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
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 1-16 and 19 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.
As to claim 1, the limitation “coupling the molded parts under pressure of the pressuring surface” does not properly refer back to the previously recited pressure provided by the pressurizing surface.
As to claim 11, it’s not clear if the generation of the substantially cylindrical electromagnetic field is the same as the electromagnetic field previously generated.
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 under pressure by the molten heat meltable coupling means (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 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 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 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim 1 rejection is a result of the amendments to the claim. The claim 11 amendment has not rectified the indefiniteness issues with the claim.
As to Matsen, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons. First, the applicant’a argument relies on the logical fallacy that because Matsen discloses the tape 30 functions as a LSP material, the conductors 34, which are part of the tape 30, cannot also be an LSP material. The conductors 34 are part of tape 30. Said conductors are made of a LSP material because they contribute to LSP functionality of 30.
Applicant cites portions of the specification. The applicant is respectfully informed that limitations recited in the specification are not read into the claims. Additionally, the conductors 34 of Masen are planar (defined by a plane) and are made of the same material as the LSP material claimed by applicant. See rejection of claims 6-7 above. The planar copper structure 34 of Matsen is a LSP material.
In response to applicant's argument that Van Ingen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Van Ingen is analogous art because it’s directed to conduction welding. Applicant’s assertion that Van Ingen allegedly fails to expressly disclose the welding is electromagnetic welding does not preclude the reference from being in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Additionally, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, Van Ingen is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as para 94 clearly discusses concerns with excessive heating.
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 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
Prosecution Insights