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 § 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentzer et al (US Patent 4,957,802) in view of Wadsworth (US 2021/0394467).
With regards to claim 1, Mentzer discloses an assembly for forming a thermoplastic part (Abstract) comprising:
A mold tool having a mold surface (Figure 1 item 10)
A plurality of attachment frames located around a perimeter of the mold surface and configured to couple a thermoplastic layer to the mold tool such that the thermoplastic layer is spaced apart from the mold surface, where the attachment frames are raised with respect to the mold surface (Figure 1 item 14)
A vacuum configured to evacuate air from over the mold surface (Figure 1 item 16)
Mentzer fails to explicitly disclose that the assembly comprises a fiber dispensing assembly configured to deposit a plurality of fiber strips over the mold surface and a lightning strike protection layer, where the mold surface is configured to receive the lightning strike protection layer.
Wadsworth discloses an assembly for forming thermoplastic parts (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mentzer, where Wadsworth discloses that the assembly comprises a lightning strike protection layer, where the mold surface is configured to receive the lightning strike protection layer (Figure 1 item 128, paragraphs 30 and 33) and a fiber dispensing assembly configured to deposit a plurality of fiber strips over a mold surface (Figure 1 items 118 and 120, paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have added a lightning strike protection layer and a fiber dispensing assembly, as disclosed in Wadsworth, in Mentzer’s assembly. The rationale for providing a lightning strike protection layer is stated by Wadsworth in that it increases the conductivity of the outer surface of the composite part and enables the composite part to sufficiently absorb and pass current from a lightning strike across the outer surface of the part without structural damage to the part (paragraph 3); while the rationale top provide a fiber dispensing assembly is to provide fibers that can provide improved strength properties, reduce shrinkage, greater wear resistance, UV resistance, impact toughness, higher modulus, improved sand-ability, reduced CTE, increased dielectric strength and other desirable properties (paragraph 30).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Mentzer and Wadsworth are presented above. Additionally, Mentzer teaches that the assembly further comprises a heating element configured to heat a thermoplastic layer to a pliable forming temperature (Figure 5 item 50).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentzer et al (US Patent 4,957,802) in view of Wadsworth (US 2021/0394467) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Figge et al (US Patent 4,194,938).
With regards to claims 3 and 4, the teachings of Mentzer and Wadsworth are presented above. While Mentzer discloses a heating element (Figure 5 item 50), Mentzer and Wadsworth fail to explicitly disclose that the heating element comprises a plurality of heating units.
Figge discloses an assembly for forming a thermoplastic part (Figure 1), in the same field of endeavor as Mentzer, where Figge discloses that the heating element comprises a plurality of heater units that are substantially-equally spaced form the mold surface (Figure 1 item 8).
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 a plurality of heater units, as suggested by Figge, in Mentzer’s assembly as modified by Wadsworth. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that multiple heating units allows for better control of the heating process over the thermoplastic part. Additionally, the duplication of parts does not have patentable weight as per In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 – 4 and the rejection of claims 1 – 4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), due to Applicant’s amendment the rejection has been withdrawn.
With regards to the rejection of claims 1 - 4 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues that the prior art of Mentzer and Wadsworth does not teach or suggest Applicant’s amendment. The Examiner respectfully disagrees in part. While the Examiner agrees that the prior art of Mentzer does not teach the amendment of having a lightning strike protection layer, the art of Wadsworth does teach it in Figure 1 item 128 as well in paragraph 30 and 33.
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 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
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights