DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/29/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 9 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are pending with claims 11 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART.
Regarding claim 1, TAGGART teaches: A method (TAGGART teaches a process [Abstract].) comprising: depositing a first material onto a polymer sheet to form a reinforcing structure on the polymer sheet by additively manufacturing the reinforcing structure through extrusion of the first material from a print head in successive layers (TAGGART teaches the material placement stations (306) are able to dispense a plurality of materials (704) and the plurality of material assumes the configuration of a sheet when disposed by placement station (306) [Figs. 3, 6-7; Col. 4, lines 34-62]. TAGGART teaches that different placement stations (306 and 308) will dispense material in different directions than one another [Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 65-67]. TAGGART teaches each head would place material to lay down a single ply at a given angle or binder powders can be distributed [Col. 5, lines 50-64].); heating the polymer sheet within a thermoforming chamber, such that the polymer sheet becomes pliable (TAGGART teaches a pre-heat shuttle (502) is utilized to heat the laminate stack to the desired temperature [Col. 6, lines 62-67; Fig. 5].); after heating the polymer sheet, shaping the polymer sheet by bringing the polymer sheet into contact with a mold, such that the polymer sheet conforms to the mold (TAGGART teaches rapidly shuttling the stack between tools in the stamping press and the second station is a single stage heated stamping die (504) that will clamp the perimeter of the sheet and stamp the component [Col. 6, lines 66-67 – Col. 7, lines 1-2; Fig. 5].); and allowing the polymer sheet to cool while in contact with the mold to form a reinforced thermoformed article (TAGGART teaches after stamping, the stamping tool is rapidly cooled [Col. 7, lines 2-4; Fig. 5].) and thereafter removing the reinforced thermoformed article from the mold (TAGGART teaches the component is demolded [Col. 7, line 4; Fig. 5].); wherein depositing the first material onto the polymer sheet is performed before heating the polymer sheet and before shaping the polymer sheet onto the mold (TAGGART teaches the plurality of materials are deposited onto the sheets before the pre-heat shuttle (502) and before stamping (504) [Fig. 4; Col. 6, lines 3-5; Col. 4, lines 37-38; Figs. 3-5]. TAGGART also teaches after the final ply is laid down, an additional step of liquid infusion and consolidation, much like pultrusion or extrusion process, could be applied to fully impregnate and consolidate the laminate prior to cut and kit [Col. 6, lines 10-18].).
Regarding claim 4, TAGGART teaches: wherein the first material and the polymer sheet each comprise a thermoplastic material to promote adhesion of the first material to the polymer sheet (TAGGART teaches the matrix material comprises most thermoplastics and the impregnation is in either the form of thermoplastic matrices or thermoplastic matrix resins [Col. 4, lines 7-18; Claims 3, 15].).
Regarding claim 6, TAGGART teaches: wherein the first material includes a fiber-reinforced polymer, and wherein the polymer sheet comprises a thermoplastic material (TAGGART teaches the first material includes fiber-reinforced polymer [claims 1-4] and the polymer sheet comprises a thermoplastic material [Col. 4, lines 7-18; Claims 3, 15].).
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) 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART, in view of Shim et al. (U.S. 2020/0114539), hereinafter SHIM.
Regarding claim 4, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, thermoplastic, SHIM teaches a first material (K) comprising thermoplastic material [0022]. 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 TAGGART, by having the first material and the polymer sheet be a thermoplastic material, as suggested by SHIM, in order to form a polymeric material upon curing [0022].
Regarding claim 5, SHIM further teaches: wherein the thermoplastic material includes acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyethylene terephthalate glycol, thermoplastic polyurethane, or polyamide (SHIM teaches acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, thermoplastic polyurethane or polyamides [0022].). 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 TAGGART, by having the thermoplastic chosen from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, thermoplastic polyurethane or polyamides, as suggested by SHIM, in order to form a polymeric material upon curing [0022]. Furthermore, 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 TAGGART, by choosing a known thermoplastic option in the art. 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.").
Regarding claim 6, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, composites, SHIM teaches the first material is a fiber-reinforced polymer [0047]. 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 TAGGART, by having the first material be a fiber-reinforced polymer, as suggested by SHIM, in order to form a polymeric material upon curing [0022].
Regarding claim 9, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein reinforcing structure comprises a first plurality of raised ribs oriented in a first direction and a second plurality of raised ribs oriented in a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction. In the same field of endeavor, composites, SHIM teaches the reinforcing structure comprises a first plurality of ribs in one direction and a second row of ribs in a second direction [0040; 0051; Fig. 1A]. 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 TAGGART, by having ribs in two different directions, as suggested by SHIM, in order to define a composite component [0040].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART, in view of Robrecht et al. (U.S. 11,292,224), hereinafter ROBRECHT.
Regarding claim 7, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the reinforcing structure comprises a lattice structure on an upper surface of the polymer sheet. In the same field of endeavor, thermoplastics, ROBRECHT teaches a lattice structure on the surface of the polymer sheet [Col. 10, lines 20-33; Figs. 2-3]. 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 TAGGART, by having a lattice structure, as suggested by ROBRECHT, in order to form reliable and mechanically robust joints [Col. 4, lines 1-15].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART, in view of Gunner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0290241), hereinafter GUNNER.
Regarding claim 8, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the reinforcing structure comprises repeating rows of raised ribs, wherein the repeating rows of raised ribs are unidirectional. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, GUNNER teaches repeating rows of ribs that are unidirectional [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 TAGGART, by having raised ribs unidirectional, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART, in view of Danforth et al. (U.S. 5,997,795), hereinafter DANFORTH.
Regarding claim 9, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein reinforcing structure comprises a first plurality of raised ribs oriented in a first direction and a second plurality of raised ribs oriented in a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction. In the same field of endeavor, composites, DANFORTH teaches the reinforcing structure comprises a first plurality of ribs in one direction and a second row of ribs in a second direction [Fig. 1]. 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 TAGGART, by having ribs in two different directions, as suggested by DANFORTH, in order to have a periodic separation distance defining an air gap between them [Col. 5, lines 39-52], and since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taggart (U.S. 8,007,894), hereinafter TAGGART, in view of DeSimone et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0113416), hereinafter DESIMONE.
Regarding claim 10, TAGGART teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the polymer sheet comprises flexible silicone. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, DESIMONE teaches a polymer sheet that is made of silicone [0107]. 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 TAGGART, by having the polymer sheet comprise silicone, as suggested by DESIMONE, as it’s a known option in the art. 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.").
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 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
Prosecution Insights