DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/15/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as evidenced by BABIN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0023764), hereinafter BABIN.
Regarding claim 1, HERRMANN teaches: A method (HERRMANN teaches a process [Abstract].) comprising: depositing a first material onto a polymer sheet to form a reinforcing structure by extruding the first material from a print head in successive layers (HERRMANN teaches building up a function structure (F) on top of a substrate (B) by means of an extrusion assembly (3) [0047; 00049-0050; Figs. 2-3]. HERRMANN teaches systems used for generating three-dimensional objects to be formed and forming three-dimensional solid object by sequentially building layers of material [0032].); heating the polymer sheet and shaping the polymer sheet onto a mold within a thermoforming chamber (HERRMANN teaches heating the sheet (B) and thermoforming the sheet in a mold (1) [0051-0053; Figs. 2-3].); and allowing the polymer sheet to cool while in contact with the mold to form a reinforced thermoformed article (HERRMANN teaches cooling the sheet (B) in the mold (1) [Figs. 2-3; 0052].) and thereafter . . . .
HERRMANN does not explicitly teach: removing the reinforced thermoformed article from the mold, after the process is completed, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date as removing an article from the mold is a known element in the art, as taught by BABIN [claim 5]. See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").).
Regarding claim 3, HERRMANN teaches: wherein depositing the first material onto the polymer sheet is performed after shaping the polymer sheet onto the mold (HERRMANN teaches the polymer sheet is shaped after depositing material onto the shape [0053-0054]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hendren et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0145597), hereinafter HENDREN.
Regarding claim 2, HERRMANN teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein depositing the first material onto the polymer sheet is performed before shaping the polymer sheet onto the mold. In the same field of endeavor, thermoplastics, HENDREN teaches compressing the sheets after depositing the material [Figs. 8-9]. 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 HERRMANN, by depositing the material before compressing the layers together, as suggested by HENDREN, in order to bond the layers together [0050]. Furthermore, it’s been held that the rearrangement of method steps is prima facie obvious. See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim et al. (U.S. 2020/0114539), hereinafter SHIM.
Regarding claim 4, HERRMANN teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the polymer sheet being a thermoplastic material [0038], but is silent as to: wherein the first material . . . comprise a thermoplastic material to promote adhesion of the first material to the polymer sheet. 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 HERRMANN, 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 HERRMANN, 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 HERRMANN, 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, HERRMANN teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the polymer sheet being a thermoplastic material [0038], but is silent as to: wherein the first material includes a fiber-reinforced polymer. 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 HERRMANN, 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, HERRMANN 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 HERRMANN, 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 Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robrecht et al. (U.S. 11,292,224), hereinafter ROBRECHT.
Regarding claim 7, HERRMANN 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 HERRMANN, 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Danforth et al. (U.S. 5,997,795), hereinafter DANFORTH.
Regarding claim 9, HERRMANN 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 HERRMANN, 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0290241), hereinafter GUNNER.
Regarding claim 8, HERRMANN 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 HERRMANN, 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0015066), hereinafter HERRMANN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeSimone et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0113416), hereinafter DESIMONE.
Regarding claim 10, HERRMANN 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 HERRMANN, 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
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