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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 08/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 4, 6-7, 21-22, 28-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a portion of the substrate” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited portion of the substrate or introduces a new and different portion of the substrate. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the [[a]] portion of the substrate.” Claims 21-22 and 33 are indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the altered areas” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the altered portion of the substrate.”
Regarding claims 7, 29, and 31-32, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. The term “blade” is generally understood in the art to be a component which cuts or severs an object. When sonotrodes function as blades in the prior art, such sonotrodes cut a substrate while simultaneously melting and/or welding edges of the substrate which are separated by such cutting. In the instant application, there is no discussion of any cutting or severing operation which is performed by the sonotrode. On the contrary, it appears that the continuous operation of the system requires that the substrate remain intact as it is altered in the nips between the various devices, as shown in Fig. 1. There term “blade” is indefinite because it is used in a manner inconsistent with its accepted meaning, and the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, the term “blade sonotrode” has been interpreted as referring to the shape of the sonotrode rather than its function. Therefore any sonotrode which has a tapered tip similar to the sonotrodes shown in the Figures of the instant application will be considered to be a “blade sonotrode” as claimed.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the altered areas” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the altered portion of the substrate.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the altered substrate” in line 1. This limitation is ambiguous as to whether or not the recited features result from the altering method and are part of the altered portion of the substrate. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. For clarity and consistency with the rest of the disclosure, the claim has been construed as reciting “the altered portion of the substrate.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 23-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 2010/0180407) in view of Frohlich (US 3,730,817).
Rocha teaches a method of forming projections (19) on a substrate (11), the method comprising: providing a molding roll (15) comprising a radial outer surface, rotating the molding roll, providing a first vibrating source (13) positioned adjacent to the molding roll such that a working surface of the first vibrating source and radial outer surface together form a first nip in which the projections are produced on the substrate (See Figs. 1 and 9; [0049]-[0053]; [0076]). The molding roll (15) reads on the instantly claimed first device comprising a radially outer surface. The first vibrating source (13) reads on the instantly claimed second device comprising a source of vibration energy, the second device having a working surface positioned proximate to a first portion of the radial outer surface, the second device having a first central longitudinal axis, the working surface being generally planar in a direction generally perpendicular to the first central longitudinal axis. In the embodiment shown in Fig. 9 of Rocha, a second vibrating source is present downstream of the first vibrating source. In such an embodiment, the second vibrating source reads on the instantly claimed third device comprising a source of vibration energy and forms a second nip with the radial outer surface such that the substrate is processed within the first and second nips as claimed.
The third device taught by Rocha (i.e. the second vibrating source in Fig. 9) has a working surface which is generally planar in a direction perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis of the third device, whereas the instantly claimed third device has a working surface which is generally planar in a direction which is not perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis of the third device.
Frohlich teaches a method for thermally fixing thermoplastic coupling elements, the method comprising: providing a transport wheel (2) having a radially outer surface, rotating the transport wheel (arrow B), providing a plurality of sonotrode devices (7a-7c), wherein a central sonotrode device (7b) has a planar working surface which is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the central sonotrode and forms a first nip with the radially outer surface, and wherein a downstream sonotrode device (7c) has a planar working surface which is oblique to a longitudinal axis of the downstream sonotrode and forms a second nip with the radially outer surface (See Figs. 1-2; col. 6, lines 12-64). The transport wheel (2) and central sonotrode device (7b) correspond to the instantly claimed first device and second device, respectively. The downstream sonotrode (7c) corresponds to the instantly claimed third device and has the same working surface structure which is planar in a direction which is non-perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis of the third device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute a sonotrode having a non-perpendicular surface for the second vibrating source of Rocha. Both Frohlich and Rocha teach the use of multiple sonotrodes in contact with a roller surface, as detailed above. Since both perpendicular working surfaces (as taught by Rocha) and non-perpendicular working surfaces (as taught by Frohlich) were both recognized in the prior art as being suitable for the same purpose, the substitution of one known element for the other would have been obvious.
Regarding the limitation “wherein a downstream end of the first working surface is positioned within about 3mm or less in a machine direction of an upstream end of the second working surface,” Fig. 9 of Rocha shows the vibrating sources (13) immediately adjacent to one another, however the reference does not expressly quantify the distance between them. The selection of such a distance is a routine matter of design choice which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily determine an appropriate spacing between the vibrating sources such that they are as close as possible to form a single working area along the radial outer surface without contacting or otherwise interfering with one another.
Regarding claim 2, Rocha states “two or more sources of vibration, either stationary or rotary in nature, may be used simultaneously” (See [0076]) and therefore clearly contemplates at least a third vibrating source in addition to the two sources shown in Fig. 9. Regarding the placement of such a third vibrating source and the relationship between its working surface and central axis, Frohlich teaches a third sonotrode device (7a) upstream of the central sonotrode device (7b) which satisfies the instantly claimed position as well as the instantly claimed relationship between the working surface and central axis (See Fig. 1 and its description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the third vibrating source contemplated by Rocha in the claimed position and having the claimed structure because Frohlich teaches that such positions and structures were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose. The same rationale detailed above with respect to the spacing of about 3mm or less also applies to any additional vibration sources.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, in the proposed combination, the third vibrating source would form a third nip with the radial outer surface of the molding roll such that the substrate would be processed in the third nip as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 27, Rocha states that the substrate may include laminates and composites (See [0049]). Such materials include multiple layers and/or materials as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 28, the molding roll of Rocha includes cavities (17) which produce projections (19) on the substrate (See Figures; [0051]).
Regarding claims 7, 29, and 31-32, Examiner is taking official notice that sonotrodes or ultrasonic horns with tapered tips are well-known and ubiquitous in the art such that the use of a sonotrode with such a shape as the vibrating sources of Rocha would have been immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 24-26, the combination of Rocha and Frohlich includes a fourth device which satisfies all of the limitations of claims 24-26, as detailed above with respect to claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 30, Rocha teaches projections (19) on the substrate (See Figures; [0051]).
Claims 4, 22, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 2010/0180407) in view of Frohlich (US 3,730,817), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller (DE 10102501 A1).
Rocha and Frohlich combine to teach a method of forming projections on a substrate, as detailed above. Rocha teaches that the substrate is a thermoplastic material which is processed to form the projections at a softening temperature which is below its melting temperature (See [0053]; [0055]).
Rocha and Frohlich do not expressly disclose pre-heating the substrate upstream of the vibrating sources with electromagnetic energy as claimed.
Mueller teaches a method of structuring a thermoplastic material (2), the method comprising: providing a roller (3), applying the thermoplastic material to the roller, and processing the thermoplastic material at a nip between an ultrasonic head (7) and the roller such that the thermoplastic material penetrates cavities on a radial outer surface of the roller and thereby creates a film (12) with protruding structures (11) thereon, wherein the thermoplastic material is preheated to a softening temperature upstream of the ultrasonic head using an infrared emitter (5) (See Figures; [0015]; [0025]). The infrared emitter of Mueller applies heat with electromagnetic energy as required in claim 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the preheating step taught by Mueller in the method taught by the combination of Rocha and Frohlich. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Mueller that to do so would predictably improve process reliability (See [0015]).
Regarding claim 33, Rocha states that the substrate may include laminates and composites (See [0049]). Such materials include multiple layers and/or materials as claimed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 2010/0180407) in view of Frohlich (US 3,730,817) and Mueller (DE 10102501 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mock (US 2019/0315110).
Rocha, Frohlich, and Mueller combine to teach a method of forming projections on a substrate wherein the substrate is preheated to its softening temperature using electromagnetic energy prior to processing with ultrasonic sources, as detailed above.
Rocha, Frohlich, and Mueller do not expressly disclose pre-heating with air as claimed.
Mock teaches a method in which a material is preheated prior to processing with a sonotrode, wherein the preheating step is performed by a preheating device (6) which may be a source of electromagnetic radiation, such as infrared radiation, or a source of hot air (See Figures; [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the preheating step of Mueller with hot air instead of infrared radiation because Mock teaches that both sources of heat were recognized in the prior art as being functionally equivalent for pre-heating an object (See [0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights