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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to add the new limitation of “arranged unidirectionally to each other” and “a locating indicia identify a known location on the backing material”.
Gautier teaches that strips are arranged unidirectionally to each other. See paragraph 0004, disclosing:
[0004] Prepregs are generally comprised of a plurality of unidirectional or woven prepreg tapes. In a unidirectional prepreg tape, filaments are aligned parallel to each other and embedded in a thermoset resin. In a woven prepreg tape, filaments are woven and embedded in a thermoset resin. Both types of prepreg tapes are commercially available, for example, under the under the trademark HexPly by Hexcel.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention that strips are arranged unidirectionally to each other as taught by Gautier in order to make use of prepreg tapes that are commercially available.
Vaniglia does not disclose a locating indicia identify a known location on the backing material (although Vaniglia does disclose marking, teaching in paragraph 0001 that “The invention relates to a 6-axis gantry composites lamination system having the ability to quickly change heads to lay composite contour tape layer grade tape or fiber towpreg, or to trim or ink mark composite material, or to perform other functions.” and in paragraph 0022 that “The head 14 can take several forms;…an ink jet marking head for ply placement checking and referencing,…”). Vaniglia comes very close to disclosing disclose a locating indicia identify a known location on the backing material, as it discloses that the machine includes an ink jet marking head for ply placement checking and referencing.
Additionally, Kuka Systems discloses using a locating indicia (location marks 18) identify a known location on the backing material. Kuka systems uses “a carrier tape ( 15 ), for storing a fiber blank ( 22 )”. Kuka Systems discloses that “The location marks ( 18 ) are used for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape ( 15 ) and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks ( 22 ) on the carrier tape ( 15 ).”. See the translation, disclosing:
The location marks ( 18 ) are used for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape ( 15 ) and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks ( 22 ) on the carrier tape ( 15 ). The position markings can also be used in the positioning of an FRP semi-finished product ( 17 ) in front of an application area ( 310 ) be used. Accordingly, the joining station ( 200 ) preferably one or more control devices ( 203 ), preferably in the form of a camera. Training and use of the control device ( 203 ) may be added to the above-described control device ( 105 ) be identical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized a locating indicia identify a known location on the sheet of composite material as suggested by Vaniglia and Kuka System to achieve both ply placement checking and referencing as in Vaniglia and for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks as in Kuka Systems.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “polyurethan”. It appears that this is misspelled and that “polyurethane” was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1).
As to claim 16, Vaniglia discloses a sheet of composite material comprising strips of composite material, the strips of material positioned in a net shape or near net shape pattern (see paragraph 0003, disclosing that “The fiber placement head allows wrinkle-free, near-net-shape lay-up of enclosed and deeply contoured structures and concave/convex surfaces.”) for forming a composite structure with a varying transverse cross-section (see paragraph 0003, disclosing “The fiber placement head is ideal for precision production of fuselage sections, outer mold line and inner mold line panels, cowls, ducts and nozzle cones for commercial, military and space vehicles, including parts that make use of lightweight honeycomb core materials.”).
Vaniglia does not disclose that the strips of composite material are adhered to a backing material, and does not disclose a locating indicia identify a known location on the backing material (although Vaniglia does disclose marking, teaching in paragraph 0001 that “The invention relates to a 6-axis gantry composites lamination system having the ability to quickly change heads to lay composite contour tape layer grade tape or fiber towpreg, or to trim or ink mark composite material, or to perform other functions.” and in paragraph 0022 that “The head 14 can take several forms;…an ink jet marking head for ply placement checking and referencing,…”).
However, Gautier discloses that the strips of composite material are adhered to a backing material. Gautier, in paragraph 0024, teaches that “Alternatively, the prepreg tape may be plotted on a backing sheet 3 disposed on the work surface 5 to facilitate easy removal of the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1 from work surface 5. In an exemplary embodiment, the backing sheet 3 is constructed of flexible silicone to allow the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1. However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.” Gautier also teaches that strips are arranged unidirectionally to each other. See paragraph 0004, disclosing:
[0004] Prepregs are generally comprised of a plurality of unidirectional or woven prepreg tapes. In a unidirectional prepreg tape, filaments are aligned parallel to each other and embedded in a thermoset resin. In a woven prepreg tape, filaments are woven and embedded in a thermoset resin. Both types of prepreg tapes are commercially available, for example, under the under the trademark HexPly by Hexcel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention that the strips of composite material are adhered to a backing material as taught by Gautier to facilitate easy removal of the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet from work surface. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention that strips are arranged unidirectionally to each other as taught by Gautier in order to make use of prepreg tapes that are commercially available.
As noted above, Vaniglia does not disclose a locating indicia identify a known location on the backing material (although Vaniglia does disclose marking, teaching in paragraph 0001 that “The invention relates to a 6-axis gantry composites lamination system having the ability to quickly change heads to lay composite contour tape layer grade tape or fiber towpreg, or to trim or ink mark composite material, or to perform other functions.” and in paragraph 0022 that “The head 14 can take several forms;…an ink jet marking head for ply placement checking and referencing,…”). Vaniglia comes very close to disclosing disclose a locating indicia identify a known location on the sheet of composite material, as it discloses that the machine includes an ink jet marking head for ply placement checking and referencing.
Additionally, Kuka Systems discloses using a locating indicia (location marks 18) identify a known location on the backing material. Kuka systems uses “a carrier tape ( 15 ), for storing a fiber blank ( 22 )”. Kuka Systems discloses that “The location marks ( 18 ) are used for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape ( 15 ) and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks ( 22 ) on the carrier tape ( 15 ).”. See the translation, disclosing:
The location marks ( 18 ) are used for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape ( 15 ) and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks ( 22 ) on the carrier tape ( 15 ). The position markings can also be used in the positioning of an FRP semi-finished product ( 17 ) in front of an application area ( 310 ) be used. Accordingly, the joining station ( 200 ) preferably one or more control devices ( 203 ), preferably in the form of a camera. Training and use of the control device ( 203 ) may be added to the above-described control device ( 105 ) be identical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized a locating indicia identify a known location on the sheet of composite material as suggested by Vaniglia and Kuka System to achieve both ply placement checking and referencing as in Vaniglia and for referencing in the production of cutouts, material weakenings or imprints on the carrier tape and in positioning and / or depositing one or more fiber blanks as in Kuka Systems.
Applicant’s claims are directed to a sheet of composite material. The actual structure of the sheet of composite material includes “strips of composite material adhered to a backing material”, the composite material having a “pattern for forming a composite structure with a varying transverse cross-section”. The limitation “net shape or near net shape” and “wherein the net shape or near net shape pattern of the strips of composite material define a first surface area and the composite structure has a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is larger than or equal to the second surface area and a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area is less than about 25% of the second area” can be interpreted as a statement of intended use, as what defines whether the sheet of composite material is a use of the composite material that may later be trimmed and removed as waste.
In any event, Vaniglia discloses a near net shape layup, which makes obvious “wherein the net shape or near net shape pattern of the strips of composite material define a first surface area and the composite structure has a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is larger than or equal to the second surface area and a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area is less than about 25% of the second area”. The limitation of “wherein the net shape or near net shape pattern of the strips of composite material define a first surface area and the composite structure has a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is larger than or equal to the second surface area and a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area is less than about 25% of the second area” is an example of modifying the result effective variable of reducing excess material waste. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention that “wherein the net shape or near net shape pattern of the strips of composite material define a first surface area and the composite structure has a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is larger than or equal to the second surface area and a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area is less than about 25% of the second area” as an example of reducing the excess material waste.
As to claim 18, Vaniglia does not disclose wherein the backing material has a uniform width.
However, Gautier makes obvious wherein the backing material has a uniform width. Paragraph 0024, teaches that “Alternatively, the prepreg tape may be plotted on a backing sheet 3 disposed on the work surface 5 to facilitate easy removal of the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1 from work surface 5. In an exemplary embodiment, the backing sheet 3 is constructed of flexible silicone to allow the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1. However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.” Paragraph 0033 discloses that “With reference to FIG. 7, the backing sheet 3 is removed before lowering the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1 into the mold 29. With the backing sheet 3 removed, the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1 is lowered into the mold 29 and the vacuum sheet 11 is decoupled from the flexible conveyor sheet 17 as illustrated in FIG. 8.” Additionally, Figure 7 suggests that the backing sheet 3 has an uniform width.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, official notice is taken that it is well known and conventional wherein at least one side of the backing material has been treated to modify bond characteristics between the composite material and the backing. Such modifications can include smoothening operations, corona discharge operations, and other modifications that enable easy release of the composite materials.
As to claim 36, Vaniglia discloses wherein the composite material comprises fibers that are fully or partially impregnated with resin (such as “epoxy”) and/or are binder infused. See paragraph 0004, disclosing:
[0004] A tape laying head deposits carbon/epoxy CTL grade tape at speeds up to 60 m/min (2400 inches per minute) using 75, 150 or 300 mm (3, 6 or 12 in) carbon/epoxy tape at any orientation and number of plies, ensuring consistent quality, part shape, thickness and strength.
Similarly, Gautier also discloses wherein the composite material comprises fibers that are fully or partially impregnated with resin and/or are binder infused. See paragraph 0024, disclosing “The prepeg tape comprises filaments encased in resin such as epoxy.”
As to claim 37, Vaniglia discloses wherein the composite material comprises fibers made of one or more selected from the group consisting of carbon, glass, and aramid that are impregnated with resin. See paragraph 0004, disclosing:
[0004] A tape laying head deposits carbon/epoxy CTL grade tape at speeds up to 60 m/min (2400 inches per minute) using 75, 150 or 300 mm (3, 6 or 12 in) carbon/epoxy tape at any orientation and number of plies, ensuring consistent quality, part shape, thickness and strength.
Similarly, Gautier also discloses wherein the composite material comprises fibers made of one or more selected from the group consisting of carbon, glass, and aramid that are impregnated with resin. See the abstract and paragraph 0003, disclosing:
Abstract
A method for maneuvering a flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet is disclosed. The flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet is positioned onto a work surface and a vacuum sheet is operatively coupled to the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet. The vacuum sheet is operatively coupled to a flexible conveyor sheet and the flexible conveyor sheet is positioned proximate to a mold such that the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet is in contact with the mold. The vacuum sheet is decoupled from the flexible conveyor sheet and the vacuum sheet is removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet after the debulking of the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet(s).
..
[0003] Various composites are known commercially for forming structures that must be strong yet lightweight. One such composite is a prepreg composite ("prepreg"). Prepregs are specially formulated resin matrix systems that are reinforced with filaments constructed of carbon, glass, aramid or the like. The filaments are embedded in a thermoset resin that cures at elevated temperature and pressure, undergoing a chemical reaction that transforms the prepreg into a solid structural material that is durable, temperature resistant, stiff, and lightweight.
Claim(s) 33 and 35 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Ellis (US 20200269521 A1).
As to claim 33, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material comprises a linear low-density polyethylene (PE) film having a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Ellis discloses wherein the backing material comprises a linear low-density polyethylene (PE) film having a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches (“a polyethylene, such as LDPE”; “30 to 70 microns thick”, 30 microns equals 0.001181 inches and 70 microns equals 0.002756 inches, which is fully within the claimed range). See especially paragraph 0006, disclosing:
[0006] Prepreg generally has at least some degree of surface tack, and therefore in order to prevent the prepreg from adhering to itself when cut strips of the prepreg are wound up, the strips may be provided with a backing sheet, also known as an interleaving material. The backing sheet may be formed from a polymeric material, or blends thereof, such as a polyolefin, and more particularly a polyethylene, such as LDPE or HDPE, and may be a monolayer or a multilayer polymeric sheet. Typically, the interleaving material is 30 to 70 microns thick. The interleaving material is generally supplied in rolls or spools, usually having a width 3 to 12 mm wider than the prepreg tape. The interleaving material is wound on the spool with the prepreg tape. The resulting combination of layered prepreg and interleaving material represents an intermediate step in the manufacturing process, and as such is referred to herein as an “intermediate material”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized a linear low-density polyethylene (PE) film having a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches as taught by Ellis in order to prevent the prepreg from adhering to itself.
As to claim 35, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material has a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Ellis discloses wherein the backing material comprises a linear low-density polyethylene (PE) film having a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches (“a polyethylene, such as LDPE”; “30 to 70 microns thick”, 30 microns equals 0.001181 inches and 70 microns equals 0.002756 inches, which is fully within the claimed range). See especially paragraph 0006, disclosing:
[0006] Prepreg generally has at least some degree of surface tack, and therefore in order to prevent the prepreg from adhering to itself when cut strips of the prepreg are wound up, the strips may be provided with a backing sheet, also known as an interleaving material. The backing sheet may be formed from a polymeric material, or blends thereof, such as a polyolefin, and more particularly a polyethylene, such as LDPE or HDPE, and may be a monolayer or a multilayer polymeric sheet. Typically, the interleaving material is 30 to 70 microns thick. The interleaving material is generally supplied in rolls or spools, usually having a width 3 to 12 mm wider than the prepreg tape. The interleaving material is wound on the spool with the prepreg tape. The resulting combination of layered prepreg and interleaving material represents an intermediate step in the manufacturing process, and as such is referred to herein as an “intermediate material”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the backing material has a thickness between 0.001 and 0.006 inches as taught by Ellis in order to utilize a polyethylene as in Gautier in order to prevent the prepreg from adhering to itself.
Claim(s) 34 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Amari (US 20170341315 A1).
As to claim 34, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Amari discloses and makes obvious wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons. Amari teaches that polyurethane is a known substitute for polyethylene as a backing material. See paragraph 0040, teaching:
[0040] By way of example, the backing tape may be a film of plastics material of the polyurethane or polyethylene type. The backing tape provides the spool of material with stability during handling and storage operations, and also ensures that unwinding takes place directly without the fibers blocking or tangling. During the deposition operation, the backing tape facilitates guiding and driving the tape of impregnated fibers as it travels through the deposition head by limiting any transfers of resin onto mechanical parts of the deposition head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons by utilizing polyurethane as the backing because Amari discloses that polyurethane is a known substitute for polyethylene as a backing material and would provide stability during handling and storage operations and ensures that that unwinding takes place directly without the fibers blocking or tangling.
Claim(s) 34 is is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Husemann (US 20120040180 A1).
As to claim 34, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Husemann discloses and makes obvious wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons. Husemann teaches that fluorinated hydrocarbons can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene such as LDPE. See paragraphs 0061, 0075-0076, teaching:
[0061] In addition (not shown) it is possible to provide a release film as well, which covers and protects the adhesive layer 2 before the PSA tape 1 is used. The release film is then removed before the adhesive layer 2 is used.
…
[0075] To protect the open (pressure-sensitive) adhesive it is preferably lined with one or more release films. As well as the release films it is also possible--albeit not very preferably--to use release papers, such as glassine, HDPE or LDPE release papers, for example, which in one embodiment have siliconization as a release layer.
[0076] It is preferred, however, to use a release film. In one very preferred embodiment the release film possesses siliconization, more particularly fluoro-siliconization, as a release means. Furthermore, the film release liner ought to possess an extremely smooth surface, and so no structuring of the PSA is performed by the release liner. This is preferably achieved through the use of antiblocking-agent-free PET films in combination of silicone systems, more particularly fluoro-silicone systems, coated from solution. Besides fluoro-silicone systems, consideration is also preferably given to coatings of fluorinated hydrocarbons on release films.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons by utilizing polyurethane as the backing because Husemann teaches that fluorinated hydrocarbons can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene such as LDPE and would covers and protects the adhesive layer before use.
Claim(s) 34 is is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Nohara (US 20210206929 A1).
As to claim 34, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Nohara discloses and makes obvious wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons. Nohara teaches that polyester can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene. See paragraph 0115-117, teaching:
[0115] It is preferable to attach a backing film (cover film) to the tape prepregs in order to prevent the tape prepregs from adhering to each other and to improve the releasability from the bobbin. The backing film may be attached before slitting, or may be attached after slitting.
[0116] Examples of the material of the backing film include polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, and the like.
[0117] The thickness of the backing film is preferably 10 to 80 μm. When the width of the backing film is the same as or wider than the width of the tape prepreg, the tape prepregs are reliably prevented from adhering to each other and the releasability from the bobbin is improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons by utilizing polyurethane as the backing because Nohara teaches that polyester can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene and in order to prevent the tape prepregs from adhering to each other and to improve the releasability.
Claim(s) 34 is is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Wong (US 5660901 A)
As to claim 34, although Gautier as incorporated into Vaniglia discloses a polyethylene backing material, Gautier does not disclose wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons.
As noted, Gautier discloses the use of polyethylene sheets. Gautier teaches in paragraph 0024 that “However, other materials such as polyethylene may also be used, so long as the material permits the backing sheet 3 to be easily removed from the flexible pre-impregnated composite sheet 1.”
However, Wong discloses and makes obvious wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons. Wong teaches that polyester and nylon can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene. See column 33, lines 41-58, teaching:
FIG. 8 illustrates the coating impregnation of a web of staple fibers that have been carded or garnetted in the type of patterns shown in FIG. 9. The web taken from a carder or garnetter or from a card crosslapper, with the fibers configured as shown in FIG. 9, is rolled up into beam 161 and off loaded as layer 162 and fed to coating impregnation system 160 through nip rolls 165 and 167. A supporting film 164, removed from roll 163, either a woven or nonwoven scrim and/or a release plastic film (e.g., polyethylene, polyester, nylon, polyacetate, polypropylene, and the like), is fed to system 160, through nip rolls 165 and 167, into supporting contact with layer 162. The combination of film 164 and layer 162, is passed under contacted by coating rollers 171 while being supported by rollers 173, to form composite layer 176. It is passed over guide roller 177 and collected on roll 179. Coating rollers 171 are associated with supply coating rollers 169, which are fed the in situ-expandable layer for transfer to and impregnation of layer 162.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein the backing material is made of one selected from the group consisting of polyurethan, polyester, nylon and fluorinated hydrocarbons by utilizing polyurethane as the backing because Wong teaches that nylon and polyester can be used for release films in adhesive applications as a substitute for polyethylene and in order to enable release from the adhesive materials.
Claim(s) 38-39 is is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Encinosa (US 20160368226 A1).
As to claim 38, Vaniglia does not disclose the full limitation of wherein the unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material abut one another.
However, Gautier as incorporated discloses unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material. (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “Prepregs are generally comprised of a plurality of unidirectional or woven prepreg tapes. In a unidirectional prepreg tape, filaments are aligned parallel to each other and embedded in a thermoset resin.”).
Encinosa discloses wherein the arranged strips of the composite material abut one another (i.e., are placed end-to-end). See paragraph 0034, disclosing:
[0033] This motion of forming machine 50 may permit ply segments 92 to be located and/or placed end-to-end along a length of elongate ply forming surface 34 to generate, create, and/or define a given ply 90, or layer 90, of uncured composite structure 810. Additionally or alternatively, ply segments 92 may be located and/or placed in an overlapping, stacked, or layered, fashion on elongate ply forming surface 34 to generate, create, and/or define a plurality of different, or layered, plies 90 of uncured composite structure 810.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full limitation of wherein the unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material abut one another by placing the segments in an end-to-end manner as taught in Encinosa in order to achieve a desired structural arrangement of composite material.
As to claim 39, Vaniglia does not disclose the full limitation of wherein the unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material overlap at edges thereof.
However, Gautier as incorporated discloses unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material. (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “Prepregs are generally comprised of a plurality of unidirectional or woven prepreg tapes. In a unidirectional prepreg tape, filaments are aligned parallel to each other and embedded in a thermoset resin.”).
Encinosa discloses wherein the arranged strips of the composite material overlap at edges thereof (i.e., are placed in an overlapping manner). See paragraph 0034, disclosing:
[0033] This motion of forming machine 50 may permit ply segments 92 to be located and/or placed end-to-end along a length of elongate ply forming surface 34 to generate, create, and/or define a given ply 90, or layer 90, of uncured composite structure 810. Additionally or alternatively, ply segments 92 may be located and/or placed in an overlapping, stacked, or layered, fashion on elongate ply forming surface 34 to generate, create, and/or define a plurality of different, or layered, plies 90 of uncured composite structure 810.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized the full limitation of wherein the unidirectionally arranged strips of the composite material overlap at edges thereof by placing the segments in an overlapping manner as taught by Encinosa in order to achieve a desired structural arrangement of composite material.
Claim(s) 40-41 is is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaniglia (US 20140202640 A1) in view of Gautier (US 20140265058 A1) and Kuka Systems (DE 202014100339 U1) as applied to claims 16, 18, 19, 36 and 37 above, and further in view of Tsotsis (US 20130032292 A1).
As to claim 40, Vaniglia does not disclose comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with a different orientation from the strips of the composite material.
However, Tsotsis discloses comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with a different orientation from the strips of the composite material (such as layers at a 45 or 90 degree angle). See paragraph 0092, disclosing:
[0092] Thereafter, a layer may be built from the composite tape (operation 1104). This layer forms one layer for a fabric. The layer in the fabric also may be referred to as a ply. The layer may be laid down at a selected orientation. This orientation may be different from other layers that may be used to form the fabric. For example, one layer may be placed at a zero degree angle, while another layer is placed at a 45 degree angle. Yet another layer may be placed at a 90 degree angle, and another layer may be placed at a minus 45 degree angle. These angles may be with respect to a selected reference. The reference may be with respect to the surface on which the fibers are being placed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with a different orientation from the strips of the composite material such as the layers at 45 or 90 degree angles of Tsotsis in order to achieve a desired layup build.
As to claim 41, Vaniglia does not disclose further comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with the same orientation as the strips of the composite material.
However, Tsotsis discloses comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with the same orientation as the strips of the composite material (such as layers at a zero degree angle). See paragraph 0092, disclosing:
[0092] Thereafter, a layer may be built from the composite tape (operation 1104). This layer forms one layer for a fabric. The layer in the fabric also may be referred to as a ply. The layer may be laid down at a selected orientation. This orientation may be different from other layers that may be used to form the fabric. For example, one layer may be placed at a zero degree angle, while another layer is placed at a 45 degree angle. Yet another layer may be placed at a 90 degree angle, and another layer may be placed at a minus 45 degree angle. These angles may be with respect to a selected reference. The reference may be with respect to the surface on which the fibers are being placed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized comprising an additional layer of strips of composite material laminated on the strips of composite material, wherein the strips of the composite material of the additional layer are unidirectionally arranged to each other with the same orientation as the strips of the composite material such as the layers at zero degree angles of Tsotsis in order to achieve a desired layup build.
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 GEORGE R KOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5807. The examiner can also be reached by E-mail at george.koch@uspto.gov if the applicant grants written authorization for e-mails. Authorization can be granted by filling out the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, PHILIP C TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
GRK
Prosecution Insights