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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 7/7/2026. Claims 9 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues there is no indication a nonwoven fabric will provide at least some reinforcement to a thermoplastic. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits Applicant is taking an overly narrow interpretation of “reinforcement material,” which is vague terminology necessarily interpretated broadly. The Examiner notes “reinforcement material” is a broad term without any specific structural requirement, and virtually anything with a structural identity within the thermoplastic matrix is reasonably considered a reinforcement material. Fibrous material, including fibers in nonwoven, are standard and well-known in the prior art to provide added strength to matrix material to which they are incorporated, where the fiber direction provides a degree of strength that serves a reinforcement to the layer. The fibers themselves are thus reinforcement by providing internal strength within the nonwoven, thus making the nonwoven reasonably interpreted as a reinforcement material simply by way of having such fibers.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner submits a nonwoven may always be considered reinforcement material. If not, the limitation of the term become vague and impossible to determine. Any such nonwoven material possesses internal strength from the fibers and thus is a reinforcement material that forms a reinforcement structure as claimed when combined with thermoplastic. Such a broad interpretation is necessary to provide definiteness to such vague terminology. If Applicant desired to claim loose continuous fibers, random fiber, or specific materials such as carbon, etc., they are free to do so, but have chosen not to at this time. Further, a non-woven, which clearly is a fibrous material that has internal strength is certainly reasonably providing a degree of reinforcement in a thermoplastic matrix thus being a reinforcing material forming a reinforcement structure as claimed. The fact stronger materials providing better reinforcing characteristics in the same duct may exist does not prevent broad interpretation of the term “reinforcement material” because nothing in the claim indicates this material must be the strongest material with the most potent reinforcing characteristics in the duct and nothing in the claim provides it with specific properties, structure, or physical identity.
For Claim 2, Applicant again takes an overly narrow view of cooling. “Cooling” is broadly any process that reduces temperature and need not be associated with an active cooling device or process. If Applicant desires cooling to be associated with active cooling, they are free to claim it. The process of a molten material having its temperature drop to ambient and hardening is certainly considered cooling because cooling is nothing more than a drop in temperature.
Applicant argues there is no pressing as in claim 6, but JP10160231 explicitly teaches pressing after applying each layer including the fiber layer and thermoplastic film, i.e. reinforcement structure, applied over the foam layer (See pages 5-6, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 7-8, Applicant argues there is no seam and no spiral seam. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The foam is spirally wound, thus creating adjacent distinct portions in the foam “with end faces in contact” in the spiral, i.e. forming a spiral seam wherein the end faces in contact are a seam, and wherein the thermoplastic and nonwoven, i.e. reinforcement structure, completely covers the foam (and thus the seams thereof) by being wrapped with overlapping sections over the foam, and thus clearly covering the foam completely, including the seams (See page 11, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant argues even though the reference teaches the non-woven and film are wound completely over the foam, it is inappropriate to interpret them cover the foam because they may not cover the ends. Examiner submits the teaching of covering an underlying layer without specifying any of said layer is exposed at least renders obvious covering it fully. If Applicant has a reason why this full coverage destroys the intended operation in JP10160231, they should offer it. As of now, they have not. Interpreting covering without qualification as being fully covering is not speculation or merely conclusory, but the natural interpretation of a person having ordinary skill in the art. At the very least fully coverage is obvious because if it were not, the reference would presumably mention the disadvantage in doing so. It does not and thus full coverage is assumeed suitable.
Applicant agues there is no mechanical fixture. Again Applicant take a narrow and specific view of a broad general term. If s mold is not a mechanical fixture, then it is unclear what a mechanical fixture must be in order to satisfy the claim. Anything applying pressure causing mechanical fixing of a device to the duct for a time is a mechanical fixture, with the pressure being mechanical fixing on the duct. Thus, a mold is certainly a mechanical fixture as claimed and any pressure applied to the outer layer is “mechanical fixing,” which is broad general terminology. JP10160231 teaches pressure on the outer layer while to form the shape (See page 6, paragraph [0005]). Further, similarly ducts are known to have their final shape form by pressure in a mold (See Hoefle et al. page 6, paragraph [0075]). Thus, as argued in the prior rejections, using alternative pressure forming means, such as static pressure forming means such as molds, would have predictably been a suitable alternate method to form the final duct shape since such methods are well-known in the prior art.
For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH10160231 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, 2, 7, 8 and 17, JPH10160231 teaches a method of forming a reinforced duct (See page 2, paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and page 4, paragraph [0004], teaching an air duct, such as for air conditioning, that is reinforced), the method comprising:
heating a reinforcement structure, formed as a composite comprising a reinforcement material and a thermoplastic material, to melt the thermoplastic material; and applying the heated reinforcement structure to a foam duct comprising the same thermoplastic material as the reinforcement structure; wherein the thermoplastic material melted in the reinforcement structure bonds to the same thermoplastic material in the foam duct (See page 11, paragraph [0012], in forming the duct, a polyethylene, i.e. thermoplastic, foam, is spirally wound and fused into a foam duct, thus producing a spiral seam, and a polyethylene sheet, i.e. same thermoplastic, is applied to a fiber-based nonwoven fabric, which is reasonably considered a reinforcement material since it would provide at least some reinforcement in thermoplastic, and further any fibrous material provides some reinforcement in the nonwoven itself and thus is a reinforcement material; the PE sheet and nonwoven being pre-laminated into a reinforcement structure that is a composite of the polyethylene, i.e. same thermoplastic material, and the fabric reinforcement material, and then heating the polyethylene of the reinforcement structure with a torch to melt the polyethene of the reinforcement structure and winding the melted surface of the polyethylene onto the polyethylene foam, including the seams thereof, thus bonding the melted surface to the foam, which implicitly cools to form the reinforced duct; i.e. cooling).
Regarding Claim 6, after winding, JPH10160231 teaches applying pressure with a disc-shaped roller (See pages 5-6, paragraph [0005] and page 11, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 13, JPH10160231 teaches the reinforcement structure laminate is wrapped in a spiral with overlaps, suggest full coverage from end to end of the foam duct (See page 11, paragraph [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH10160231 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger et al. (US 2018/0195646), Hoefle et al. (US 2015/0217536), and/or Peltonen et al. (US WO95/07428).
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 15-16, JPH10160231 teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above. JPH10160231 teaches the exterior fiber layer, i.e. reinforcement material, is primarily for temperature regulation and fails to specifically teach a carbon fiber reinforced fiber layer and PVDF as the thermoplastic. However, it is well known PVDF is a high-performance polymer used as alternative to polyethylene in piping (See, for example, Berger et al., page 1, paragraph [0009], indicating PVDF is a known alternative to polyethylene in pipes for improved properties), wherein in air supply pipes used in air conditioning ducts, the same purpose as in JPH10160231, PVDF foam having exterior layers of reinforcement fibers, such as carbon fiber fabrics in plastic, is well-known (See, for example, Hoefle et al., page 1, paragraph [0010] and page 2, paragraph [0018], indicating PVDF foams having an exterior reinforcement layer of carbon fiber fabric in a plastic matrix is known for air conditioning duct such as are taught in JPH10160231, and note any pipe supplying gaseous fluid is reasonably a duct).
It is further known using thermosetting plastic matrix in the exterior reinforcing layer applied to a thermoplastic interior pipe often results in brittleness and inadequate lamination (See, for example, Peltonen et al., page 2, line 3-14), and that thermally fusing the exterior reinforcing layer using a thermoplastic plastic, preferably the same thermoplastic, can overcome the disadvantages of using thermosets (See Peltonen et al., page 4, lines 1-8 and page 5, lines 9-16). Further, when laminating reinforcing thermoplastics, including PVDFs, it is well-known to pre-heat the thermoplastic in the reinforcing structure to melting prior to laminating with a roller in a manner similar to exterior fiber layer in JPH10160231 (See, for example, Peltonen et al., page 8, lines 3-22, teaching fusion occurs by pre-heating the thermoplastic in the exterior layer to melting and then winding on the thermoplastic core, and pressing with a pressure roll; and/or Berger et al., page 3, paragraph [0029], page 4, paragraph [0045], and page 5, paragraphs [0052]-[0054], teaching a core, such as PVDF, when laminated with reinforcing layers, should have a PVDF reinforcing film pre-laminated to the reinforcing fibers, and then the PVDF film and reinforcement is wound on the core by melting the contact face of the PVDF in the reinforcing structure and pressing with a roller onto the PVDF core to form the reinforced pipe).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the laminating method of JPH10160231 to form other known air ducts structures, such as PVDF foam cores with exterior carbon fabric reinforcing layers, by utilizing a laminating pressure roller and PVDF as the laminating thermoplastic for the fiber fabric. Doing so would have predictably suitably formed known air conditioning air ducts, as desired therein, having exterior reinforcement with higher performance characteristic material than polyethylene while effecting advantageous fusion melt-bonding of the same thermoplastic to secure the reinforcing layer without the known disadvantages of using thermosets, such as brittleness and inadequate bonding.
Regarding Claims 9-10, JPH10160231 teaches a final pressure to form a desired shape (See page 11, paragraph [0012], teaches forming a desired shape with subsequent pressure from a disc), and Examiner submits mechanical reinforcement, such as molds or clamps, are standard in similar application to further shape and set the bonded duct as desired (See, for example, Hoefle et al., page 6, paragraph [0074], teaching the laminated duct in a closed mold, i.e. mechanical fixture, and then removed after shaping).
Regarding Claims 11-12, JPH10160231 does teach longitudinal and circumferential reinforcement, but 0 degree, i.e. longitudinal, and 180 degrees, i.e. circumferential, is well known for reinforcement for desired strength (See, for example, Peltonen et al., page 6, line 32 to page 7, line 6), and both such configuration are known together in air ducts (See, for example, Hoefle et al., page 5, paragraph [0064] and Fig. 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply longitudinal and circumferential reinforcement. Doing so is known to be suitable on foam PVDF ducts to achieve desired reinforcement.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH10160231, Berger et al., Hoefle et al., and/or Peltonen et al.as applied to Claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of JPH0711037 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 3, the references above render obvious PVDF foam for AC ducts, but are silent as to crosslinking. However, it is known crosslinked PVDF provides superior properties in the foam and specifically in AC ducts, such are described in the references above (See, for example, JPH0711037, page 2, paragraphs [0006]-[0007], and page 6, top of page). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize crosslinked PVDF for the foam. Doing so would have predictably provided super insulation for the AC duct such as in JPH10160231.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH10160231 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Frantz et al. (US 2008/0308674).
Regarding Claim 14, JPH10160231 teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above, and further implies the foam must be unrolled in order to apply it in a spiral (not unrolled does not require it have been previously rolled) and further indicates it is spiraled onto a mandrel, but doesn’t teach “rolling” to form the cylindrical foam duct. However, similar foam ducts are known to be formed on mandrels via rolling (See, for example, Frantz et al., page 6, paragraphs [0115]-[0116], wherein a PVDF foam is rolled onto a mandrel to form a cylindrical foam duct). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to roll the foam onto the mandrel because doing so is a known method of forming foam ducts as are desired.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH10160231 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JPH09174703 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation provided) and Peltonen et al.
Regarding Claims 18-20, JPH10160231 teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. JPH10160231 fails to teach applying solvent solutions as claimed. However, it is known applying thermoplastic solutions of the same material to such a surface having a defect can repair the defect (See, for example, JPH09174703, page 2, paragraph [0002], teaching this known method of thermoplastic repair, but teaching a variation for polyurethanes; also see, Peltonen et al., page 4, lines 15-26, teaching the fiber layer may be preimpregnated in the thermoplastic material fusion bonded to the pipe/duct, indicating the thermoplastic may be the upper layer). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person to apply a solution of the thermoplastic material and solvent to the foam before bonding to the reinforcement structure or the reinforcement structure after laminating. Doing so would have predictably been a method to repair defects in the foam, such as gaps in the seams, or in the of exterior of the final product where in the fiber layer is embedded in/impregnated by the thermoplastic.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights