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 .
This Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s argument and amendment to claims received on 3/10/2026, in response to the Non-Final Office Action which was mailed on 12/11/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite “A production system for forming a part” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is poorly written. Claim should be written in such manner by separating each limitation by semicolon, and last limitation with “and” and end with a period. 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Red River College (WO 2013/126981 A1; herein after “Red College”) in view of Ling et al. (US 2021/0236889 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Red College teaches a production system comprising at least one mold produced by additive manufacturing method (see abstract; and pages 1-21, [0001]-[0058] discloses 3D printing a dissolvable structure, i.e. mold/mandrel, and then applying curable material including prepreg, plies, fiber-reinforced materials for shaping onto the dissolvable structure to form composite of choice, and then dissolving the structure after shaping via vacuum forming, specifically [0005]-[0011], [0017]-[0018], [0034]-0042]); at least one layer of resin-impregnated fabrics laid on an outer wall surface of the mold (see [0005]-[0011] discloses using pliable fiber-reinforce polymer for shaping onto the mold, additionally see [0017]-[0018], [0034]-0042]; see Figs 1, 2a, 5, 6, 7a-7b); at least one vacuum bag which is placed to substantially cover the layer allows vacuuming ([0007]-[0008] applying pressure to the substrate and the fiber-reinforce polymer may involve vacuum bagging the substrate and the fiber-reinforced polymer, and using autoclave; see Figs 1, 2a, 5, 6, 7a-7b showing vacuum bag used for shaping plies over the dissolvable substrate that is produced via 3D printing; [0017]-[0018], [0034], [0036]-[0040]); at least one furnace which enables the layer to be cured by heating, and applied pressure to the layer at a pressure value predetermined by the user, and into which the mold is placed ([0017]-[0018], [0034], [0036]-[0040] the pre-preg/plies are placed onto the mold that uses pressure, heat, in an autoclave using vacuum bag); at least one part is formed by curing (composite is shaped, [0017]-[0040], [0005]-[0011]).
However, Red College fail to teach wherein at least additional vacuum bag enabling an inner wall surface of the mold to be vacuumed...as claimed. The Examiner notes that applicant defined that additional vacuum bag can be separate or integral part of the vacuum bag (see page 5 lines 10-25 of the instant specification).
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to producing composite structure using vacuum, Ling et al. teach stacking multiple carbon fiber prepreg material on a side wall of a mold cavity of a mold to form a structure (see Fig. 1-2, item 10-mold, 100-mold cavity, 20-carbon fiber blank [0043]-[0056]), applying a vacuum negative pressure to an outer side and an inner side of the carbon fiber composite blank in the mold and applying a positive pressure to an inner side and heating the carbon fiber composite by the heater (see Fig. 1 -2; applying pressurization and heating to an interior and exterior of the carbon fiber composite blank 20; [0056]-[0057], [0057] discloses vacuum bladder 30 on the exterior is used to create negative pressure, and vacuum bag 40 is used to create positive pressure interior of the carbon fiber composite blank 20), thereby producing a hollow composite structure ([0058]). Ling et al. discloses two different vacuum bag structure that produces a hollow composite structure (see Fig 2; [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the applicant’s invention to have modified the production system including the vacuum bag, as taught by Red College with double vacuum bag structure, as taught by Ling et al., for the benefit of efficiently producing a hollow composite structure with increased strength in the composite body (see [0028],[0063]). Furthermore, the vacuum system taught by Ling et al. incorporated into Red College, such would allow during curing process, keeping the mold in original condition (rigid) (see Red college; [0004]), and thereby, enabling of dissolving (breaking) the mold after production of the composite ([0003]-[0011]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-12 are allowed for the same reasons as indicated in the office action
mailed on 12/11/2025 and are still determined to be valid upon reconsideration.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Claim 13 pertains to production system that includes a mold, a vacuum bag, and additional bag. Thus, the manner in which it is used is given little weight, therefore, claim 13 is much broader than the remaining independent claim 1. Applicant is urged to appropriately amend or cancel claim 13. Claim 13 is silent regarding reference mark as in claim 1 therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11, 034, 431 B2; US 2019/0118420 A1; US 8, 585, 856 B1; US 2012/0255669 A1; US 7,754,046 B2.
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 NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights