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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 and 03/26/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claims 7-9 limitations of “the mold comprises an upper part and a lower part, and the upper part comprises a protruding portion at a position corresponding to the concave region; wherein a protruding distance of the protruding portion is less than a sum of thicknesses of the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; and wherein the lower part is planar at a position corresponding to the concave region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, The claim is ambiguous as there is uncertainty concerning how pressing a mold against a stacked structure of a plurality of pieces of fiber cloth forms a case. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner, a case is considered a single unitary structure. The currently presented claims do not provide for a means or method to produce a case as a single unitary structure. There is no matrix or unifying components such as a resin to “hold” the pieces of fiber cloth together. Applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A), in view of at least one of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0185108 A1), or Hass et al. (US 5,573,622).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Sun discloses a method of manufacturing a housing. The method to include fiber cloth for preparing the shell has two or more layers and where the shell material is a carbon fiber, see page 9 paragraph 5 and paragraph 8 – (construed as providing a plurality of pieces of fiber cloth; and the fiber cloth is carbon fiber cloth. Also, as the reference uses housing, casing and shell interchangeably all instances thereof will be construed as a case).
While Sun discloses the use of a hot pressing technique to form the casing; it does not explicitly disclose forming an opening in a part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth; stacking the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth to form a stacked structure, wherein the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the openings is arranged on top to form a concave region on an upper surface of the stacked structure; and pressing a mold against the stacked structure, to form a case, wherein the case comprises a concave structure at a position corresponding to the concave region..
Sasaki discloses a laminate and integrally molded article suitable for use as a casing, see at least [0002]. And forms the molded article by layering sheets of carbon fiber cloths and bonding the stacked layers by press molding. The examiner notes, as depicted throughout the figures, the layers are stacked to include some layers having openings which form a concave region on a same side of the stacked layers, see at least [0066], FIG. 9, [0079] – (construed as stacking the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth to form a stacked structure, wherein the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the openings is arranged on top to form a concave region on an upper surface of the stacked structure; and pressing a mold against the stacked structure, to form a case, wherein the case comprises a concave structure at a position corresponding to the concave region). One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Sasaki’s process as the reference suggests doing so contributes to forming an integrally molded article having reduced thickness and high rigidity, see [0016].
Hass discloses a method of fabricating a plurality of multilayer structure having a recess. The method to include a stack of layered material 12, 14, 16, prior to lamination and assembled within a pressing unit 34, 36. A top portion of the stack has a recess and as depicted in FIGS. 2-6 the assembly is laminated by pressing to form a multilayered article having a recess on its top side, see FIG. 1 – (construed as providing a plurality of pieces of material; forming an opening in a part of the plurality of pieces of material; stacking the plurality of layers to form a stacked structure, wherein a portion of the plurality of layers has an opening arranged on top to form a concave region on an upper surface of the stacked structure; and pressing a mold against the stacked structure, to form an article, wherein the article comprises a concave structure at a position corresponding to the concave region). One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Hass’s process as the reference suggests doing so allows for a one step pressing method for fabricating a plurality of multilayer structures which includes at least one recess defined by a nonplanar surface, see Col 2, lines 50-53.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s method of manufacturing a housing, to include the processing steps as claimed and taught by Sasaki or Hass to provide Sasaki’s method with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sun further discloses a nameplate is mountable on the “thin area”, that is the recessed area, see at least Sasaki [0049] – (construed as mounting a plate to the concave structure)
Regarding claims 5-9, modified Sun further discloses a step of stacking the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth to form the stacked structure comprises arranging the part of the fiber cloth with the opening on top of the stacked structure and aligning the openings with each other; and a quantity of the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the opening is less than three, see at least Sasaki figures; and the mold comprises an upper part and a lower part, and the upper part comprises a protruding portion at a position corresponding to the concave region; a protruding distance of the protruding portion is less than a sum of thicknesses of the part of the plurality of pieces of fiber cloth with the opening; the lower part is planar at a position corresponding to the concave region, see at least Hass FIGS 2-6.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN 104859267 A), in view of at least one of Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0185108 A1), or Hass et al. (US 5,573,622), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (CN 201936236 U).
Regarding claims 3-4, while modified Sun does not explicitly disclose performing surface machining on a side wall of the recess with a milling cutter.
Yin discloses a method and equipment for forming a shell. The is formed of carbon fiber cloth, see page 13 last two paragraphs. Yin further discloses a finishing process of after forming of the shell the “waste edge” is removed by milling, see page 16 paragraph 8. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision using Yin’s milling cutting technique as the reference suggests doing so allows for removing of bad edges after forming of the shell.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Sun’s method to include a technique of performing surface machining on a side wall of the recess with a milling cutter as claimed and reasonably suggested by Yin to provide Sun’s method with a means for removing waste edges as taught by Yin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749