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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 04/23/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claims 5, 13 and 17 have been amended to address the informalities, thus the objection of claims 5, 13 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Claim 3 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, thus the rejection of claim 3 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and due to the amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1_Machine Translation-of record) further in view of Kuruppuarachchige et al. (US 2021/0008766).
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 1-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1_Machine Translation-of record) in view of Kuruppuarachchige et al. (US 2021/0008766).
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
Paluch 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 a regulation box which regulates the heating of the at least one first heating network on the thermal treatment surface with a homogenous temperature on the composite part during the treatment and, separately, regulates the heating of the at least one second heating network on the thermal blocking belt with a stable and homogeneous temperature in the distal region beyond the surrounding of the composite part, by compensating thermal losses at the periphery of the composite part during the treatment.
In the same field of endeavor, systems for curing a composite part, Kuruppuarachchige teaches that a curing system 100 for composite parts includes a heat blanket 140, which includes cells 150 arranged in a pattern 142, and each cell 150 includes a pocket 156 (e.g., a void) that includes a heater 154 (e.g., a resistive heater) and a sensor 152 (e.g., a thermocouple) (Pa [0025]), and temperature measurements acquired by the sensors 152 are provided to a controller 160, and the controller 160 adjusts an amount of heat generated by each of the heaters 154 based on these temperature measurements, and in this manner, the heaters 154 are individually adjustable by the controller 160 (Pa [0026]). Kuruppuarachchige further teaches circular heat blankets comprising multiple cells in concentric rings (Figs. 5 and 9) such that it enables curing processes to be carefully monitored along individual portions of a preform, and also enables localized heating deficiencies (e.g., due to part thickness) to be detected and addressed during the curing process (Pa [0045]).
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 Kuruppuarachchige and substitute Kuruppuarachchige’s pattern of heaters/sensors and controller for Paluch’s heating networks in order to carefully monitor curing processes along individual portions of a preform, and detect/ address localized heating deficiencies (e.g., due to part thickness) during the curing process.
In this modification, the controller corresponds to the claimed regulation box, and it is noted that the limitation “a regulation box which regulates the heating of the at least one first heating network on the thermal treatment surface with a homogenous temperature on the composite part during the treatment and, separately, regulates the heating of the at least one second heating network on the thermal blocking belt with a stable and homogeneous temperature in the distal region beyond the surrounding of the composite part, by compensating thermal losses at the periphery of the composite part during the treatment.” is an intended use since the controller of the combination is capable of the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
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 claim 10, 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 and Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 11, Kuruppuarachchige as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches 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 (“each cell 150 includes a pocket 156 (e.g., a void) that includes a heater 154 (e.g., a resistive heater) and a sensor 152 (e.g., a thermocouple).”, Pa [0025]).
With respect to claim 12, Kuruppuarachchige as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches 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 (“The circular heat blanket 500 is arranged into one or more cells 510 within a first ring, cells 520 within a second ring that is concentric with the first ring, and cells 530 that are arranged within a third ring that is concentric with the first ring… In further embodiments, the heaters are shaped to closely follow the perimeter of their corresponding pockets, and may exhibit an inherent curvature at rest. The number of concentric rings, and the arcuate portion occupied by each cell within a concentric ring, varies depending on the size and type of region undergoing curing.”, Pa [0047]; “a controller selects from one of temperature profiles, the temperature profiles each indicate a series of target temperatures, times, and ramp rates for heating the fiber-reinforced material, and the selection is based on the type of fiber-reinforced material being heated, a thickness of the composite part at each cell, a number of plies at each cell, a contour of the composite part at each cell, a fiber arrangement of unidirectional tows, fabric, and/or chopped fibers, etc.”, Pa [0053]).
With respect to claim 13, Paluch as applied to claim 12 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 the combination does not explicitly teach that 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 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 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 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.
With respect to claim 20, Kuruppuarachchige as applied in the combination regarding 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 (Figs. 5, 9).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluch et al. (FR 2956555A1_Machine Translation-of record) in view of Kuruppuarachchige et al. (US 2021/0008766) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaku et al. (US 4,740,343-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
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
Prosecution Insights