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 .
Drawings
Figure 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,169,571 A) in view of Flugstad et al. (US 6,657,173 B2), Backhaus et al. (US 10,059,036 B2) and Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0077398 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Buckley discloses a method of fabrication processing a pre-preg material (title/abstract), the method comprising:
forming a pre-preg material by combining a fiber 26 and a binder/resin 32;
curing the pre-preg material by applying electromagnetic heating to the pre-preg material, wherein the electromagnetic heating is conducted with a microwave directed-energy curing system;
and controlling cross-linking of the resin in the extruded pre-preg material via the electromagnetic heating of the carbon nanotubes (FIG. 10; 7:61+).
Buckley does not appear to expressly disclose at least one fringing field capacitor utilizing radio frequency (RF), matching impedance, partial curing or carbon nanotube fillers in the composition.
However, Flugstad discloses a capacitive radio frequency (RF) dielectric heating device (title/abstract) utilizing high voltage RF frequency sinusoidal AC signal (6:66+, 9:21+) with impedance matching (10:21+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the heating means of Flugstad, because such devices are known in the art and can provide the desired heating.
Further, Backhaus discloses a method of partially curing pre-pregs, for example by microwaves (7:28+, 14:38+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include partial curing of Backhaus, because such level of curing is known and desired in the art and could be accomplished with expected results.
Additionally, Gaillard discloses a pre-preg material (title/abstract) which can be heated by microwave irradiation and includes conductive fillers such as carbon nanotubes (¶ 26-29).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the carbon nanotubes of Gaillard, because such conductive fillers improve microwave heating and the mechanical and/or thermal and/or electrical properties of a mechanical component based on this composite material.
Regarding claim 2-3, Flugstad discloses tuning according to the material being heated (9:21+).
Regarding claim 5, Buckley discloses glass fibers (abstract).
Regarding claim 6-7, Buckley discloses epoxy (2:5-7).
Regarding claims 8-9, Flugstad suggests tuning the RF source to control the level of heating (9:21+).
Regarding claim 11, Backhaus discloses a method of partially curing pre-pregs by microwaves (7:28+, 14:38+).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,169,571 A) in view of Flugstad et al. (US 6,657,173 B2) and Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0077398 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Churchland (US 4456498 A).
Flugstad suggests tuning the RF source and adjusting the power output (to control the level of heating (9:21+, 11:37+).
Buckley does not appear to expressly disclose curing as a function of temperature.
However, Churchland discloses a similar microwave curing press (title/abstract) which applies microwave energy to heat a composite to a desired curing temperature (3:65+, 5:35+, 13:51+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include cure according to a desired temperature, in order to ensure adequate curing without scorching (Churchland 3:65+).
Claims 12-14, 16-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,169,571 A) in view of Flugstad et al. (US 6,657,173 B2), Backhaus et al. (US 10,059,036 B2) and Gaillard et al. (US 2012/0077398 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sweeney et al. (US 2020/0317957 A1)
Regarding claim 12-13, discloses Buckley discloses a method of fabrication processing a pre-preg material (title/abstract), the method comprising:
forming a pre-preg material by combining a fiber 26 and a binder/resin 32;
curing the pre-preg material by applying electromagnetic heating to the pre-preg material, wherein the electromagnetic heating is conducted with a microwave directed-energy curing system;
and controlling cross-linking of the resin in the extruded pre-preg material via the electromagnetic heating of the carbon nanotubes (FIG. 10; 7:61+).
Buckley does not appear to expressly disclose at least one fringing field capacitor utilizing radio frequency (RF), partial curing, carbon nanotube fillers in the composition, or a FLIR camera.
However, Flugstad discloses a capacitive radio frequency (RF) dielectric heating device (title/abstract) utilizing high voltage RF frequency sinusoidal AC signal (6:66+, 9:21+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the heating means of Flugstad, because such devices are known in the art and can provide the desired heating.
Further, Backhaus discloses a method of partially curing pre-pregs, for example by microwaves (7:28+, 14:38+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include partial curing of Backhaus, because such level of curing is known and desired in the art and could be accomplished with expected results.
Additionally, Gaillard discloses a pre-preg material (title/abstract) which can be heated by microwave irradiation and includes conductive fillers such as carbon nanotubes (¶ 26-29).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the carbon nanotubes of Gaillard, because such conductive fillers improve microwave heating and the mechanical and/or thermal and/or electrical properties of a mechanical component based on this composite material.
Finally, Sweeny discloses a similar method of RF heating and curing (title/abstract) wherein the heating is monitored by a FLIR camera (FIG. 5; ¶¶ 45-47).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the monitoring camera of Sweeny, in order to better monitor and control the heating process.
Regarding claim 14, Flugstad discloses tuning according to the material being heated (9:21+).
Regarding claim 16, Buckley discloses that the mat is on a conveyor 12 as it translates through the microwave tunnel 204 (8:16+). Which implies that the conveyor speed controls the time of electromagnetic heating.
Regarding claim 17, Buckley discloses glass fibers (abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Flugstad suggests a parallel plate capacitor (FIG. 1, 5, 9).
Regarding claim 20, Flugstad discloses impedance matching (10:21+).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,169,571 A) in view of Flugstad et al. (US 6,657,173 B2) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Wefers (US 2002/0017033 A1).
Buckley does not appear to expressly disclose PTFE tape on a side of the composition.
However, Wefers discloses a microwave heating machine (title/abstract) and suggests that the conveyor equipment be made of a non-polar material such as PTFE.
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include the PTFE of Wefers, in order to ensure easy release of the cured pre-pregs and to prevent interference with the microwave heating.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckley (US 5,169,571 A) in view of Flugstad et al. (US 6,657,173 B2) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Churchland (US 4456498 A).
Flugstad suggests tuning the RF source and adjusting the power output (to control the level of heating (9:21+, 11:37+).
Buckley does not appear to expressly disclose curing as a function of temperature.
However, Churchland discloses a similar microwave curing press (title/abstract) which applies microwave energy to heat a composite to a desired curing temperature (3:65+, 5:35+, 13:51+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Buckley to include cure according to a desired temperature, in order to ensure adequate curing without scorching (Churchland 3:65+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742