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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17, 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-17, 19-20 are allowed, and claims 1-7 remain rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: engagement member in claims 8-13, 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The engagement member as claimed is being interpreted as described in [0065] of the instant application, i.e. a polymer, an airlay system setup member, a material that allows for a fastener to be engaged/grabbed on to.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (U.S Patent 9981411B2) and Komeno (WO2023127893A1 - see machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Green, drawn also to the art of a structural polymer composite (Abstract), discloses applying adhesive to a carrier (analogous to the lineal reinforcement) and fibers and then pressing and heating to bond the carrier and fibers to form a mat, which forms a stiffening layer upon heating and pressing. This stiffening layer is then transported through a cross-head die that deposits polymer and the component is then extruded to form a component that is enclosed in a polymer shell (Columns 2-3, lines 43-67 & 1-61; Figure 2). Green has disclosed fibers being applied and has also disclosed a binder being applied (i.e. surface additive) and has further disclosed multiple carriers being bonded to form stiffening layers which are then fed through a cross-head die to form polymer enclosed composites (Figures 2 & 3A-3H). Green discloses a fiber mat (i.e. interpreted as a geometric infill in this instance), that is surrounded by a carrier on all sides, because the fiber mat and carrier are pressed and heated such that the carrier and binder penetrate through the mat and then the stiffening layer formed can be shaped into a 3-D profile i.e. the fiber mat is covered by the carrier and binder in three-dimensional shape, which would mean the fiber mat (geometric infill) is covered by a lineal reinforcement (i.e. carrier) on all sides (first to fourth sides) (Abstract; Columns 2-3, lines 61-67, 1-6; Column 6, lines 1-17). Further, from figures 3a-3b, it can be seen that the stiffening layer (i.e. fiber mat with binder and adhesive and first and second carrier heated and pressed) is a 3D part and that it covers the fiber mat on all sides (see further Column 7, lines 45-60). Thus, Green discloses in totality, a process wherein a geometric infill is surrounded by carrier (lineal reinforcement) on all sides and then heated and pressed along with adhesive and a binder (interpreted as surface additive in this instance), and then passed through a cross-head die and extruded with a polymer layer to form a component which is encased in a polymer shell.
Regarding the limitation of the geometric infill being a pre-processed infill with a three-dimensional geometric pattern, while Green does not explicitly disclose such a geometric infill, it is known in the art to have a pre-processed geometric infill and to apply facing material and surface material (i.e. lineal reinforcements and polymer) to the pre-processed geometric infill, as disclosed below by Komeno.
Komeno, drawn also to the art of manufacturing a panel [0001-0002], discloses a pre-processed infill (base material 32) to which an adhesive (36 & 37) [0038 & 0040] is applied and further to which facing material (33) [0039] and surface material (34) [0040-0041] are applied such that all four sides of the base material are covered (see figures 1a-1c & 2). Komeno also specifically discloses that the base material (32) is a pre-processed material that has a three-dimensional shape [0034], and that because the base material is pre-processed or pre-made by molding, it can be shaped to the desired form in advance before the panel (32) is manufactured, resulting in excellent handling, and a shape-optimized product [0034].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Green, with the geometric infill being a pre-made/processed infill of a three-dimensional shape, as disclosed by Komeno, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to obtain a shape-optimized product that has excellent handling.
Regarding claim 2, Green has disclosed applying an adhesive along with a binder that is heat activated, as Green discloses applying an adhesive and binder and then heating and pressing with rollers (Column 3, lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 3, Green has disclosed unfolding a stack of geometric infill for applying an adhesive through rollers (see figure 1 #10, #14, and #40 in conjunction).
Regarding claim 4, Green has disclosed the fibers (geometric infill) being a paper material (Column 3, lines 23-26).
Regarding claims 5-6, Green has disclosed applying a binder to the geometric infill (fibers) as well as the carrier (lineal reinforcement), and thus has disclosed applying a surface additive to increase bonding (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claims 7, Green has disclosed a binder (surface additive) being applied to the geometric infill and as such a binder or surface additive can also be used with the polymeric shell of the component. Further, the surface additive as interpreted can be virtually anything and is very broad, when looking at the instant specification [0100].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17, 19-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the engagement member as claimed in claims 8 & 14. Claims 9-13 are dependent on claim 8, and claims 15-17, 19-20 are dependent on claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Green and Komeno.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-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, 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights