DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene film) without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 7 are withdrawn.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 13, 2-4, 6, 8-11, and 14-17 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.
As to claim 13, this claim depends on cancelled claim 12.
As to claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-17, each of these claims recite a “use”, and while claim 1 was amended to remove this language, the dependent claims still recite this phrase. Since there is no more “use” in claim 1, “The use” in each of these dependent lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wybrow (US 20200009805) in view of Solvay (Solvay Product Portfolio for Process Materials Aerospace and Industrial Markets), with A6200 MatWeb data sheet (of record) as evidence only.
As to claim 1, Wybrow teaches a method for shaping a composite material, wherein the method comprises:
(a) placing a substantially planar composite material (Fig. 1A, item 110) between an upper film (130) and a lower film (120) by creating a pocket between the upper fluoropolymer film and the lower fluoropolymer film which houses the composite material (Fig. 1A generally),
(b) bringing the upper film and the lower film into intimate contact with the composite material thereby forming a layered structure (Fig. 1B), wherein the composite material is held stationary between the upper film and the lower film until heat or force is applied to the layered structure (see Fig. 3A and 3B);
(c) (optionally) pre-heating the layered structure in a heating apparatus (320) at a temperature sufficient to either lower the viscosity of the composite material or soften the upper film and the lower film ([0112]);
(d) positioning the layered structure in a press tool comprising a male mold and a corresponding female mold separated by a gap (Fig. 3A, items 330 and 340), wherein the male mold and the female mold each independently have a non-planar molding surface,
(e) compressing the layered structure between the male mold and the female mold by closing the gap between the male mold and the female mold (Fig. 3B, right portion); and
(f) maintaining the male mold and the female mold in a closed position until a viscosity of the layered structure reaches a level sufficient to maintain a molded shape ([0112]-[0118]),
wherein the upper film (Fig. 1A, 130) and the lower film (120) are held together by a structural frame comprising a top frame (180), a center frame (170) and a bottom frame (160), wherein the lower film is held between the bottom frame and the center frame and the upper film is held between the center frame and the top frame (See Figs. 1A-1B, items 120-180).
Wybrow is silent to the upper film and lower film comprised of a fluoropolymer.
Solvay shows that it is conventional (as of 2018 when the document was published – see last page right margin) to use ETFE fluoropolymer films for bagging or release of composite materials (see Product Focus: A6200M on page 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the A6200M ETFE film from Solvay materials into Wybrow because Wybrow teaches/suggests a diaphragm that can be easily released from the final molded part ([0072]) and Solvay provides materials within the scope of this Wybrow teaching/suggestion.
As to claims 2-4 and 6, Wybrow teaches two diaphragms not disclosed as being different films, and Solvay provides an ETFE A6200M film (see page 10) which could be used as both of the Wybrow diaphragms. The A6200 MatWeb data sheet provides evidence which suggests the Solvay ETFE A6200M film meets the claimed melt temperature (melt temperature must be higher than the 232 C maximum service temperature shown on the data sheet), thickness (25 microns meets claimed about 30 microns), tensile strength (41.4 MPa meets claimed about 45 MPa), elongation at break of 350% (meets claimed about 400%), and since it is made from ETFE as claimed it would likely have the claimed elastic modulus, even though the MatWeb does not disclose this data.
As to claims 8 and 11, Wybrow teaches the same feature as claimed (Wybrow, claims 29 and 32). As to claims 9 and 10, see Wybrow ([0114]) for molds maintained at an elevated temperature above 100 C. As to claim 13, Wybrow teaches a center frame which supplies vacuum to the assembly ([0042]-[0044]). As to claim 14, Wybrow teaches a configuration which meets the claimed frames and films (Figs. 1A-1B). As to claim 15, Wybrow teaches positioning the layered structure using automated means ([0046]). As to claims 16 and 17, Wybrow teaches all of the claimed materials ([0051]).
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