DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,041,260) in view of Hill (US 3,286,004).
As to claim 1, Johnson teaches a method for manufacturing a part including a step (a) of providing a mold which defines a molding zone (4:25) which has a wall is intended to define a finished surface of the part (inherent in Johnson’s molding cavity).
Johnson teaches a step (b) of providing an deformable/conformable (6:25-27; 7:54; 8:6-15) web/film interpreted to be a free web/film and which meets the claimed dry layer of a paint-type material (Fig. 3b, item 38; 8:5-22, “web”) attached to a particulate backing (Fig. 3b, item 22), the paint-type material being intended to be in contact with said wall and the particulate backing being intended to be directed toward the molding zone (4:7-26).
Johnson teaches a step (c) of placing the web is placed into an RTM mold which is then closed (10:60-68), the Johnson web/film on the surface of the preform would inherently or obviously be arranged against the wall of the mold.
Johnson teaches a step (d) of filling the molding zone with a curable viscous molding material (4:27-36), such that the viscous molding material would inherently or obviously penetrate the particulate backing (this is the purpose of the resin transfer molding process). Since the Johnson web/film is described as conformable (6:25-27) and yielding to follow contours (7:54) and can be formed from polyethylene, polyester, or styrenic plastic sheeting of the appropriate thickness (8:6-15), one would have recognized that it would assume the shape of the wall of the mold.
Johnson teaches steps (e) of causing the molding material to cure (inherent or obvious in 7:24-27) and (f) removing the article from the mold (this step is inherent or obvious in order to use the part for its intended purpose).
Johnson teaches compressing a web/paint-type material (12:27-29) against fiber reinforcement (12:30-31) to produce “mechanical entrapment” (8:59). While this does not specifically teach that the particulate backing is “anchored in” the paint-type material, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that this portion of Johnson suggests particulate backing anchored in the web/paint-type material.
Additionally or alternatively, Hill teaches that it is known to provide a fiber layer which may be “partly embedded in the binder component” (3:54-55) which forms the surface of an article, which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a particulate backing “anchored in” a paint-type material.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Hill into Johnson in view of Johnson’s teaching/suggestion to provide “mechanical entrapment” of a web with fiber reinforcement, and Hill’s teaching of partly embedding fiber in a binder coating within the scope of the Johnson teaching/suggestion.
As to claim 2, Johnson inherently arranges the film (comprising both the web/paint-type material (12:27-29) and particulate fiber fiber reinforcement (12:30-31)) against a wall of a mold (4:7-36). As to claims 3 and 6, Johnson teaches placing a core, which may include fibers (5:52-58), in the molding zone prior to resin transfer molding (7:42). As to claim 5, Johnson’s molding material is resin-based (7:21). As to claims 8 and 9, Johnson teaches applying the film against an inherently deformable preform (5:42-55, crushable) formed from foam and/or fiber (Figs. 1a-1b), and this film would inherently be placed against a mold wall prior to filling the mold with resin (see rejection of claim 1 above). When resin transfer molding occurs, the pressure of the resin injection molding material would cause the film to conform to the mold and interpenetrate the Johnson particulate fiber (22) material and form an article with physical integrity upon curing. Because the resin transfer molding causes impregnation with molding material before curing of the molding material, the order recited in claim 9 is necessarily present in Johnson. As to claims 11-13, the Johnson film is made of a polyethylene or another material which is sufficiently elastic (8:50, meets stretchable) backed by a particulate backing of chopped nonwoven and non-interwoven fiber particles (Fig. 3a, item 22).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,041,260) in view of Hill (US 3,286,004), and further in view of Chapman (US 5,875,732). Johnson and Hill teach the subject matter of claim 2 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 4, Johnson is silent to a means for holding a film in position, the disclosed means from the specification being tape.
Chapman teaches that it is known to apply reinforcing material to a mold and to hold the reinforcing material to the inner surface of the mold using an interposed double-sided tape (claim 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature (double sided tape) from Chapman into Johnson as an obvious improvement applicable to Johnson which yield the predictable result of fixing the Johnson film at a fixed location.
Claim 7, 9, and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,041,260) in view of Hill (US 3,286,004), and further in view of Juras (US 3,410,936). Johnson and Hill teach the subject matter of claim 2 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 7, Johnson teaches resin transfer molding by injecting resin, but is silent to pouring curable molding material.
Juras teaches that it is conventional to feed curable material by pouring (Fig. 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the pouring from Juras into Johnson as an obvious substitution of one process for another. Johnson provides a resin transfer molding process which differed from the claimed process by the substitution of one impregnation process for another. However, Juras teaches that injection (Fig. 8) and pouring (Fig. 5) can be used interchangeably/substitutably, and one could have substituted one impregnation process for another to provide the same predictable result (resin impregnation).
As to claims 9 and 10, Johnson is silent to producing the preform by impregnating a reinforcing material with the molding material on a mold on which a film has been positioned.
Juras teaches that it is conventional to position a preform (Fig. 3, item 36) on a film (12, 35) on a mold (10) and impregnate the preform (Fig. 5, Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these steps from Juras into Johnson because this is the application of a known technique to a known process ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Johnson provides a base process upon which the claimed invention can be seen an improvement by making a preform on a mold. The prior art of Juras shows a known technique that is applicable to the base process and includes making a preform on a mold (Figs. 1-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the technique of Juras (forming a preform on a mold) could have been applied in the same way to Johnson to provide the predictable result that it would arrive at the same configuration as that already shown by Johnson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant summarizes the rejection and argues that “in all embodiments” the web+particulate has an imposed shape. Applicant argues that in the case of Fig. 1A and 1B, the web+fiber structure is constrained by the shape of a core. Applicant argues that in Figs. 3A-3C of Johnson the shape of the web+fiber is again determined by the shape of the forming member. On page 8, Applicant further argues that col. 10, lines 40-54 suggest that the heat curable resin in the fiber reinforcement results in a structurally rigid article. On page 8 Applicant argues that one would have to modify Johnson in a manner that meets the claim would not be obvious. Applicant also argues on page 8 that Hill provides a product that needs to be heated to get softer and adapt to a mold, which suggests it is initially rigid.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these positions regarding Johnson. While it is true that some embodiments envision a more rigid and shaped web/film structure, the Examiner disagrees that all embodiments of Johnson are rigid. Instead, the Examiner maintains the view that Johnson broadly covers both rigid and flexible materials. For example, Johnson specifically teaches that in some embodiments the web may be a metallic screen which is capable of retaining a pressing configuration to hold the fiber reinforcement in a desired configuration. But Johnson also teaches various plastic sheeting materials of an “appropriate” (i.e. selected or optimized) thickness having the conformability, yielding, and elastic characteristics described in the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not believe that Johnson teaches all embodiments must be rigid. Hill was presented for reasons other than conformability to a mold.
Although Johnson is still interpreted to render obvious the claimed invention, further search revealed the Okoli (US 20110014315) reference cited on the attached Notice of References Cited. Okoli teaches a paint film (62) and fibrous backing (60) which together conform (intrinsically, conformably, freely) to a mold (Fig. 5, item 38). While Okoli does not specifically teach the two materials “anchored”, the Examiner believes that Hill would render it obvious to anchor the Okoli materials together. This additional reference also demonstrates that conforming of a paint film and fiber material to a mold is conventional.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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 at 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 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights