DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 14 and 16 in the Arguments of 11/4/2025 and 1/9/2025 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “directly jointed” should read “directly joined” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 8-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0068464), hereinafter MEYER, in view of Rule et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0316845), hereinafter RULE.
Regarding claim 1, MEYER teaches: A hybrid bonded-fastened (HBF) joint (MEYER teaches a hybrid joint [Abstract].) comprising: a first component having a first joint surface (MEYER teaches a first component (80) with a first joint surface [Fig. 17; 0083].), wherein the first component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component (MEYER teaches the first component (80) is a composite-metal component [0083; 0090].); a second component having a second joint surface (MEYER teaches a second component (82) with a second joint surface [Fig. 17; 0083].), wherein the second component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component (MEYER teaches the second component is a metallic/composite component [0083; claim 18].), at least one of the first joint surface or the second joint surface has a plurality of recesses (MEYER teaches at least one of the first joint surface or the second joint surface has a plurality of recesses [0083; Fig. 17].); a set of projections, including a first projection, mutually interlocking the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface fitting into the plurality of recesses, respectively (MEYER teaches a set of projections (83) for mutually interlocking the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface fitting into the plurality of recesses [Fig. 17; 0083].); and an adhesive mutually adhesively bonding the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface, the adhesive filling spaces between walls forming each recess and a respective projection (MEYER teaches a thin layer of adhesive is provided in the gap between the components, sealing them together in the manner of a tongue-and-groove joint [0083; Fig. 17].); . . . .
MEYER is silent as to: wherein the adhesive comprises and/or is a disbondable adhesive. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RULE teaches disbondable adhesives used in articles [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the adhesive in MEYER with the disbondable adhesive in RULE, in order to easily debond the adhesive [0006]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a known option. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."); and for the purpose of removing workpieces from fixtures, as stated by the Applicant in the Remarks of 3/13/2025 in pages 7-8.
Regarding claim 2, MEYER teaches: wherein the set of projections is provided, at least in part, by the second component (MEYER teaches the projections (83) are provided in the second component [Fig. 17].).
Regarding claim 3, MEYER teaches: wherein the first joint surface and the second joint surface mutually correspond and wherein the adhesive mutually adhesively bonds the first joint surface and the second joint surface (MEYER teaches the first joint surface (of 80) and the second joint surface (of 82) mutually adhesive correspond [Fig. 17] and wherein the adhesive mutually adhesively bonds the first joint surface and the second joint surface [0083].).
Regarding claim 4, MEYER teaches: further comprising a metallic joint connector plate having opposed joint surfaces, wherein the metallic joint connector plate is disposed between the first joint surface and the second joint surface (MEYER teaches in a different embodiment that a metallic joint connector plate (72) have opposed joint surfaces is disposed between the first joint surface and the second joint surface of two components [Fig. 16; 0080-0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER by having an additional metallic joint plate, in order to significantly increase the strength of the joint [0074].).
Regarding claim 5, MEYER teaches: wherein the set of projections is provided, at least in part, by the metallic joint connector plate (MEYER teaches at least some projections is provided on the plate [Fig. 16].).
Regarding claim 6, MEYER teaches: wherein the first joint surface has the plurality of recesses and optionally the second joint surface has a plurality of recesses (MEYER teaches the first joint surface has the plurality of recesses [Fig. 17].).
Regarding claim 8, RULE further teaches: wherein the metallic joint connector plate provides a set of electrical terminals for resistive heating thereof (RULE further teaches a film can be included in a tape and resistive wires can be embedded in the tape to allow for resistive heating [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER, by having electrical terminals (wires) in the connector plate, as suggested by RULE, in order to allow for resistive heating and application of heat [0060].).
Regarding claim 9, MEYER teaches: further comprising a metallic joint insert, wherein the metallic joint insert is disposed between the first joint surface and the second joint surface (MEYER teaches in a different embodiment that a metallic joint connector plate (72) have opposed joint surfaces is disposed between the first joint surface and the second joint surface of two components [Fig. 16; 0080-0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER by having an additional metallic joint plate, in order to significantly increase the strength of the joint [0074].). MEYER is silent as to: wherein the metallic joint insert comprises and/or is a shape memory alloy or a bimetallic strip. In the same field of endeavor, inserts, RULE, teaches a shape memory backing (82) [0058; Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER, by having a shape memory backing, as suggested by RULE, in order to use heat to weaken the projections and weaken the adhesive bond [0014].
Regarding claim 11, MEYER teaches: wherein the second component is a composite component (MEYER teaches the second component is a composite [claim 18].).
Regarding claim 12, MEYER teaches: A method of joining a first component having a first joint surface, wherein the first component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component, and a second component having a second joint surface, wherein the second component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component (MEYER teaches a method of joining two metal/composite components with two joint surfaces [0083; Fig. 17; claim 18].), the method comprising: forming a plurality of recesses in at least one of the first joint surface or the second joint surface (MEYER teaches forming a plurality of recesses (81) [0083; Fig. 17].); mutually interlocking the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface using a set of projections, including a first projection where each projection fits into a respective recess (MEYER teaches interlocking the recesses and the projections (83) into the respective recesses [Fig. 17; 0032].); and mutually adhesively bonding the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface using an adhesive including filling spaces between each projection and walls forming a respective recess (MEYER teaches a thin layer of adhesive is provided in the gap between the projections and recesses, sealing them together in the manner of a tongue-and-groove joint [0083; Fig. 17].); . . . ; thereby joining the first component and the second component using a hybrid bonded-fastened (HBF) joint (MEYER shows the first and second components are used to make a hybrid joint [Fig. 17]).
MEYER is silent as to: wherein the adhesive comprises and/or is a disbondable adhesive. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RULE teaches disbondable adhesives used in articles [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the adhesive in MEYER with the disbondable adhesive in RULE, in order to easily debond the adhesive [0006]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a known option. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."); and for the purpose of removing workpieces from fixtures, as stated by the Applicant in the Remarks of 3/13/2025 in pages 7-8.
Regarding claim 13, MEYER teaches: further comprising disposing a metallic joint connector plate, having opposed joint surfaces, between the first joint surface and the second joint surface (MEYER teaches in a different embodiment that a metallic joint connector plate (72) have opposed joint surfaces is disposed between the first joint surface and the second joint surface of two components [Fig. 16; 0080-0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER by having an additional metallic joint plate, in order to significantly increase the strength of the joint [0074].).
Regarding claim 14, MEYER teaches: A method of disjoining a hybrid bonded-fastened (HBF) joint, wherein the HBF joint comprises: a first component having a first joint surface, wherein the first component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component (MEYER teaches a first component (80) with a first joint surface [Fig. 17; 0083]. MEYER teaches the first component (80) is a composite-metal component [0083; 0090].); a second component having a second joint surface, wherein the second component is a composite component, a metallic component or a ceramic component (MEYER teaches a second component (82) with a second joint surface [Fig. 17; 0083]. MEYER teaches the second component is a metallic/composite component [0083; claim 18].), at least one of the first joint surface or the second joint surface has a plurality of recesses (MEYER teaches at least one of the first joint surface or the second joint surface has a plurality of recesses [0083; Fig. 17].); a set of projections, including a first projection, mutually interlocking the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface by fitting into the plurality of recesses, respectively (MEYER teaches a set of projections (83) for mutually interlocking the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface fitting into the plurality of recesses [Fig. 17; 0083].); and an adhesive mutually adhesively bonding the first component and the second component via the first joint surface and the second joint surface, the adhesive filling spaces between walls forming each recess and a respective projection (MEYER teaches a thin layer of adhesive is provided in the gap between the components, sealing them together in the manner of a tongue-and-groove joint [0083; Fig. 17].); . . . .
MEYER is silent as to: wherein the adhesive comprises and/or is a disbondable adhesive, wherein the method comprises: mutually spacing apart the first component and the second component by disbonding the adhesive including between the spaces between the walls forming each recess and a respective projection and thereby releasing the set of projections. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RULE teaches the adhesive used are disbondable adhesives [0007]. RULE teaches the disbondable adhesive is used to separate the components by application of heat [0056; 0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the adhesive in MEYER with the disbondable adhesive in RULE, in order to easily debond the adhesive [0006]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen a known option. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."); and for the purpose of removing workpieces from fixtures, as stated by the Applicant in the Remarks of 3/13/2025 in pages 7-8.
Regarding claim 15, RULE further teaches: wherein disbonding the adhesive comprises mutually spacing apart the first component and the second component (RULE teaches separating the substrate from the adhesive article [0056]. RULE teaches disbonding the articles, which would inheriting disbond the components.).
Regarding claim 16, RULE further teaches: wherein the HBF joint further comprises a joint connector plate or a joint insert between the first component and the second component (RULE teaches a backing sheet, which the Examiner is interpreting as insert [0034].) and the disbonding comprises heating the joint connector plate or joint insert to release the set of projections (RULE teaches upon application of heat, the laten projections are released [0034].).
Regarding claim 17, RULE further teaches: wherein the disbondable adhesive comprises an active substrate (RULE teaches the adhesive may comprise an active substrate (31) [0056].) and wherein the disbonding comprises applying a predetermined voltage and current to the disbondable adhesive (RULE teaches the adhesive article may comprise a heating element, such as a resistive heating elements encapsulated thereby and the resistive heating elements may be in the form of wires [0064]. When debonding is desired, the resistive element may be connected to a source of electricity imparting heat to the bulk of the polymer, which raises the temperature [0064]. RULE teaches a predetermined voltage and current [0097].).
Regarding claim 18, RULE teaches: wherein the disbondable adhesive comprises a tailored adhesive formulation (RULE teaches the adhesive comprises a tailored adhesive formulation [0042].) and wherein the disbonding comprises heating the disbondable adhesive to a predetermined temperature (RULE teaches heating the adhesive to a predetermined temperature [0018; 0060].).
Regarding claim 19, MEYER teaches: wherein the first component and the second component are directly jointed to each other (MEYER teaches the first component (80) and the second component (82) are directly joined to each other [Fig. 17].).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0068464), hereinafter MEYER, and Rule et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0316845), hereinafter RULE, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of PACCHIONE et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0149501), hereinafter PACCHIONE, as evidenced by Pierce (U.S. 1,831,393), hereinafter PIERCE.
Regarding claim 7, MEYER and RULE teach all of the claimed limitation as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the metallic joint connector plate comprises and/or is a ferromagnetic metal. MEYER and RULE both teach metal foils, which the Examiner is interpreted as joint connecter plates, but are silent as to the metal being ferromagnetic metal. In the same field of endeavor, joints, PACCHIONE teaches the metal foil can be a steel material [0045]. Steel is a ferromagnetic metal, as evidenced by PIERCE [pg. 1, lines 82-86]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER and RULE, to have a ferromagnetic metal, as suggested by PACCHIONE, in order to be resistant to the materials of the arrangement [0045].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0068464), hereinafter MEYER, and Rule et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0316845), hereinafter RULE, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Gilbert (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0283415), hereinafter GILBERT.
Regarding claim 8, MEYER and RULE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, joints, GILBERT teaches: wherein the metallic joint connector plate provides a set of electrical terminals for resistive heating thereof (GILBERT teaches a metal foils (40, 42), which can be interpreted as a metallic joint connector plate, providing connections, such as clips for passing an electrical current [0087-0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER, by having electrical terminals for resistive heating, as suggested by GILBERT, in order to weld and heat the adhesive and improve electrical contact [0088].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0068464), hereinafter MEYER, and Rule et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0316845), hereinafter RULE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ODRIOZOLA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0291982), hereinafter ODRIOZOLA.
Regarding claim 10, MEYER and RULE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the adhesive comprises a functional additive. In the same field of endeavor, joints, ODRIOZOLA teaches an adhesive with foaming properties [0107]. ODRIOZOLOA teaches the adhesive can be used in hybrid joints [0332]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER and RULE, by having the adhesive have a functional additive, as suggested by ODRIOZOLA, in order to a recyclable and reprocessable material [0332].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0068464), hereinafter MEYER, and Rule et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0316845), hereinafter RULE, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnes et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0003401), hereinafter BARNES.
Regarding claim 20, MEYER and RULE teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the second component and the first component are different materials. In the same field of endeavor, joints, BARNES teaches the components are different materials as one is metallic and another is a composite [Abstract; 0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MEYER and RULE, by having the components be different materials, as suggested by BARNES, in order to greatly enhance the bond [0007].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748