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 § 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.
Claims 6 and 8-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation an in-feed and out-feed articulating motion. It is unclear what applicant is referring to when reciting in-feed and out-feed articulating motion. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting it as a system with an in feed and an out feed.
Regarding claim 8-20, recites the limitation half-wavelength sonotrode. However it is unclear if the claim is referring to a sonotrode that is functional at half-wavelength or if that is particular type of sonotrode. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the limitation as a sonotrode that is functional at half-wavelength.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Swearingen discloses system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced /thermoplastics (abstract), comprising:
(a) a first component (16 in figures 12-13), wherein the first component is either an inner non-resonant mandrel or an inner sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 is an inner sonotrode); and
(b) a second component, wherein the second component is either an outer non-resonant mandrel or an outer sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 show 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 inner sonotrode for an outer sonotrode).
(c) wherein the first and second components are configured to receive 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,)
(d) wherein the inner sonotrode and the outer sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials [0040, 0062]
(e) wherein the outer sonotrode produces radial displacement against the inner non-resonant mandrel [0062], ,
and (f) wherein the radial displacement generates compressive stress within the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials that produces heat and generates a weld between the materials [0049].
Regarding claim 4, 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).
Regarding claim 6, Swearingen 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 (figures 12-13 the sonotrodes are articulated against each other and the system as an in-feed and an out-feed).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1) as applied to claim 1, in view of Kullberg (US 2023/0330959 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Swearingen discloses wherein the second component is an outer sonotrode (8 in [0040]) wherein the outer sonotrode is either a radial sonotrode [0038]), but does not explicitly disclose the first component is a non-resonant inner mandrel and the radial sonotrode surrounds the inner mandrel. However, MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Further, analogous sonotrode art, Kullberg depicts four mandrels (30, 41, 42, 43) that is underneath an ultrasonic sonotrode (reads on surrounds) [0031] and figure 10. This 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 non-resonant inner mandrel and a radial sonotrode that surrounds the inner mandrel as taught by Kullbering into the system taught by Swearingen in order to provide a system that is more economical [0009].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Swearingen discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode (16 in figure 12) but does not explicitly disclose 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1) in view of Kullberg (US 2023/0330959 A1) and further in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1) and Delos (EP0543721B1).
Regarding claim 5, Swearingen discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode (16 in figure 12) but does not explicitly disclose 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.
Swearingen 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).
Claim(s) 8, 11, 13-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1) with supporting evidence from NPL, Sonotrode.
Regarding claim 8, Swearingen discloses system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced /thermoplastics (abstract), comprising:
(a) a first component (16 in figures 12-13), wherein the first component is either an inner non-resonant mandrel or an inner half-wavelength sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 is a sonotrode); As for the half-wavelength sonotrode, sonotrodes are designed to run as half-wavelength (see NPL).
(b) a second component, wherein the second component is either an outer non-resonant mandrel or an outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 show 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 sonotrode for an outer sonotrode).
(c) wherein the first and second components are configured to receive 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,)
(d) wherein the inner half-wavelength sonotrode and the outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials [0040, 0062]
(e) wherein the outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode produces radial displacement against the inner non-resonant mandrel [0062], ,
and (f) wherein the radial displacement generates compressive stress within the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials that produces heat and generates a weld between the materials [0049].
Regarding claim 13, Swearingen 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 (figures 12-13 the sonotrodes are articulated against each other and the system as an in-feed and an out-feed).
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, Swearingen discloses system for ultrasonic consolidation of fiber reinforced /thermoplastics (abstract), comprising:
(a) a first component (16 in figures 12-13), wherein the first component is either an inner non-resonant mandrel or an inner half-wavelength sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 is a sonotrode); As for the half-wavelength sonotrode, sonotrodes are designed to run as half-wavelength (see NPL).
(b) a second component, wherein the second component is either an outer non-resonant mandrel or an outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode (16 in figures 12-13 show 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 sonotrode for an outer sonotrode).
(c) 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,)
(d) wherein the inner half-wavelength sonotrode and the outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode are both configured to direct ultrasonic energy into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials [0040, 0062]
(e) wherein the outer inner half-wavelength sonotrode produces radial displacement against the inner non-resonant mandrel [0062], ,
and (f) wherein the radial displacement generates compressive stress within the fiber reinforced thermoplastic materials that produces heat and generates a weld between the materials [0049].
Regarding claims 11 and 18, 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).
Regarding claim 20, Swearingen 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 (figures 12-13 the sonotrodes are articulated against each other and the system as an in-feed and an out-feed).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1) as applied to claim 8/15, in view of Kullberg (US 2023/0330959 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Swearingen discloses wherein the second component is an outer half-wavelength sonotrode (8 in [0040]) wherein the outer half-wavelength sonotrode is either a radial sonotrode [0038]), but does not explicitly disclose the first component is a non-resonant inner mandrel and the radial half-wavelength sonotrode surrounds the inner mandrel. However, MPEP 2144.04 discloses rearrangement of parts is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Further, analogous sonotrode art, Kullberg depicts four mandrels (30, 41, 42, 43) that is underneath an ultrasonic sonotrode (reads on surrounds) [0031] and figure 10. This 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 non-resonant inner mandrel and a radial half wavelength sonotrode that surrounds the inner mandrel as taught by Kullbering into the system taught by Swearingen in order to provide a system that is more economical [0009].
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 A1), as applied to claim 8/15, with supporting evidence from NPL, sonotrode and in view of Richart (US2020/0384697 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Swearingen discloses wherein the first component is an inner half wavelength sonotrode (16 in figure 12) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second component is a non-resonant outer mandrel and wherein the non-resonant outer mandrel surrounds the inner half wavelength sonotrode. Additionally, analogous art, Richart further depicts an outer mandrel (10) surrounding an inner half wavelength 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) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Swearingen (US 2017/0338613 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, Swearingen discloses wherein the first component is an inner sonotrode (16 in figure 12) but does not explicitly disclose 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.
Swearingen 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).
Conclusion
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