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 § 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 8 and 20 - 24 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the heated double belt press" in the first line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear if claim 8 is referencing the heated double belt press of claim 1 or the second heated double belt press of claim 5. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will treat the claim referring to the second heated double belt press used to coat the powder adhesive.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sandwich material" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 21 – 24 are also rejected due to their dependency to claim 20.
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(s) 1 - 4 and 13 - 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn et al (US 2019/0001650) in view of Tomioka (US 2018/0222128) and Okamoto et al (US Patent 3,731,352).
With regards to claim 1, Sohn discloses a method for manufacturing a polymer laminate (Abstract) that comprises a felt layer (paragraphs 23 and 62) and can be used as a stiffener (paragraph 54). Sohn states that the layers can be formed using a number of different manufacturing methods (paragraph 20), including by double belt press (paragraph 38). Sohn fails to explicitly disclose that the stiffener material is made by passing through a double belt press, heated while maintained under constant pressure and subsequently cooled.
Known double belt presses in the field would have predictably been suitable since Sohn indicates double belt pressing as a suitable method. Tomioka teaches a method of producing a fiber-reinforced plastic (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Sohn, that comprises passing the fiber-reinforced layer through a double belt press (Figure 4 item 11) where, as the felt layer is passed through the double belt press, it is maintained under constant pressure while being heated to a temperature equal to or higher than the melting point and is subsequently cooled to below the glass temperature of the material to form a compressed material (paragraphs 38 and 39). While Tomioka fails to explicitly disclose that the layer is heated to within 20°C of a melting point of the fibrous material, Tomioka states that the temperature varies on the kind of material used (paragraph 239) and it would have been apparent temperatures far above the melting point are not required and exert unnecessary energy. This is applicable to Sohn to achieve suitable bonding temperature for the fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Tomioka’s method for manufacturing Sohn’s stiffener material as a suitable double belt pressing method. The rationale being that, as stated by Tomioka, it is suitable for pressing and joining fibrous products as desired in Sohn.
Sohn and Tomioka fail to explicitly disclose that the density of the uncompressed felt layer is between 0.08 g/cm³ and 0.16 g/cm³.
Felt, taught for use in Sohn, is known to have densities in the claimed range. Okamoto discloses a method of manufacturing a fibrous sheet (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Sohn and Tomioka, where Okamoto states using a felt with densities between 0.08 g/cm³ and 0.123 g/cm³ (column 8 lines 45 – 49 and column 9 lines 57 – 59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an uncompressed felt layer having a density between 0.08 g/cm³ and 0.16 g/cm³, as suggested by Okamoto, in Sohn and Tomioka’s method. The rationale being that, as stated by Okamoto, it provides a uniformly tight configuration and resilience (column 8 lines 45 – 49 and column 9 lines 57 – 59). Thus, using felt within the claimed density range would have been suitable since felt is taught in Sohn and known to be provided within this range.
The Examiner note any felt at known densities passed through known forming devices, i.e. double press presses, to form joined fiber products under known conditions, i.e. heating close to melting temperature, thus reads on the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the primary fibrous material is polyester (paragraph 31).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Sohn and Tomioka are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the felt layer consists solely of the primary fibrous material (paragraph 31).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn states that at least one type of fiber is selected (paragraph 31), which suggests that more than one can be selected, allowing one of ordinary skills in the art to have the felt layer comprise a second fibrous material having a lower melting point than the primary fibrous material.
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Tomioka teaches that the layer is heated to the melting point of the fibrous material as it passed through the double-belt press (paragraphs 38 and 39).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Sohn and Tomioka are presented above. Additionally, Tomioka teaches that the thickness of the compressed material is 0.5 mm (paragraph 781).
With regards to claim 15, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Tomioka teaches that the density of the compressed material is 1.21 g/cm³ (paragraph 770). While Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto fail to explicitly disclose that the density of the compressed material is between 0.4 g/cm³ and 1.1 g/cm³, given that Tomioka teaches a density merely closed to the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as per MPEP 2144.05. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
With regards to claim 16, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the method further comprises a subsequent step of forming a laminate material comprising two or more layers of the compressed material (paragraph 38).
With regards to claim 17, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the laminate material is formed by passing the layers through a heated double belt press (paragraph 38).
With regards to claim 18, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the method further comprises a subsequent step of forming a laminate material comprising two or more layers of the compressed material (paragraph 38) having a filler material between the two layers of the compressed material (paragraphs 36 and 37).
With regards to claim 19, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the sandwich material is formed by passing the layers of compressed material and the filler material through a heated double belt press (paragraph 38).
With regards to claim 20 and 21, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the laminate material is coated on both sides before being passed through the heated double belt press (paragraph 38).
With regards to claims 22 – 24, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. While Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto fail to explicitly disclose when the laminate material is coated one the first side and the second side, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that, in order to properly apply a coating on a laminate material, the coating needs to be applied before being passed through a double belt press.
With regards to claim 25, the teachings of Sohn, Tomioka and Okamoto are presented above. Additionally, Sohn teaches that the method produces a stiffener material (paragraph 54).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brentrup et al (US 2012/0181716).
With regards to claim 1, Brentrup discloses a method for manufacturing a stiffener material (Abstract, paragraphs 29 and 41 where it states that felt is about 15 mm before compressing to 2 mm later during consolidation which makes a high stiffness product) comprising:
Providing an uncompressed felt layer comprising a primary fibrous material having a density of 0.08 g/cm³ (paragraphs 29 and 41 where it states the material is 1200 g/m² of areal weight which is 0.12 g/cm² with 15 mm or 1.5 cm before compression; 0.12/1.5=0.08, thus at least rendering obvious this density for use in the process)
Passing the felt layer through a double belt press (paragraph 41);
Wherein as the felt layer is passed through the double belt press it is maintained under constant pressure while being heated and is subsequently cooled to below the glass temperature of the primary fibrous material to form a compressed material (paragraph 41)
While Brentrup fails to explicitly disclose that the material is heated to within 20°C of a melting point of the primary fibrous material, Brentrup does state that the temperature should preferably be 20°C to 60°C above the softening temperature (paragraph 31), where one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that 20°C to 60°C above the softening temperature would be within 20°C of the melting point.
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Brentrup are presented above. Additionally, Brentrup teaches that the primary fibrous material is polyester (paragraph 21).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Brentrup are presented above. Additionally, Brentrup teaches that the felt layer comprises a second fibrous material having a lower melting point than the primary fibrous material (paragraphs 21 and 22).
With regards to claim 14, the teachings of Brentrup are presented above. Additionally, Brentrup teaches that the thickness of the compressed material is 2.3 mm (paragraph 41).
With regards to claim 15, the teachings of Brentrup are presented above. Additionally, Brentrup teaches that the density of the compressed material is 0.43 g/cm³ (paragraphs 29 and 41, where the area weight is 1000 g/m² and the thickness of the compressed material is 2.3 mm).
Claim(s) 5 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brentrup et al (US 2012/0181716) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel (US Patent 6,136,732).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Brentrup are presented above. Brentrup fails to explicitly disclose that the compressed material is coated with a powder adhesive on one or both sides and the compressed material is then passed through a heated double belt press. However, Brentrup teaches further bonding of the compressed part, such as in to sandwich panels (paragraph 49), thus indicated the individual panel could have been prepared for bonding in known ways to form such panel.
Patel discloses a method of applying adhesives to similar composite articles (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Brentrup, where Patel discloses coating the compressed material (Figure 3 item 240) with a powder adhesive on one or both sides (Figure 3 item 50) and the compressed material is then passed through a heated double belt press (column 6 lines 51 – 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated Brentrup’s compressed material with a powder adhesive on one or both sides and then passed through a heated double belt press, as suggested by Patel. The rationale being that, as stated by Patel, it allows for the compressed material to bond to metal, plastic, rubber, wood and a variety of other surfaces while providing an adhesive with superior bond strength, heat resistance, compatibility and processability (column 1 lines 55 – 67 and column 2 lines 1 – 16). Using this method would have predictably prepared surfaces for further bonding such as is desired to manufacture sandwich panels in Brentrup, it thus being a known suitable method to prepare surfaces for bonding as desired for the panels therein.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, the teachings of Brentrup and Patel are presented above. While Brentrup and Patel fail to explicitly disclose that the compressed material is coated on both sides, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that, if the operator needs to apply the compressed material between two surfaces, it would require having an adhesive layer on both sides of the compressed material, which would require applying the adhesive on a first surface and afterward applying it on the second surface. Each process of coating requires subsequently joining the adhesive in a double belt press thus indicating this process should be performed subsequent to coating each side.
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Brentrup and Patel are presented above. Additionally, Patel teaches that the double belt press is operated at 70°C (column 7 lines 34 – 41) and a pressure of 6 N/cm² (column 7 lines 49 – 51).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Brentrup and Patel are presented above. Additionally, Patel teaches that material is coated with a powder adhesive on one or both sides before the material is passed through the heated double belt press (Figure 1 items 20 and 50). Since Patel teaches fusing in a double belt press and Brentrup teaches a double belt press process, it at least would have been obvious to coat any powder adhesive prior to belt pressing, i.e. on the uncompressed felt. Doing so would have predictably streamlined processing to both form the compressed felt in Brentrup while fusing an adhesive for further bonding.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, the teachings of Brentrup and Patel are presented above. While Brentrup and Patel fail to explicitly disclose that the uncompressed material is coated on both sides, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that, if the operator needs to apply the compressed material between two surfaces, it would require having an adhesive layer on both sides of the uncompressed material, which would require applying the adhesive on a first surface and afterward applying it on the second surface.
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Brentrup and Patel are presented above. Additionally, Patel teaches that the powder adhesive is polyester (Column 2 lines 53 – 60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights