DETAILED ACTION
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, 4-8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wybrow (WO2018146178) in view of Besso (US 4,937,278), with TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet as evidence only.
As to claim 1, Wybrow teaches a method of shaping a composite with a release film in a method for shaping a composite material, wherein the method comprises:
a) placing a substantially planar composite material (110) between an upper film (130) and a lower film (120) creating a pocket between the films which houses the composite material (see Fig. 1A), wherein the Wybrow upper film and lower film have a thickness of 20 microns ([00051]),
b) bringing the upper film and the lower film into intimate contact with the composite material (Fig. 1b), thereby forming a layered structure ([00043]), 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 (identically recited in [00043]),
c) optionally pre-heating the layered structure in a heating apparatus at a temperature sufficient to either lower a viscosity of the composite material or soften the upper and the lower films (identically recited in [00062] and [00065]),
d) positioning the layered structure in a press tool comprising a male mold and a corresponding female mold separated by a gap, wherein the male mold and the female mold each independently have a non-planar molding surface (identically recited in [00065]),
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 (identically recited in [00065]),
and f) maintaining the male mold and the female mold in a closed position until the viscosity of the layered structure reaches a level sufficient to maintain a molded shape (identically recited in [00065]).
Wybrow is silent to a single layer polymethylpentene release film and the claimed properties.
Besso teaches a polymethylpentene release film/sheet for use in a pressing process for a composite material (column 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Besso polymethylpentent films into Wybrow as the diaphragm material because (i) one would have recognized this to be an obvious substitution of one component or material (Besso polymethylpentene release film) for another (Wybrow diaphragms) since the substituted component (polymethypentene film) and its function (release from a composite) were known, or alternatively, (ii) one would have recognized Besso’s polymethylpentene film to be within the scope of Wybrow’s teaching/suggestion of a diaphragm for pressing a composite and one would have found a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references press composite material.
While Besso does not specifically teach the claimed thermal or mechanical properties, TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet provides evidence that these properties are likely inherent in polymethylpentene. For example, TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet provides evidence that polymethylpentene has a modulus of about 900 (page 3, 1000 MPa), a tensile strength of between 10 and 50 MPa (page 3, 26 MPa), and an elongation at break between 50 and 550% (page 4, 67%). In the Thermal properties tab, TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet shows that the service temperature of polymethylpentene is 170 C, which provides evidence that the polymethylpentene melting temperature is at or about the claimed range (must be above the 170 C service temperature). In the combination/substitution of Besso’s polymethylpentene for Wybrow’s diaphragms, TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet provides evidence that the claimed properties would be inherent in the Besso polymethylpentene.
As to claims 4-7, Wybrow teaches maintaining the male mold and the female mold within the claimed ranges, such as 150 C ([00068]).
As to claim 8, Besso’s polymethylpentene film would have the same structure as a recycled polymethylpentene film since it contains the same polymer and would therefore meet the claim without regard to how it was prepared.
As to claim 10, Wybrow teaches applying a vacuum pressure of at least about 670 mbar between the upper film and the lower film ([00077]).
As to claim 11, Wybrow teaches the molds maintained in a closed position for 5 seconds to 60 minutes ([00071]).
As to claim 12, Wybrow teaches (Fig. 1A) the upper film (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 Fig. 1A).
As to claim 13, Wybrow teaches a center frame which supplies a source of vacuum to the assembly ([00042], last three sentences).
As to claim 14, Wybrow teaches a top frame and bottom frame which hold the lower film and upper film between the frames (as shown in Fi. 1A).
As to claim 15, Wybrow teaches an automated shuttle for moving from the heater to the mold ([00068]).
As to claim 16, Wybrow teaches a composite material comprises structural fibers of a material selected from aramid, carbon, glass, and others (claim 46).
As to claim 17, Wybrow teaches thermoplastic polymers, thermoset resins, and combinations thereof ([00056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are generally on the grounds that because Besso includes a copper salt of alkanoic acid and at least one of an alkali metal halide and an alkaline earth metal halide, it would not meet the properties previously recited in claim 2 which are now incorporated into claim 1. Applicant also argues that Besso’s printed circuit board manufacturing process is very different from the use of flexible diaphragms in compression molding as shown by Wybrow.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner takes the position that Besso and Wybrow are in the same field of endeavor. The fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials of Wybrow are similar to the fiber-reinforced polymer composite circuit boards of Besso, and both references show the fiber-reinforced polymer material being shaped or molded. Regarding the properties, Besso teaches that the copper salt can be included in amounts of 0.001 to 0.05 wt.%, and the halide can be included at 0.02 to 0.1 wt.%. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments appear to be based on the view that a combined 0.021 wt.% of copper salt and alkali halide would change the properties outside of the claimed range. However, this argument appears to be speculative and not supported by actual testing evidence. Given the small amount of additional materials, a preponderance supports the view that the properties would still fall within the claimed range. The Examiner maintains the view presented in the previous rejection of claim 2 and invites testing evidence that would support Applicant’s position regarding Besso. In any case, TECAFINE PMP natural data sheet seems to establish that the claimed properties are those of known/existing polymethylpentene, not an unexpected set of properties created by novel processing to create an unexpected result.
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 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