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 Objections
The previous objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
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 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chotard (US 2005/0127566; already of record), in view of Jorn (DE 102016210086; with machine translation). Regarding claim 6:
Chotard teaches stamping fiber reinforced composites (e.g. Abstract and Figures 1-5) with undercuts (i.e. pinched flanged edges with flanges less than 90 degrees) (paragraph 0060).
As seen in Figures 2-4 the apparatus of Chotard meets all the structural requirements of claim 6. As seen in Figures 2-4 there is a central part that moves down, and when that occurs the two sides move outwards to press the material. In the embodiment of paragraph 0060 where undercuts are created, the only manner in which this would occur is if the bottom width of the die is larger than the entry width of the die.
Chotard also processes the blank in the claimed manner, as seen in Figures 2-4, with the exception of explicitly mentioning the heating and cooling parameters.
Regarding the heating, in the same field of endeavor Jorn teaches that when compressing fiber reinforced composites, that when compressing fiber reinforced composites that one should do so at above the melting point so that the fibers are able to move relative to one another in order to form the desired 3D shape (paragraph 0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to heat as taught by Jorn, since doing so allows for the material to form the desired shape.
Regarding the cooling step. Chotard states the part obtained is removed from the jig (paragraph 0055) and that additional cooling is not required (paragraph 0068). Based on this disclosure one can easily see that the part of Chotard was cooled as claimed. Additionally, it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are only two options, cool with the part while on the stamp, or cool the part while off the stamp. Thus an ordinary artisan would easily be able to determine which of the two cooling means is proper for the part and process, if one were not to follow the previous conclusion.
Regarding claim 8:
Chotard teaches that a part with four flanges, as claimed, can be created, as seen in Figure 1. Thus a punch as claimed would have been used, since Figures 204 are only cross sectional views of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 9:
Chotard only mentions the use of thermoplastic resin (e.g. Abstract) and not the exact species.
In the same field of endeavor Jorn teaches using PEEK as the thermoplastic in a fiber composite for aircraft purposes (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the PEEK of Jorn in the process of Chotard, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07). In this instance both Chotard and Jorn compress thermoplastic resin fiber composites for use in aircrafts, thus the skilled artisan would be able to determine the needed species for the required process and end use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chotard and Jorn as applied above, and further in view of Nishimura et al (US 2007/0222097). Regarding claim 7, Chotard and Jorn are silent to:
Wherein the wedge-shaped end of the punch comprises two end parts with adjustable shims between the two end parts and wherein the method comprises a step of: pairing the punch and the imprint by adjusting a thickness of the adjustable shims according to a thickness of the web and a thickness of the flanged edges
In the same field of using compression in molding, Nishimura teaches adding shims to force applying members in a clamping operation in order to alter the applied force (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply shims as taught by Nishimura to the apparatus of Chotard, since doing so would allow the user to alter the applied force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Chotard does not teach a die with an entry width smaller than a bottom width.
The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0060 of Chotard explicitly allows for the creation of undercut parts. The only way that such undercut parts can be formed is if the die is shaped as claimed. The Applicant points to paragraph 0060 an argues this is opposite of what the Applicant is claiming, however no evidenced is provided to show this finding.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights