DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 and 09/18/2024 are considered and signed IDS forms are attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 3 recites “a material with a lower processing temperature material”, which should be “a material with a lower processing temperature”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 4 recites “the first thermoplastic material”, which should be “the first thermoplastic material layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, lines 4-5 recite “the second thermoplastic material”, which should be “the second thermoplastic material layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, line 16 recites “the first thermoplastic material layer”, which should be “the first thermoplastic material”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6, line 17 recite “the second thermoplastic material layer”, which should be “the second thermoplastic material”. 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “the interface layer is configured to join the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer together to form the joint”. It is not clear what is meant by “configured” or how the interface layer must “configured” or modified in order to form the joint. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “the interface layer joins the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer together to form the joint”. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 6 recites “the interface layer is configured to join the first thermoplastic material and the second thermoplastic material together to form a welded joint”. It is not clear what is meant by “configured” or how the interface layer must “configured” or modified in order to form the welded joint. It is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “the interface layer joins the first thermoplastic material and the second thermoplastic material together to form a welded joint”. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Bhatt et al. disclose a film member 34 comprising an outer layer 48 made of PEEK, i.e. polyetheretherketone (second thermoplastic material layer), an enclosure portion 12 made of PC, i.e. polycarbonate (first thermoplastic material layer) and an inner layer that serves as an intermediate or tie layer made of PEI, i.e. polyetherimide (interface layer) to bond dissimilar polymer materials (see Figure 5 and page 10, paragraph 1 and page 14, claim 8). As evidenced by Plastic Melting Point Guide, the melting point temperature of PEEK is 350 to 390 °C and the melting point temperature of PC is 280 to 320 °C (see page 3, Plastic Material Melt and Mold Temperatures Table). Therefore, the melting point temperature difference between PEEK and PC is 30 to 110 °C. Given that PEEK and PC are identical to thermoplastic materials utilized in the present invention, PEEK and PC are thermoplastic materials (see paragraph 0024 of present specification). As evidenced by Platt, polyetherimide has melting temperature of 215 to 217 °C. Given that the inner layer (interface layer) comprises polyetherimide (PEI), the inner layer (interface layer) has a lower melting point temperature than the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material layer comprising polycarbonate (PC) and the second thermoplastic material layer comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Given that PEEK and PC are dissimilar polymer materials, a joint is between dissimilar thermoplastic materials. Accordingly, Bhatt et al. disclose a joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Bhatt et al. disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as presently claimed. The interface layer comprises polyetherimide (PEI), the first thermoplastic material comprises polycarbonate (PC) and the second thermoplastic material comprises polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as noted above. The interface layer, the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer layer are identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0032 of present specification). Accordingly, the interface layer comprises a material (PEI) with a lower processing temperature that chemically interacts and bonds to the first thermoplastic material layer (PC) and the second thermoplastic material layer (PEEK) in the absence of melting during the welding.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003).
Regarding claim 6, Bhatt et al. disclose a film member 34 comprising an outer layer 48 made of PEEK, i.e. polyetheretherketone (second thermoplastic material layer or component), an enclosure portion 12 made of PC, i.e. polycarbonate (first thermoplastic material layer or attachment) and an inner layer that serves as an intermediate or tie layer made of PEI, i.e. polyetherimide (interface layer) to bond dissimilar polymer materials (see Figure 5 and page 10, paragraph 1 and page 14, claim 8). As evidenced by Plastic Melting Point Guide, the melting point temperature of PEEK is 350 to 390 °C and the melting point temperature of PC is 280 to 320 °C (see page 3, Plastic Material Melt and Mold Temperatures Table). Therefore, the melting point temperature difference between PEEK and PC is 30 to 110 °C. Given that PEEK and PC are identical to thermoplastic materials utilized in the present invention, PEEK and PC are thermoplastic materials (see paragraph 0024 of present specification). As evidenced by Platt, polyetherimide has melting temperature of 215 to 217 °C. Given that the inner layer (interface layer) comprises polyetherimide (PEI), the inner layer (interface layer) has a lower melting point temperature than the melting point temperature of the first thermoplastic material comprising polycarbonate (PC) and the second thermoplastic material comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Accordingly, Bhatt et al. disclose an attachment joined to a component via an interface layer to form a joint. Bhatt et al. do not disclose an attachment “welded” to a component via an interface layer and do not disclose “a welded joint”.
However, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Bhatt et al. meets the requirements of the claimed product, Bhatt et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Massengale et al. (WO 96/10046 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bhatt et al. disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as set forth above. While Bhatt et al. disclose second thermoplastic material layer comprising PEEK, Bhatt et al. do not disclose second thermoplastic material layer is a thermoplastic composite material.
Massengale et al. disclose a composite material comprising a carbon fiber reinforced polymer, wherein the reinforced polymer can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (see Abstract and page 4, lines 22-27). The composite material provides excellent friction and wear characteristics (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a composite material comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon fiber disclosed by Massengale et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use composite material comprising polyetherketone and carbon fiber as the outer layer (second thermoplastic material layer) in Bhatt et al. in order to provide excellent friction and wear characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ebnesajjad (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation, 2011).
Regarding claim 3, Bhatt et al. disclose the joint between dissimilar thermoplastic materials as set forth above. Bhatt et al. do not disclose a surface treatment on at least one of the first thermoplastic material layer and the second thermoplastic material layer.
Ebnesajjad disclose surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) improves adhesion and joint strength (see page 107, col. 1, 7.2, paragraph 1 and col. 2, 7.2.1.1, paragraph 1).
In light of motivation for using surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) disclosed by Ebnesjjad et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use surface treatment on the second thermoplastic material layer made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Bhatt et al. in order to improves adhesion and joint strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Massengale et al. (WO 96/10046 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bhatt et al. disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. While Bhatt et al. disclose second thermoplastic material layer comprising PEEK, Bhatt et al. do not disclose second thermoplastic material layer is a thermoplastic composite material.
Massengale et al. disclose a composite material comprising a carbon fiber reinforced polymer, wherein the reinforced polymer can be polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (see Abstract and page 4, lines 22-27). The composite material provides excellent friction and wear characteristics (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a composite material comprising polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and carbon fiber disclosed by Massengale et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use composite material comprising polyetherketone and carbon fiber as the outer layer (second thermoplastic material layer or component) in Bhatt et al. in order to provide excellent friction and wear characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Ebnesajjad (Handbook of Adhesives and Surface Preparation, 2011).
Regarding claim 9, Bhatt et al. disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. Bhatt et al. do not disclose a surface treatment on at least one of the first thermoplastic material layer (attachment) and the second thermoplastic material layer (component).
Ebnesajjad disclose surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) improves adhesion and joint strength (see page 107, col. 1, 7.2, paragraph 1 and col. 2, 7.2.1.1, paragraph 1).
In light of motivation for using surface treatment of thermoplastic material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) disclosed by Ebnesjjad et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use surface treatment on the second thermoplastic material layer (component) made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in Bhatt et al. in order to improves adhesion and joint strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt et al. (WO 03/045673 A1), taken in view of evidence by Plastic Melting Point Guide (2024) and Platt (2003) as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Koshi et al. (WO 2019/093277 A1). It is noted that when utilizing Koshi et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2020/0369838 A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Koshi et al. are found in US ‘838.
Regarding claim 10, Bhatt et al. disclose the attachment joint to a component via an interface layer as set forth above. Bhatt et al. do not disclose the interface layer (inner layer) comprising a fiber reinforcement on the interface layer.
Koshi et al. disclose a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament comprising a reinforcing fiber such as carbon fiber impregnated with a thermoplastic resin such as polyethermide resin (PEI) (see page 6, claims 11 and 15, and Table 1, Example 7). A shaped product can be made from the fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin film (see paragraphs 0045 and 0047). The fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament provides good reinforcing effect and good handling ability at the time of forming (see paragraphs 0006, 0008 and 0066).
In light of motivation for using a fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin filament disclosed by Koshi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon fiber impregnated with polyethermide resin (PEI) as the inner layer (interface layer) in Bhatt et al. in order to provide good reinforcing effect and good handling ability at the time of forming, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, Bhatt et al. in view of Koshi et al. disclose a fiber reinforcement on the interface layer.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Le Meur et al. (US 2018/0333922 A1) disclose an aircraft blade two or more fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composite parts made of PEEK or PEKK welded together utilizing an additional thermoplastic made of PEI (see Abstract and paragraph 0018). The additional plastic has melting or softening temperature lower than a melting temperature of each of the fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composite parts being assembled (see Abstract).
Tobin et al. (US 2017/0074238 A1) disclose a rotor blade a first blade component, a second blade component and an insert between the first blade component and the second blade component (see Abstract and paragraph 0044). The first blade component, the second blade component and the insert can be made from different thermoplastic resins, wherein the thermoplastic resins include polycarbonate and polyetherketone (see paragraphs 0044, 0035).
Uryu et al. (US 2006/0222202 A1) disclose an acoustic vibratory plate comprising a first laminated body, a second laminated body and a third laminated body, wherein the second laminated body is in between the first laminated body and the third laminated body (see Abstract). The first laminated body and the third laminated body can be blade of polycarbonate (PC) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK), wherein the first laminated body and the third laminated body can be made of different materials (see paragraphs 0028, 0029).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787