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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schiers (US 9,346,319).
In reference to Claim 1, Schiers discloses using a mold for a carbon fiber and epoxy product (4:62-5:6) (a pre-forming mold for a carbon fiber composite material), comprising clamshell type mold (11:21-23, and Fig. 4) (a pre-forming shell mold detachably spliced), wherein the material while inside the mold cavity is pressed against the side by a bladder (11:23-27) (the pre-forming shell mold is provided with a pre-forming cavity adapted to a structure of a formed product, an inner wall of the pre-forming cavity is used for laying a pre-forming layer), and creating prepregs (7:23-26) (the pre-forming layer is used for forming a pre-forming piece of a product).
In reference to Claim 9, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 1, as described above.
Schiers discloses using a mold for a carbon fiber and epoxy product (4:62-5:6) (a forming mold for a carbon fiber composite material), comprising curing while in the mold (11:21-33) (a curing mold), the bladder uses an access port to be filled with pressurized air (14:32-59) (an air pipe), wherein curing while in the mold (11:21-33) (the curing mold is provided with a curing cavity used for containing the pre-forming shell mold), while the bladder is filled (11:21-33) (the air pipe is arranged in the pre-forming cavity), and the bladder is filled to press the material to the side of the mold throughout the curing process (14:32-59) (the air pipe supports the pre-molding layer to be tightly attached to the inner wall of the pre-molding cavity in an inflated state).
In reference to Claim 10, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 9, as described above.
Schiers discloses clamshell type mold (11:21-23, and Fig. 4) with four cap pieces (11:34-40) (the curing mold comprises an upper curing mold and a lower curing mold, the upper curing mold is arranged right above the lower curing mold in a lifting mode, a bottom side of the upper curing mold is provided with an upper curing groove, a top side of the lower curing mold is provided with a lower curing groove, and the upper curing groove and the lower curing groove are matched to form the curing cavity used for containing the pre-forming shell mold).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiers (US 9,346,319) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Rydin, et al. (US 2008/0308960).
In reference to Claim 2, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 1, as described above.
Schiers discloses a tool in the art normally transfers a surface texture from the tool onto the surface of the resulting structure (3:26-28) and for this embodiment that texture is smooth with a planar surface nearer the spoke positions which is traditionally hard to achieve (4:52-5:35) (a first texture is provided on an inner wall surface of the pre-forming cavity).
Schiers does not disclose a second texture.
Rydin discloses a second texture being added to a final product to have some high and some low profile textures ([0039]) (the first texture is used for forming a second texture on an appearance surface of the pre-forming piece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the mold of Schiers using the dual texture option of Rydin because the sets of textures accomplish different goals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the mold of Schiers and the textural changes of Rydin to achieve varying degrees of friction flow. The reasonable expectation of success for using the textures of Rydin on the mold of Schiers would be a final product with different sections capable of different abilities.
In reference to Claim 3, modified Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 2, as described above.
Schiers discloses the sidewall portions can be convexly or concavely shaped (8:27-30) (the first texture is arranged convex or concave).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiers (US 9,346,319) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ritchie, et al. (US 5,753,164).
In reference to Claim 4, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 1, as described above.
Schiers does not disclose the pre-forming shell mold comprises a plurality of groups of split shell molds spliced together, a plurality of anti-overflow cavities are provided on the pre-forming shell mold, and the anti-overflow cavities are communicated with the pre-molding cavity.
Ritchie discloses an upper and lower mold with overflow channels formed in the mold to allow passage of excess charge material (11:11-23) (the pre-forming shell mold comprises a plurality of groups of split shell molds spliced together, a plurality of anti-overflow cavities are provided on the pre-forming shell mold, and the anti-overflow cavities are communicated with the pre-molding cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the molding apparatus of Schiers using the overflow channel system of Ritchie because it allows for a full mold without overstressing the filling. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ritchie’s overflow system in Schiers’ molding apparatus to not overfill the mold. The reasonable expectation of success combining the overflow channels of Ritchie in Schiers’ apparatus will be a molded cured final product.
In reference to Claim 5, modified Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 4, as described above.
Ritchie discloses an upper and lower mold with overflow channels formed in the mold to allow passage of excess charge material (11:11-23) (an anti-overflow groove is provided on the split shell mold, and the anti-overflow cavity is formed by cooperation between the anti-overflow grooves on adjacent groups of the split shell molds, or by cooperation between the anti-overflow grooves and splicing surfaces on adjacent groups of the split shell molds).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 4, as described above.
Ritchie discloses an upper and lower mold with overflow channels formed in the mold to allow passage of excess charge material (11:11-23) (the anti-overflow cavity is arranged along a contour line of the pre-forming cavity).
In reference to Claim 7, modified Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 4, as described above.
Schiers discloses aligning the clamshell parts and connecting them for the curing process (12:13-24) (two adjacent groups of the split shell molds are detachably spliced by means of an engaging structure).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiers (US 9,346,319) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Downs, et al. (US 2014/0134378) and Li, et al. (WO 2019/233929 using US 2021/0245418 for translation and citations).
In reference to Claim 8, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 1, as described above.
Schiers does not disclose the inner wall surface of the pre-forming cavity is one or a combination of a matte surface and a polishing surface.
Downs discloses a matte or glossy finish on the inner mold wall ([0188]) (the inner wall surface of the pre-forming cavity is one or a combination of a matte surface and a polishing surface).
Li discloses portions of texture for matte or glossy effect being machined into the mold portion depending on the desired final outcome ([0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the molding apparatus of Schiers using the surface finishes of Downs because the final product’s finish can be imparted during molding, with the support of Li describing machining the mold to add to the frictional texture. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Downs’ mold finish in Schiers’ molding apparatus to apply a preferred finish like Li describes achieving by machining the mold. The reasonable expectation of success combining the finish of Downs in Schiers’ apparatus will be either a matte and/or polished final product in the sections as discussed in Li.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiers (US 9,346,319) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Gerardi, et al. (US 2016/0263781).
In reference to Claim 11, Schiers discloses the mold of Claim 9, as described above.
Schiers discloses a carbon fiber and epoxy product (4:62-5:6) (the pre-forming layer comprises a plurality of layers and is made of the carbon fiber composite material);
Schiers does not disclose the pre-forming shell mold is made of a plastic material, and the curing mold is made of a metal material.
Gerardi discloses inner and outer molds, with the inner mold made of plastic and the outer mold made of metal, and both removed after curing ([0025]) (the pre-forming shell mold is made of a plastic material, and the curing mold is made of a metal material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the molding apparatus of Schiers using the dual molds with the metal and plastic of Gerardi because the metal outer mold is used for curing. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Gerardi’s metal and plastic molds in Schiers’ molding apparatus to retain the shape for the final product. The reasonable expectation of success combining the dual molds of Gerardi in Schiers’ apparatus will be a molded cured final product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742