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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/3/26 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 3-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsen et al. (US 2016/0136879) in view of Ingen et al. (US 2020/0276769).
As to claim 1, Matsen discloses a method of connecting surfaces of a first molded part 12 and a second molded part 10 (fig 1) by electromagnetic welding, the first molded part being provided with a first lightning strike protection (LSP) material (at least one of the non-continuous conductions 34, para 7-11, 34, fig 2) at an outer surface thereof (fig 1), the method comprising: A) providing the first and the second molded part to comprise a heat meltable coupling means (para 55-64, figs 2, 4a-b) and an induction-sensitive component (para 29-30); B) bringing together the surfaces to be connected and pressurizing the surfaces to be connected by providing a pressurizing surface (via 45) of a pressurizing body against the molded parts (para 29,, 32, 57, fig 1); C) generating an electromagnetic field in at least the surfaces to be connected of the molded parts by means of an inductor 18/19 (para 29-31), thereby heat melting the coupling means by heating the induction-sensitive component (para 55-64, 28-35, figs 2, 4a-b); D) cooling the outer surface of the first molded part (para 32, figs 4b); and E) coupling the molded parts by the molten heat meltable coupling means under the pressure provided by the pressurizing surface (para 32-34), ; wherein a second lightning strike protection (LSP) material (another one of the conductors 34, that is separate and spaced apart from the conductor that is associated with the first LSP, para 7, 11, 34, 36, 41-42, fig 2) is provided at the surfaces to be connected; and wherein the first LSP and the second LSP material are positioned such that they do not contact each other directly after step B) (predetermined spacing, para 7, figs 1-2, 4a-b, para 7-11, 28-42, 55-64).
Matsen does not disclose the cooling is performed by providing a heat sink of a material that is electrically insulating yet thermally conductive (para 87) in direct contact with the outer surface. Ingen discloses a method of welding two heat meltable parts 3, 4 by heating and melt coupling/welding the two parts together, wherein after welding an outer surface of the molded part is cooled by directly contacting a heat sink 5 to said surface (para 35 66, 74-90, 114, figs 6-10). Use of the heat sink increases the uniformity of the weld (para 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Matsen such that the cooling is performed by providing a heat sink of a material that is electrically insulating yet thermally conductive in direct contact with the outer surface as taught by Ingen above as such promotes welding uniformity as detailed above.
As to claim 3, Matsen discloses the location of each LSP can be varied by locating the LSP in different layers, depending upon the design requirements (para 36-40). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the second LSP material in the first molded part as the location of the second LSP is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Matsen above.
As to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the second LSP material in the second molded part, as the location of the second LSP is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Matsen above.
As to claim 5, Matsen discloses at least one of the first and second molded parts comprises a laminate of stacked layers, and at least one of the first and second LSP material is provided as an outer layer of the laminate, or a layer below an outer layer of the laminate (figs 1, 2, para 36-40)
As to claims 6-7, Matsen discloses at least one of the LSP materials is a planar copper structure (para 41-42)
As to claims 8 and 19, Ingen discloses the LSP is a planar metal mesh (para 12)
As to claim 9, Ingen discloses the heat sink has a planar dimension in contact with the pressurizing surface larger than a cross-sectional dimension of the inductor (figs 4-6)
As to claim 10, Ingen discloses the heat sink is made from a ceramic material (para 87)
As to claim 11, Matsen discloses the inductor has a linear segment such that the inductor is configured to generate a substantially cylindrical electromagnetic field in at least the surfaces to be connected of the molded parts in step C) (para 25-31, 38, fig 2).
As to claim 12, Matsen discloses the inductor is positioned in the pressurizing body such that the linear segment extends substantially parallel to the pressurizing surface of the pressurizing body (para 25-31, 38, fig 2).
As to claim 13, Matsen discloses the heat meltable coupling means comprises a thermoplastic polymer and/or the induction-sensitive component comprises carbon fibres, metal and/or ferromagnetic particles (para 35, 41-42)
As to claim 14, Ingen discloses pressure is applied at a side of the joined molded parts opposite to the pressurizing surface (para 66, fig 6)
As to claim 15, Ingen discloses the inductor is provided at an end of a robotic arm to define a welding path (para 49).
As to claim 16, Matsen discloses the first molded part comprises a skin panel of an aircraft, and the second molded part comprises a stiffener for supporting the skin panel (para 27, fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the structure of the claim clearly requires the outer surface of the first LSP to be spatially distinct from the connected surface. This is not persuasive. Respectively, the claim only requires the surfaces to be connected. It does not specify whether the surface of the first molded part to be connected is the outer surface or a different surface, and thus does not require the outer surface of the first molded part to be spatially distinct from the surface to be connected.
Applicant asserts that it is not possible to directly contact a connected surface the first molded part with a heat sink since it’s connected to the second part. This argument is not persuasive because it assumes a heat sink is not capable of being between the two joined surfaces. It also incorrectly assumes the connection extends across the entirety of the surface. Figure 1 of Matsen clearly shows exposed of portions of the connected outer surface of 12 capable of contact with a heat sink.
Applicant asserts Ingen is technically incompatible with Matsen since Ingen lacks LSP material. This is an individual attack on Madsen without considering the combination of references. Ingen need not disclose LSP material because Madsen discloses such. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others).
Applicant further argue the references are incompatible because Ingen discloses conduction welding rather than the induction welding of Matsen. Applicant argues Ingen thus requires a metallic heat sink, which would burn the LSP of Madsen. This argument is flawed for at least two reasons. First, it assumes the proposed modification requires the conduction welding method to be incorporated in the method of Madsen. This is not the modification proposed by the examiner – rather, the modification is simply to use a heat sink as such provides the advantages detailed in the body of the rejection above. Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Second, the applicant’s argument relies on the assumption that the heat sink of Ingen must be metallic. This argument is not persuasive because Ingen discloses that the heat sink can be ceramic (para 87, see claim 10 rejection above). Finally, the applicant argues Ingen cannot be combined with Madsen because the heat sink of Ingen is positioned to contact a surface different from the connect surfaces of Ingen parts. This argument is not persuasive because it assumes the modification requires bodily incorporation, which is not required to demonstrate obviousness (see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
