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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 11/20/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching one group will require searching both. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus does not require any of the material worked upon and thus is MUCH broader. The apparatus does not require Z-aligned fibers are they are part of the material worked upon. See the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, the word “sis” should be –is--. 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 10 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.
It is unclear whether this claim is method or apparatus claim as it depends from claim 1, which is an apparatus(forming system), but the preamble states it is a method. For the purposes of examination, it is considered to be an apparatus claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The only limitations in the claims are to the material worked upon, which does not affect the structure of the apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Thies et al.(US Patent 4,917,741).
Thies et al. teaches a device comprising first and second platforms(1) which can have a laminate placed thereon, an ultrasonic energy device which emits ultrasonic energy to the material between the platforms and wherein the platforms are moveable towards one another.(Figure 2) The presence of composite layers with Z aligned fibers is a part of the material worked upon and is not part of the apparatus. The device is capable of having composite layers with Z-aligned fibers on them. While the preamble states this is a system, the material worked upon is not positively recited as part of the device, so it is considered an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 2, the device uses an ultrasonic energy device to excite the workpiece.(Col. 3, ll. 12-15)
Regarding claim 4, Thies et al. discloses the frequency and amplitude of the energy can be varied.(Col. 4, ll. 1-2) and one in the art would understand this would require a controller/processer to control the frequency and amplitude.
Regarding claim 6, the device would be capable of vibrating Z-aligned fibers.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the platforms are urged towards one another.(Col. 4, ll. 8-10, Figure 2) How close they get is determined by the thickness of the material worked upon, and the device of Thies et al would be capable of getting the workpieces close enough as that is dependent on their thicknesses.
Regarding claim 9, Thies et al. discloses applying heat.(5)
Regarding claim 10, the device is capable of activating an adhesive as that is dependent on the type of adhesive and its activation temperature.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Stenzel(US Publication 2007/0114701).
Stenzel teaches a device comprising first and second platforms(209,210) which can have a laminate placed thereon, an ultrasonic energy device which emits ultrasonic energy[0067] to the material between the platforms and wherein the platforms are moveable towards one another.([0068]; Figure 2) The presence of composite layers with Z aligned fibers is a part of the material worked upon and is not part of the apparatus. The device is capable of having composite layers with Z-aligned fibers on them.
Regarding claim 2, the device uses an ultrasonic energy device to excite the workpiece.[0067]
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Stenzel discloses the device includes a controller which can control the vibratory energy emitted(power) and can control the motors.[0080]
Regarding claim 6, the device would be capable of vibrating Z-aligned fibers.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the platforms are urged towards one another.[0068] How close they get is determined by the thickness of the material worked upon, and the device of Stenzel would be capable of getting the workpieces close enough as that is dependent on their thicknesses.
Regarding claim 9, Stenzel discloses applying heat.[0065]
Regarding claim 10, the device is capable of activating an adhesive as that is dependent on the type of adhesive and its activation temperature.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kim et al.(US Publication 2021/0104405).
Kim et al. teaches a device comprising first and second platforms(110, 220) which have a laminate placed thereon(Figure 3A), a vibrator which vibrates the material between the platforms[0039] and wherein the platforms are moveable towards one another. The presence of composite layers with Z aligned fibers is a part of the material worked upon and is not part of the apparatus. The device is capable of having composite layers with Z-aligned fibers on them.
Regarding claim 6, the device would be capable of vibrating Z-aligned fibers.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the platforms are urged towards one another.(Col. 4, ll. 8-10, Figure 2) How close they get is determined by the thickness of the material worked upon, and the device of Kim et al. would be capable of getting the workpieces close enough as that is dependent on their thicknesses.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vasko et al.(US Publication 2021/0187866).
Stenzel discloses the presence of multiple ultrasonic transducers(225, [0071]) but does not disclose they are piezoelectric. Vasko et al. discloses that one of the most common ultrasonic transducers is piezoelectric.[0001] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use piezoelectric transducers as the ultrasonic transducers in Stenzel since Vasko et al. discloses that piezoelectric transducers are some of the most common ultrasonic transducers.[0001]
Cited Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuhara et al.(US Publication 2018/0186087) and Wang et al.(US Publication 2017/0355150) all teach two surfaces which can act as platforms which are moveable together and an ultrasonic device which applies vibrations to the workpiece. Hall(US Patent 7,353,580) is cited as showing platforms(36, 56) and an ultrasonic energy source which forces Z-pins(fibers aligned vertically) into a workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746