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 .
Claims 1-3 and 5-19 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Status indicators are incorrect in claims 18-19. These claims are no longer “new” as they were presented in the preliminary amendment, dated 12/31/2024.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sala (US 2004/0089975), in view of Zhang et al. (US 2002/0046596), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14, Sala discloses manifold for use in a system for resin transfer molding of composite articles (par. 0018) and a mold enclosure for enclosing a fiber pack (mold 3; Fig. 1),
the manifold comprising a body and a plurality of valves (6a, 6b, 6c; Fig. 1; par. 0071-0072),
wherein the body of the manifold defines a resin inlet (4, flowing into reservoir 14), a plurality of resin outlets (“injection feed lines” 5a, 5b, 5c; par. 0072; Fig. 1) and an internal resin chamber therebetween (reservoir 14; par. 0073), and each valve is arranged to control flow between the internal resin chamber (reservoir 14) and a corresponding one of the outlets (“the flow of material through the injection feed lines 5a, 5b, 5c is regulated by valves 6a, 6b, 6c”) (par. 0072);
and the plurality of resin outlets (“injection feed lines” 5a, 5b, 5c) are coupled to a corresponding plurality of resin ports (unlabeled, but the location where injection feed lines 5a, 5b, 5c flow into the mold would be the “corresponding plurality of resin ports”) distributed across the mold enclosure (3) so that each valve of the manifold (6a, 6b, 6c) is arranged to control resin ingress into the mold and fiber pack through the ports (par. 0072 explains that the flow of material into the mold is regulated by the valves, as outlined above, and this flow is into a mold).
Sala does not explicitly disclose that each valve has a valve head and valve seat which are slidable relative to one another along a valve axis to control flow between a resin chamber and a corresponding outlet (see instant specification at Figs. 9-10).
However, Zhang discloses a valve system that is used in accordance with a resin transfer molding system (in this case, to drain the mold, instead of a reservoir, but the function of the valve is similar in either case) (Zhang, Figs. 6-12).
Zhang discloses a valve that comprises a valve head (not labeled, but is the flared portion at bottom of Figs. 6 and 10), and a valve seat (adapter 38a) (Zhang, Fig. 9; par. 0035) which are slidable relative to one another along a valve axis to control flow between the reservoir and the outlets and detachable from one another as shown.
Sala discloses a “base” system that shows a valve schematically, but does not show the structure of the valve as is required in the claims. Zhang discloses an “improvement” to the base system in that it specifies the structure of the valve in the same way as in the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, could have incorporated the valve structure of Zhang into the system of Sala above, as to have performed the function of a valve with respect to a flowing resin material. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the valve structure from Zhang is incorporated into the system of Sala above. See MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 5, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses a pressure sensor (12) for registering the pressure within the reservoir, the manifold pressure sensor (12) being arranged to communicate the pressure to a controller (8) (Sala, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that here are valve control mechanisms (“valves . . . are electronically controlled with the support of computers 7”) (Sala, par. 0072) arranged to receive control signals and operate the valves.
Regarding claims 7-9, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and valves are understood to be able to be fully or partially open/closed in routine use from the subject matter of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 10, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and a controller (computer 7, 8) (Sala, par. 0072) configured to transmit valve control signals to each of the plurality of control mechanisms.
Regarding claim 11, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 10, and further discloses a manifold pressure sensor (12, Fig. 1) (Sala, par. 0073) that is used to communicate pressure to the computer(s) (7,8) (par. 0072-0073) as to control the flow of the material through the valves by opening the valves or closing the valves.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is directed to an intended use: “for use in a system for the resin transfer molding of composite articles” clearly outlines an intended use of the claimed system. As such, the subject matter here is not considered limiting with respect to the controller. Sala discloses the computer or controller (7, 8) as outlined above and would be considered to be capable of performing these limitations in routine use.
Regarding claim 13, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that there is a resin pump (extruder screw 10) coupled to the resin inlet (4), wherein the controller (8) is in communication with the resin pump to control the resin pump (Sala, par. 0073; Fig. 1), and thereby the pressure and flow rate of the material flowing into the reservoir.
Regarding claim 15, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the resin ports are spaced apart from one another (as shown in Fig. 1) and positioned in a sequence along a resin flow path.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is directed to subject matter relating to the control of the claimed system. Accordingly, these limitations are not considered limiting as an intended use of the claimed structure (see MPEP 2114).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sala (US 2004/0089975) in view of Zhang (US 2002/0046596) as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Usui (US 2017/0312997).
Regarding claims 17-19, Sala/Zhang discloses the subject matter of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that a solvent is used with a solvent tank/waste tank as to clean the manifold from resin material.
However, Usui discloses a process that also involves the injection of resin into a mold, and teaches that the mold is degreased using a solvent (Usui, par. 0034), demonstrating that such a technique was known in the art for removing residue from a surface when using resin. Although Usui uses the solvent within a mold, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a solvent would also have been useful in the device of Sala above as to have cleaned the device of resin that may have solidified within the device during use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that this would have been applicable in the device of Sala above as to have likewise cleaned the items from remaining residue. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a solvent tank and waste tank and a valve configuration (as already provided for above) as to provide solvent to the system and clean the system and purge it of resin that may have solidified undesirably within the system during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Examiner points out that the claim defines the manifold in terms of structure. The term “manifold” is not required to appear in the prior art reference as there is no requirement that the same language is used in the prior art as in the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Zhang does not provide for valves as “these are not explained to function like valves.” However, this is not persuasive as the structure is met and they do function as a valve as they “control flow between the internal resin chamber and a corresponding one of the outlets” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as they function to control flow of material from one location to another in the reference. Furthermore, Sala does teach the valves schematically – Zhang is only referred to for an idea as to the structure of a valve. Any type of valve would seem to work in this context.
Applicant also argues that Zhang does not disclose a manifold with a plurality of modules that are detachably attachable and sealable to one another via cooperating interfaces. However, this is not accurate, as the drawings in Zhang clearly show how pieces are attached and can be detached with each other and would have an outlet, body, and a valve portion. It is also quite evident from Zhang that the resin flows within the interior of the modules making up the manifold. The “modules” of a resin outlet, valve, and a section of the body defining the resin chamber are the ones that are connected to each other – as this claim language is broadly drafted.
Furthermore, the Zhang reference is not being modified here (see p. 9, remarks), it is the Sala reference. The proposed modification does not modify Zhang. Instead, the proposed modification modifies Sala, the primary reference cited in the rejection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is not seeking to modify Zhang in the context of the claim rejection, meaning these arguments are not considered germane to patentability, as even if accepted, would not call into question the proposed modification that does not include what is argued here. Accordingly, these arguments are not found persuasive.
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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights