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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 01/28/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12 and 14 have been amended. New claims 15-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14 have been amended to address the informalities, thus the rejection of claims 1-14 under 112(b) previously made has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 in pages 6-8, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In fact, the heating networks check and regulate the heating on the distal region of the composite part during the curing process, but it has no control of the temperature in the distal region beyond the surrounding the composite part. See at least Paluch p. 3-5. Indeed, in Paluch, the sensors of the heating network are necessarily placed in the region of the composite part and not in the distal region to ensure a perfect control of the heating on the composite part during the curing process. See id. As such, the temperature on the distal region depends on the needed temperature for curing the composite part. See id.” (page 7)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Firstly, Paluch teaches heating networks (“9”) which cover the whole surface of the surface layers (“5”) in Fig. 7. Namely, Paluch teaches heating networks (“9”) which heat both the functional face and at least a distal region.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
1321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Secondly, Paluch teaches that the multilayer devices 100 integrate temperature sensors, for example thermocouples, in order to allow precise control of the cooking of the part to be molded 15 (pg 5 li 1-2). Paluch does not specifically teach that there is no temperature control of the distal region even though the heating networks are placed therein. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., control of the temperature in the distal region beyond the surrounding the composite part) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, Paluch still teaches the limitations in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, Applicant has been advised to replace “at least one thermal blocking belt” in lines 3-4 to – the at least one thermal blocking belt --;
In claim 13, Applicant has been advised to replace “a second heating cord” in lines 4-5 to -- said second heating cord --; and
In claim 17, Applicant has been advised to replace “the dry fibers is” in line 1 to -- the dry fibers are --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one reinforcing layer further comprises at least three reinforcing layers, and the at least one first heating network includes two first heating networks and the at least one second heating network” in lines 1-4. It renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear where the at least one second heating network is included. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as “wherein the at least one reinforcing layer further comprises at least three reinforcing layers, and the at least one first heating network includes two first heating networks”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1_Machine Translation -of record).
With respect to claim 1, Paluch teaches a multilayer device (“600”, Figs. 6 and 7) for a mold (“13”) comprising:
a surface layer (“5”) comprising a functional face of complex shape constituting a negative of a composite part to be manufactured (“functional faces 7 take on the negative shape of a part 15 to be produced”, pg 4 li 32);
at least one reinforcing layer (“4”) made of a composite material coated with a thermosetting material (“at least two composite reinforcement layers bonded to a thermosetting resin”, pg 2 li 18-19),
at least one first heating network (the portions of the heating networks 9 indicated in the annotated Fig. 7 below) configured to heat the functional face and to implement a thermal treatment surface for said composite part, said thermal treatment surface comprising at least one periphery, and at least one second heating network (the other portions of the heating networks 9 indicated in the annotated Fig. 7 below) configured to heat at least a distal region of the surface layer that is beyond the functional face and to define at least one thermal blocking belt at the at least one periphery of the thermal treatment surface (“the whole being heated by the heating networks 9 of the multilayer devices 100”, pg 4 li 37 and see the annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
1321
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one reinforcing layer further comprises two reinforcing layers (“4”), the first heating network (“9”) and the second heating network (“9”) being arranged between the two reinforcing layers (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 3, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one reinforcing layer further comprises at least three reinforcing layers (four layers “4”), and the at least one first heating network includes two first heating networks (“9”), one of the two first heating networks and the at least one second heating network (the upper network “9”) being arranged between two of the at least three reinforcing layers (“4”) arranged the closest to the surface layer (“5”) and the other one of the two first heating networks (the lower network “9”) being arranged between two of the at least three reinforcing layers (“4”) arranged farthest from the surface layer (“5”) (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 4, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that each of the at least one first heating network (“9”) comprises a first support layer (“layer of dry fabric 11”, co 4 li 22), at least one first heating cord (“cord 1”) fastened to the first support layer (“The cords 1 of figure 3 are sewn onto a dry fabric 11.”, pg 3 li 29) with an arrangement defining a heating surface corresponding to the thermal treatment surface and a first wire network electrically connected to the at least one first heating cord (“a heating cord connected to an electrical power supply”, pg 2 li 20).
With respect to claim 5, Paluch as applied to claim 4 above further teaches that each of the at least one second heating network (“9”) comprises a second support layer (“layer of dry fabric 11”, co 4 li 22), at least one second heating cord (“cord 1”) fastened on the second support layer (“The cords 1 of figure 3 are sewn onto a dry fabric 11.”, pg 3 li 29) with an arrangement defining at least one thermal blocking belt at least at one periphery of the thermal treatment surface and a second wire network electrically connected to the at least one second heating cord (“a heating cord connected to an electrical power supply”, pg 2 li 20).
With respect to claim 6, Paluch as applied to claim 5 above further teaches that the first support layer and the second support layer are made into one single support layer (“layer of dry fabric 11”) on which the at least one first heating cord and the at least one second heating cord are fastened (“The cords 1 of figure 3 are sewn onto a dry fabric 11.”, pg 3 li 29).
With respect to claim 7, Paluch as applied to claim 5 above further teaches that the first support layer (“11”) and the second support layer (“11”) are designed in a dry fabric (“layer of dry fabric 11”, co 4 li 22).
With respect to claim 8, Paluch as applied to claim 5 above further teaches that each first or second heating cord (“1”) comprises an electrically-insulating core (“3”) made of dry fibers on which a resistive wire (“2”) is wound (“a cord 1 is shown, this cord 1 comprises a resistive wire 2 surrounding an electrically insulating core 3 made of dry fibers formed like a wick.”, pg 3 li 1-3).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the at least one reinforcing layer (“4”) is made of a material resistant to a temperature of at least 450°C to prevent risk of change of initial state of the at least one reinforcing layer, the material is selected from among glass fiber and carbon fiber (“the reinforcement layers 4 are electrically insulating, for example made of glass fibers”, pg 3 li 10-11; “This dry fabric 11 is advantageously made of a fibrous material identical to that used for the reinforcement layers 4. For example, the fabric will be made of glass fibers, carbon fibers”, co 3 li 29-31). One having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Paluch’s material for the reinforcing layer would have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Paluch as applied to claim 7 above further teaches that the dry fabric is a fibrous material resistant to a temperature of at least 450° C. preventing risk of change of initial state of the first support layer and the second support layer, the fibrous material is selected from among glass fiber and carbon fiber (“This dry fabric 11 is advantageously made of a fibrous material identical to that used for the reinforcement layers 4. For example, the fabric will be made of glass fibers, carbon fibers”, co 3 li 29-31). One having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Paluch’s fibrous material made of glass fibers or carbon fibers for the first support layer and the second support layer (“11”) would have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
With respect to claim 20, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that one of the at least one second heating network is configured to heat at least an inner periphery of the thermal treatment surface (See the annotated Fig. 7 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1 _Machine Translation -of record) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
With respect to claim 10, in another embodiment (Fig. 5) Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a metal mesh (“12”) arranged between the surface layer (“5”) and the at least one reinforcing layer (“4”), said metal mesh being connected to an electrical wire intended to be grounded (“The metal mesh 12 makes it possible to drain the electrostatic charges which accumulate on the surface of the composite structure 6 given the use of reinforcing layers 4 made of insulating material. To allow the dissipation of these charges, it is planned to connect the grid 12 to a ground.”, pg 4 li 10-18). Thus, one would have found it obvious to provide a metal mesh between the surface layer and the at least one reinforcing layer of the embodiment of Fig. 6 in order to drain the electrostatic charges which accumulate on the surface of the composite structure 6 given the use of reinforcing layers 4 made of insulating material.
With respect to claim 11, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the multilayer devices 100 integrate temperature sensors, for example thermocouples, in order to allow precise control of the cooking of the part to be molded 15 (pg 5 li 1-2), but does not explicitly teach that the at least one first heating network comprises at least one first temperature measurement sensor, and the at least one second heating network comprises at least one second temperature measurement sensor. One would have found it obvious to provide temperature sensors with the at least one first heating network and the at least one second heating network in order to control temperatures of the heating networks so as to allow precise control of the cooking of the part to be molded 15.
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that Figure 3 shows an example of a heating network 9 comprising two cords 1 connected in parallel to a conventional electrical power supply represented by a current generator 10, but this example is not limiting and other shapes are of course conceivable depending on the geometry to be given to the functional face 7 or to take into account the geometric characteristics or heterogeneities of the parts to be molded, and the number of cords 1 on a heating network 9 can be greater than one (pg 3 li 23-28). Thus, even though Paluch does not explicitly teach that the at least one first heating network is configured such that the thermal treatment surface features a division into heating areas dependent on variations in thickness and/or shape over the composite part to be manufactured and the at least one second heating network is configured such that the thermal blocking belt features a division into heating sections dependent on said heating areas and the shape of the distal region of the surface layer delimiting the functional face, and the at least one second heating network comprises one single second heating cord fastened on a second support layer, the division of the thermal blocking belt into heating sections being implemented by depositing said second heating cord over the second support layer with a variable step or using a second heating cord configured so as to have a variable linear ohmic value over its length, one would have found it obvious to select the optimum shapes of the heating networks and the optimum number of the cords depending on the geometry to be given to the functional face or the geometric characteristics or heterogeneities of the parts to be molded in order to produce the desired part to be molded, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 17, Paluch as applied to claim 8 above teaches the electrically-insulating core (“3”) made of dry fibers (“an electrically insulating core 3 made of dry fibers”, pg 3 li 2-3), but does not explicitly teach that the dry fibers are selected from among glass fibers and basalt fibers. However, Paluch further teaches that this cord 1 can be used as is if the reinforcement layers 4 are electrically insulating, for example made of glass fibers (pg 3 li 9-11). Thus, one would have found it obvious to make the core made of glass fibers for the purpose of forming the electrically-insulating core.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1_Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaku et al. (US 4,740,343) (All of record).
With respect to claims 14 and 19, Paluch as applied to claim 1 above teaches the thermosetting material, but does not explicitly teach that the thermosetting material is configured to withstand temperatures of at least 400° C to prevent risk of change of initial state of the thermosetting material, the thermosetting material are selected from among Cyanate-Ester resin, Phthalonitrile resin and ceramic.
In the same field of endeavor, a rigid resin mold for preparing plastic moldings, Gaku teaches a rigid hard resin mold that exhibits superior thermal resistance compared with the prior art rigid resin molds and which yet retains high thermal conductivity, high abrasion resistance and good working and handling properties, and this object can be attained by using a cyanate ester resin composition as a binder resin, and in combination with a curing agent composition which is mixture of an epoxy resin and a metal which serves as a catalyst for said binder resin (co 1 li 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Paluch with the teachings of Gaku and substitute Gaku’s material of a rigid hard resin mold for the thermosetting material for the purpose of superior thermal resistance, high thermal conductivity, high abrasion resistance and good working and handling properties.
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742