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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Sanial does not disclose a layer of dry paint-like material, a structure of the layer of dry paint-like material secured to a backing provided with anchoring arrangements on the side opposite to the layer of the pain-type material, and that there is no watertight connection of the flexible sheet. With regards to the layer of dry paint-like material, the reasoning is not found persuasive as Sanial discloses that the reinforcing material can comprise of additional layers, including that of a “Gelcoat” ([0052]). With regards to the structure, examiner notes that [0052] of Sanial teaches that the additional layers, including “Gelcoat”, can be applied on the textile reinforcement, meaning the top side of the textile reinforcement would comprise the Gelcoat while the other side, opposite to the gelcoat side, would have no Gelcoat layer and would comprise the textile reinforcement, which would make up the anchoring system. With regards to the watertight connection, examiner notes that the limitation does not require a connection in a “watertight manner” but specifically an “airtight manner” and furthermore, given that Sanial discloses how during the injection step, air is being pushed out through a specific point (right arrow in Fig 5), as opposed to in any direction, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mould (20) would be airtight.
With regards to applicant arguments about the claim limitations being interpreted in light of the specification and figures, examiner notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The lack of unity requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4 March 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “reinforcing material” (300) on p.9 L9. 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. Referencing to Figures found in the specification, including “Fig. 2”, should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said”, including “dry layer of paint-type material of said film is exposed to the outside” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L3: [[-]] providing a rigid molding element
Claim 1, L5: provided with anchoring arrangements on [[the]] a side opposite
Claim 1, L6: towards the rigid molding element
Claim 1, L8-9: generally defined by the rigid molding element[[,]];
Claim 1, L10: [[-]]introducing a solidifiable molding material in a viscous state into the molding zone[[,]];
Claim 1, L11-12: [[-]]prior to, simultaneously with or subsequent to said introduction of the solidifiable molding material, applying a vacuum in the molding zone[[,]] with a vacuum source;
Claim 1, L13: [[-]]causing the solidifiable molding material to solidify[[,]]; and
Claim 1, L14: [[-]]extracting from the molding zone
Claim 1 L15-16: said film is exposed to [[the]] an outside.
Claim 2: a step consisting [[in]] of placing in the molding zone, prior to introducing the solidifiable molding material and applying the vacuum, a reinforcing material, intended to be embedded in the solidifiable molding material
Claim 3: wherein the solidifiable molding material
Claim 4: the step of introducing the [[resin]] solidifiable molding material is carried out by a process including infusion, pre-impregnation, contact molding, resin transfer molding or filament winding.
Claim 5: wherein the [[film]] backing is fibrous [[backing]], the anchoring arrangement comprises [[comprising]] fibers protruding from the paint-type material.
Claim 6: wherein the rigid molding element
Claim 7: comprising a step of peripherally cutting [[of]] the part to remove [[the]] material corresponding at least partly to said marginal [[zones]] areas.
Claim 9: introducing the solidifiable molding material, consisting [[in]] of arranging against the rigid molding element
Claim 9: provided with anchoring arrangement on [[the]] a side opposite to the layer of paint-type material
Claim 10: the airtight flexible sheet and the [[other film]] further sheet are identical
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range of species or limitation together with a narrow range of species that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired (See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation of “the molding material consists of a resin”, and the claim also recites “in particular an impregnable resin” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “impregnable” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “impregnable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how the pregnability of a resin is measured and at what point a resin would be considered “impregnable”.
As claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, it stands as rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the step of introducing the resin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, “the step of introducing the resin” will be interpreted as “the step of introducing a solidifiable molding material”
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan et al. (US20110151232) in view of Chevallier (US20170355217).
Regarding claim 1, Meegan discloses
- providing a rigid molding element suitable for shaping one face of the part (“single-sided tool” (1002)) and an airtight flexible sheet preconstituted of a film comprising a dry layer of a paint-type material (“gel coat” (1012) on “vacuum bag” (1008)), and said sheet being unsupported (Fig 10) and being peripherally connected to the rigid molding element in an airtight manner so that between them alone they define a molding zone whose shape is generally defined by the molding element ([0070] via “tack tape”, Fig 10),
- introducing a solidifiable molding material in a viscous state into the molding zone ([0070], “liquid resin” (1018)),
- prior to, simultaneously with or subsequent to said introduction of the molding material, applying a vacuum in the molding zone ([0070]),
- causing the molding material to solidify ([0071], in that a structure is formed), and
- extracting from the molding zone an article comprising the solidified molding material, in which the film is anchored, where the dry layer of paint-type material of said film is exposed to the outside (Fig 10 in regards to “gel coat” (1012), [0071]).
While Meegan does not explicitly disclose that the paint-type material is secured to a backing provided with anchoring arrangements on the side opposite to the layer of paint-type material, the back facing towards the molding element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Meegan teaches that the method can comprise the use of a fiber-preform ([0070]-[0071], ”fiber preform (1004));
b) Meegan teaches that the “peel-ply layer” (1006) between the fiber preform (1004) and the gel coat (1012) is not required as it “may be applied” ([0070]); and
c) Chevallier, which is within the molding art, teaches that for the application of a dry layer of a paint-type material ([0042]) to a product (“final carrier”, [0055]), it is beneficial for said layer to be secured to a backing with anchoring arrangements (“backing” (30), which comprises of a sheet of “fibrous material” [0042], similar to that of “fiber preform” (1004) of Meegan) on a side opposite to the layer of the paint-type material with the back facing towards the molding element (Fig 1D-G) to achieve strong anchorage ([0042]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Meegan teaches that the method comprises a step consisting in placing in the molding zone, prior to introducing the molding material and applying the vacuum, a reinforcing material, intended to be embedded in the molding material ([0070]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Meegan teaches that the molding material consists of a resin [0070].
Regarding claim 4, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Additionally, Meegan teaches that the step of introducing the resin is carried out by a process of infusion ([0070]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Meegan teaches that the film backing is a fibrous backing ([0070]-[0071]) and Chevallier teaches that the fibrous backing would have fibers protruding from the layer of paint-type material (Fig 2), modified Meegan teaches that the film backing is a fibrous backing, the anchoring arrangements comprising fibers protruding from the layer of paint-type material.
Regarding claim 6, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Meegan teaches that the molding element and the airtight sheet protrude beyond the contours of the part to be produced by marginal areas (Fig 10).
Regarding claim 8, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Meegan teaches that the vacuum source is connected to the molding zone by at least one vacuum port passing through said film (“vacuum evacuation line” (1016), [0070], Fig 10).
Regarding claim 9, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, as Meegan teaches that that gel coat can be applied at multiple points, including to the vacuum bag and to the tool’s surface ([0070]), in combination with Chevallier’s teachings of applying the paint layer to the fibrous backing (Fig 2), modified Meegan teaches that method further comprises a step prior to the step of introducing the molding material, consisting in arranging against the molding element a further sheet comprising a dry layer of a paint-type material integral with a backing provided with anchoring arrangements on the side opposite to the layer of paint-type material, the backing facing the airtight flexible sheet.
Regarding claim 10, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Meegan teaches that the gel coat can be applied to both the vacuum bag and the tool surface ([0070]), modified Meegan teaches that the film constituting the airtight flexible sheet and the other film are identical.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meegan et al. (US20110151232) and Chevallier (US20170355217) as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above and in further view of either Rodman (US20090041972), Lauzon et al. (US20170225409), Hurdle (US20140327187), and/or McCollum et al. (US20040145095).
Regarding claim 7, modified Meegan teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. While modified Meegan does not explicitly teach that the method comprises a step of peripherally cutting of the part to remove the material corresponding at least partly to said marginal zones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as the removal of excess material after molding is well known in the art, as demonstrated by Rodman ([0039]), Lauzon ([0036]), Hurdle ([0033]) and/or McCollum ([0060]). One would have motivated to do so for the predictable result of completing fabrication.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okoli et al. (US20110014315) as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above and in further view of either Rodman (US20090041972), Lauzon et al. (US20170225409), Hurdle (US20140327187), and/or McCollum et al. (US20040145095).
Regarding claim 7, Okoli discloses all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. While Okoli does not explicitly disclose that the method comprises a step of peripherally cutting of the part to remove the material corresponding at least partly to said marginal zones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as the removal of excess material after molding is well known in the art, as demonstrated by Rodman ([0039]), Lauzon ([0036]), Hurdle ([0033]) and/or McCollum ([0060]). One would have motivated to do so for the predictable result of completing fabrication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights