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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arold discloses a system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced thermoplastic, comprising:
(1) a first component, wherein the first component is an inner non-resonant mandrel (12);
(b) a second component surrounding the first component wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode (14),
wherein the first and second components are configured to receive fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials therebetween (abstract) and
wherein the inner sonotrode and the outer sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (abstract)
(c ) radial displacement produced by way of the outer sonotrode against the inner non-resonant mandrel or radial displacement produced by way of the inner sonotrode against the outer non-resonant mandrel or radial displacement produced by way of the inner sonotrode against the outer sonotrode or radial displacement produced by way of the outer sonotrode against the inner sonotrode [0071] and
(d) As for the compressive stress generated by way of the radial displacement within the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials that produces heat and generates a weld between the materials, Arold discloses a pressure application that allows sonotrode to be pressed [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated compressive stress generated by way of radial displacement since Arold’s structure is similar to the applicant’s structure and thus, has similar properties. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the composite structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II))
Regarding claim 2, Arold discloses wherein the first component is a non-resonant inner mandrel, wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode, and wherein the outer sonotrode is either a radial sonotrode that surrounds the inner mandrel (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Arold discloses wherein the second component is articulated against the first component in combination with an in-feed and out-feed articulating motion of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials for creating complex three-dimensional shapes from the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, as for the claim limitation, wherein the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials are configured as either tape or braided tape, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon, as per MPEP §2115.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1) in view Richart (US2020/0384697 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Arold doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode, wherein the second component is a non-resonant outer mandrel, and wherein the non- resonant outer mandrel surrounds the inner sonotrode. Analogous sonotrode art, Richart, further depicts an outer mandrel (10) surrounding an inner sonotrode (5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner sonotrode surrounded by an outer mandrel since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1) in view of Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1)..
Regarding claim 4, Arold does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode, wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode, and wherein the outer sonotrode surrounds the inner sonotrode. However, analogous art, Swearing, depicts the first component is an inner sonotrode (16 in figure 12) , wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode (16 in figure 12) shows multiple sonotrode and [0040] in another embodiment discloses an outer sonotrode (8). MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an outer sonotrode with the inner sonotrode since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art and substitution one element for another is also a prima facie evidence of obviousness (substituting one sontorode for an outer sonotrode).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1) in view of Kullberg (US 2023/0330959 A1) and further in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1) and Delos (EP0543721B1).
Regarding claim 5, Arold does not explicitly discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode and wherein the second component is a non-resonant outer mandrel and wherein the non-resonant outer mandrel surrounds the inner sonotrode. Analogous art, Kullberg, depicts an inner sonotrode (37) and outer mandrel (30, 41, 42, 43) [0031]. Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Additionally, analogous art, Richart further depicts an outer mandrel (10) surrounding an inner sonotrode (5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner sonotrode surrounded by an outer mandrel since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Arold does not explicitly disclose wherein a compliant viscoelastic support material is positioned between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material and the non-resonant outer mandrel to form a flexible inner mandrel. However, analogous art, Delos, discloses adding an elastic guide sleeve (pg. 4 paragraph 7) in order to act as a support (pg. 3 paragraph 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein a compliant viscoelastic support material is positioned between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material and the non-resonant outer mandrel to form a flexible inner mandrel since Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) discloses the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated visoelastic support material since it has been held to be within one ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use.
Claim(s) 8-9, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1) with supporting evidence from NPL, Sonotrode.
Regarding claim 8, Arold discloses a system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced thermoplastic, comprising:
(a) a first component, wherein the first component is an inner non-resonant mandrel (12);
(b) a second component surrounding the first component wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode (14), as for the half-wavelength sonotrode, sonotrodes are designed to run as half-wavelength (see NPL)
wherein the first and second components are configured to receive fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials therebetween (abstract) and
wherein the inner half-wavelength sonotrode and the outer half-wavelength sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (abstract)
(c ) radial displacement produced by way of the outer half- wavelength sonotrode against the inner non-resonant mandrel or radial displacement produced by way of the inner half- wavelength sonotrode against the outer non-resonant mandrel or radial displacement produced by way of the inner half- wavelength sonotrode against the outer half- wavelength sonotrode or radial displacement produced by way of the outer half-wavelength sonotrode against the inner half wavelength sonotrode [0071] and
(d) As for the compressive stress generated by way of the radial displacement within the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials that produces heat and generates a weld between the materials, Arold discloses a pressure application that allows sonotrode to be pressed [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated compressive stress generated by way of radial displacement since Arold’s structure is similar to the applicant’s structure and thus, has similar properties. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the composite structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II))
Regarding claim 9, Arold teaches wherein the first component is a non-resonant inner mandrel, wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode, and wherein the outer half-wavelength sonotrode is either a radial half-wavelength sonotrode that surrounds the non-resonant inner mandrel (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Arold discloses wherein the second component is articulated against the first component in combination with an in-feed and out-feed articulating motion of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials for creating complex three-dimensional shapes from the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, as for the claim limitation, wherein the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials are configured as either tape or braided tape, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon, as per MPEP §2115
Regarding claim 15, Arold teaches a system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced thermoplastics, comprising:
(a) a first component, wherein the first component is an inner non-resonant mandrel (12);
(b) a second component surrounding the first component, wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode, (14), as for the half-wavelength sonotrode, sonotrodes are designed to run as half-wavelength (see NPL)
wherein the first and second components are configured to receive tape or braided tape fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials therebetween (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., fibers reinforced thermoplastic materials), as per MPEP §2115,)
wherein the inner half-wavelength sonotrode and the outer half-wavelength sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (abstract);
(c ) as for radial displacement produced by way of the outer half-wavelength sonotrode against the non-resonant inner mandrel, Arold discloses a pressure application that allows sonotrode to be pressed [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated compressive stress generated by way of radial displacement since Arold’s structure is similar to the applicant’s structure and thus, has similar properties. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the composite structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)).
Regarding claim 16, Arold teaches wherein the first component is a non-resonant inner mandrel, wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode, and wherein the outer half-wavelength sonotrode is either a radial half-wavelength sonotrode that surrounds the non-resonant inner mandrel (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Arold discloses wherein the second component is articulated against the first component in combination with an in-feed and out-feed articulating motion of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials for creating complex three-dimensional shapes from the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1), with supporting evidence from NPL, Snotorode, in view of Kullberg (US 2023/0330959 A1) and further in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1) and Delos (EP0543721B1).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Arold does not explicitly discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode and wherein the second component is a non-resonant outer mandrel and wherein the non-resonant outer mandrel surrounds the inner sonotrode. Analogous art, Kullberg, depicts an inner sonotrode (37) and outer mandrel (30, 41, 42, 43) [0031]. Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Additionally, analogous art, Richart further depicts an outer mandrel (10) surrounding an inner sonotrode (5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner sonotrode surrounded by an outer mandrel since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
As for the half-wavelength sonotrode, sonotrodes are designed to run as half-wavelength (see NPL).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1), with supporting evidence from NPL, Snotorode, as applied claim 8, in view of Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Arold does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component is an inner half-wavelength sonotrode, wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode, and wherein the outer half-wavelength sonotrode surrounds the inner half-wavelength sonotrode. Analogous art, Swearing, depicts the first component is an inner half wavelength sonotrode (16 in figure 12) , wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode (16 in figure 12 shows multiple sonotrode and [0040] in another embodiment discloses an outer sonotrode (8). MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an outer sonotrode with the inner sonotrode since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art and substitution one element for another is also a prima facie evidence of obviousness (substituting one sontorode for an outer sonotrode).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arold (US2015/0129111 A1) with supporting evidence from NPL, Sonotrode, as applied to claim 8/15 and further in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1) and Delos (EP0543721B1).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Arold does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode and wherein the second component is a non-resonant outer mandrel and wherein the non-resonant outer mandrel surrounds the inner sonotrode. Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Additionally, analogous art, Richart further depicts an outer mandrel (10) surrounding an inner sonotrode (5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner sonotrode surrounded by an outer mandrel since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Arold does not explicitly disclose wherein a compliant viscoelastic support material is positioned between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material between the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material and the non-resonant outer mandrel to form a flexible inner mandrel. However, analogous art, Delos, discloses adding an elastic guide sleeve (pg. 4 paragraph 7) in order to act as a support (pg. 3 paragraph 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in light of the newly cited reference Arold (US2015/0129111 A1).
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights