).
The references cited above do not disclose cutting the formed panel to a predetermined size. Fanucci et al. is directed to making a similar product made of facesheets on either side of a core and discloses cutting them to size in the production process.(Figure 1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to cut the panels of Darlington and Hackert to size in the continuous process since Fanucci et al. is directed to a similar type of article and discloses they are cut to size before exiting the manufacturing process.(Figure 1)
Regarding claim 3, Darlington teaches the solid facesheets are thermoplastic.[0003]
Regarding claim 4, Darlington discloses heat and pressure are used to bond the layers together([0029] and Hackert discloses using heat and pressure to bond.(Col. 2, ll. 60-61)
Regarding claim 6, Darlington discloses providing a thermosetting material which is not cured.([0003];[0015])
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.
Conclusion
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