DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The amendment filed 7/22/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 24-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raspic (US Pub. No. 2012/0248713) in view of Gorin et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0248065).
Regarding claims 24 and 43, the Raspic reference discloses an additively manufactured sealing component, comprising:
an elongated body (32) comprising:
a first recess (15) and a second recess (16) opposite from the first recess, the first recess and the second recess defining a center line (Fig. 14);
a first volume (e.g. left volume of 32) on a first side of the center line;
a second volume (e.g. right volume of 32) on a second side of the center line; and
a third volume (volume of 32 between channels 39) between the first recess and the second recess such that the center line runs through the third volume (Fig. 14);
wherein the first recess is outlined by a first recess opening (opening of 15), a first tip section (e.g. tip of 17) of the first volume, a second tip section (e.g. tip section of 18) of the second volume, and a first wall (e.g. bottom wall of 15) of the third volume;
wherein the second recess is outlined by a second recess opening (opening of 16), a third tip section (e.g. tip of 19) of the first volume, a fourth tip section (e.g. tip of 20) of the second volume, and a second wall of the third volume (e.g. top wall of 16).
However, the Raspic reference fails to explicitly disclose the elongated body comprises a thermoset polymer comprising a first co-reactive component and a second co-reactive component that react at a temperature less than 30°C.
The Gorin et al. (hereinafter Gorin) reference, a seal made from additive manufacturing, discloses making an elongated body of a thermoset polymer (Para. [0001]) comprising a first co-reactive component (Para. [0017]) and a second co-reactive component (Para. [0017]) that react at a temperature less than 30°C (Para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the Raspic reference of a thermoset polymer in view of the teachings of the Gorin reference in order to allow for a seal that provides excellent sealing properties in different environments and since change in materials would provide predictable results. The method of claim 43 is obvious in view of the rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess and the second recess are configured to each receive a panel having a thickness of one to ten times the size of the recess openings of the recesses (Raspic, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 26, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess and the second recess extend the entire length of the elongated body (Raspic, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 27, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses substantial portion of the elongated body has a uniform cross-sectional geometry (Raspic, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 28, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the elongated body has a porous structure (Raspic, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Raspic reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 24.
However, the modified Raspic reference fails to explicitly disclose the first recess and the second recess are triangular.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the recesses triangular, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and in order to accommodate a panel with a triangular projection. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 30, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the first recess opening, the first tip section, the second tip section, and the first wall secure the panel via a three-point-contact; and the second recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the second recess opening, the third tip section, the fourth tip section, and the second wall secure the panel via a three-point-contact (Raspic, e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the first recess opening, the first tip section and the second tip section elastically deform to widen the first recess opening; and the second recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the second recess opening, the third tip section and the fourth tip section elastically deform to widen the second recess opening (Raspic, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 32, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the third volume is compressible at least along the center line such that the distance between the first recess and a second recess is reduced when the third volume is compressed (Raspic, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the elongated body is configured to: receive a first panel in the first recess and a second panel in the second recess; wherein the distance between the first recess and the second recess is variable at least a minimum of twice a wall thickness of the sealing component (Raspic, e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 34-41, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the sealing component.
However, the modified Raspic reference fails to disclose the claimed materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the claimed materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical expedience and in order to provide optimal sealing properties. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 42, the modified Raspic reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 24, including using the sealing element in an aircraft component (Raspic, Fig. 1, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-43 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.
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 GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
