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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: polyimide is not taught to comprise of an adhesive (see claim 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaka (JP 2023-170330 or US 2023/0373169) in view of McKinley et al. (US 3,444,732)
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 8-9, Terasaka teaches a method of forming an assembly, the method comprising:
assembling an epoxy intermediate assembly that is hollow and has a core (101) covered with a first bag material installed inside the intermediate assembly (paragraph 0039);
installing the intermediate assembly in a mold;
covering the mold, in which the intermediate assembly is installed together with the core covered with the first bag material (102), with a second bag material (104) (Figure 2);
heating the intermediate assembly after an air pressure outside the first bag material and inside the second bag material is made lower than an air pressure outside the second bag material and an air pressure inside the first bag material (abstract); and
demolding the assembly by removing the second bag material from the mold after the heating, and thereafter removing the core together with the first bag material from inside the assembly formed by heating the intermediate assembly, wherein the core is heat-shrinkable (paragraphs 0030 and 0040; Figure 1).
With respect to shrinking of the core at a temperature lower than or equal to a curing temperature of a resin or an adhesive included in the intermediate assembly, it would have been the result of routine experimentation by a person having ordinary skill in the art because McKinley et al. teach that these are known parameters affecting adhesive strength in heat fusion bonding operations (column 1, line 61 - column 2, line 2).
With respect to claim 2, Terasaka teaches that the first bag material covers the core in a wrinkled state (paragraph 0032).
With respect to claim 3, Terasaka teaches assembling that includes pressing the intermediate assembly against the core installed inside the intermediate assembly (paragraph 0038).
With respect to claim 4, Terasaka teaches heating the intermediate assembly with the air pressure inside the first bag material made higher than the air pressure outside the second bag material (paragraphs 0038-0039).
With respect to claim 6, Terasaka teaches that the core shrinks during the heating of the intermediate assembly (paragraph 0040).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaka in view of McKinley et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimuzu et al. (US 2003/0084748)
The teachings of claim 1 above.
Although not taught by the cited prior art, Shimuzu et al. teach that it would have been obvious to use a foam resin as a core (paragraph 0026).
Claims 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaka in view of McKinley et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
The teachings of claim 1 above.
Although no adhesive comprises the intermediate assembly, the particular nature of an adhesive employed, its composition, and/or physical properties would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on considerations of cost, availability, bond strength, mode of application or environmental preference. Typically, selection of the proper adhesive may be achieved in the course of routine experimentation, by reference to standard technical literature (e.g., Adhesive Age trade magazine, Adhesive Handbook), or through consultation with industrial or specialty adhesive suppliers (e.g. Dupont, Dura, Loctite, Lord, etc.)
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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights