DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “like a strip” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost (WO 2018011528, with citations from US 20190299493 as an English language equivalent) in view of Tsuji (US 20110272853).
As to claim 1, Provost teaches a tool system. Provost provides a molding tool (Fig. 3, item 12A) with a tool surface having a peripheral edge (Fig. 3, item 12A). Provost teaches a compensating body (24&26) within the peripheral edge of the molding tool such that the compensating body extends from the peripheral edge in a direction of the peripheral contour (Fig. 3, item 24&26 between 12A and 10). The distinction between Fig. 2B, items 24&26 and Fig. 3, items 24&26 and the description of 24&26 as “thermoexpandable seal” (Abstract) shows that the compensating body (24&26) inherently or obviously has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than the molding tool. The Provost top mold (Fig. 3, item 12B) meets the claimed closure device shaped to correspond to the molding tool (Fig. 3, item 12A) since it closes the molding tool to form a closed mold (as shown in Fig. 3) which is capable of enclosing a ply of fiber material (Fig. 3, item 10) and the compensating body (Fig. 3, item 24&26). The closed mold has a conduit capable of receiving resin (Fig. 4, item 14).
Although Provost teaches heating (Abstract, “heating the mould”), Provost does not specifically teach a heating device.
Tsuji teaches a resin transfer molding process performed with metal molds and a heating device ([0051]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Tsuji heating device into Provost because Provost specifically teaches/suggests heating a mould (Abstract) and Tsuji provides a heating device within the scope of the Provost teaching/suggestion capable of heating a mold.
As to claim 3, Provost teaches that the compensating body is shaped like a strip (see Fig. 2B, item S1). As to claim 5, Provost is silent to aluminum. However, Tsuji teaches a mold for a similar purpose made from aluminum ([0068]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to use the aluminum mold material of Tsuji as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the unknown material already used by Provost.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost (WO 2018011528, with citations from US 20190299493 as an English language equivalent) in view of Tsuji (US 20110272853), and further in view of James (US 5,204,042).
As to claims 2 and 6, Provost appears to be silent to a flexible compensating body comprised of PTFE or rubber.
However, James teaches an expansion member (42) formed from rubber (claim 2) which is flexible (10:47-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to use the James material in Provost as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the material already used by Provost. One could have substituted the James rubber for the Provost (unknown) material and the results would have been predictable since James provides the effect (expansion) required by Provost (thermos-expandable seal). Alternatively, Provost teaches/suggests a thermoexpandable seal (Abstract) and James provides an expandable rubber material within the scope of the Provost teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both materials are provided for expanding in a mold.
As to claim 4, as detailed above in the rejection of claim 2 and 6, it would have been obvious to use a rubber material in the Provost compensating body, and rubber would inherently or obviously had a coefficient of thermal expansion within the claimed range.
While Provost does not specifically teach the mold coefficient of thermal expansion, Tsuji teaches a mold for a similar purpose made from aluminum ([0068]) that would have met the claimed maximum thermal expansion. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to use the aluminum mold material of Tsuji as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the unknown material already used by Provost.
When the James rubber is used as the thermoexpandable seal in Provost and the Tsuji aluminum is used as the mold material in Provost, all claim limitations are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights