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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s filed specification does not adequately define the term “beyond”. Therefore, applicant does not show possession of any physical processes of modeling required to go past manufacturing data. The term therefore reads subjectively, and the examiner is unable determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Based on the above 112(a) rejection, the term “beyond” does not appear to be supported or defined by applicant’s filed specification. Therefore, examiner is unable to define what applicant objectively means by “beyond initial manufacturing data. How far beyond and beyond what manufacturing data? Clarification 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wit et al. (2001/0006264) in view of LI CHI (EP 0516397A2).
With respect to claim 1, Wit et al. teaches a start-up procedure (seen in the figure provided in Wit et al.) for a curing method (used by an autoclave seen in the provided figure) to be conducted in a mass production [0002-0003] of a fiber-reinforced composite component [0012] for curing said fiber-reinforced composite component (i.e. a fiber composite material; [0012]) wherein the curing method (as detail in the figure) is conducted in a curing apparatus (i.e. the autoclave; seen in the figure) including an autoclave (seen in the figure) and an autoclave control system (i.e. curing controls; seen in the figure) for controlling operation parameters of the autoclave (depicted in the figure) in accordance with a defined cure cycle with predetermined functions of autoclave operation parameters over time (as Wit et al. discloses in [0012] repeated curing cycles and measurements during the curing process), the start-up procedure comprising the steps: a) modelling an initial cure cycle dependent from designed dimensions and nominal mechanical properties of the fiber-reinforced composite component including defining an initial profile of a specific component parameter which depends from a curing state (as Wit et al. teaches in [0012] the separate test sample is separately cured under controlled or rated curing conditions. Such conditions are usually provided by the manufacturer of the matrix material in which the reinforcing fibers of the fiber composite material are embedded), b) placing a sample (i.e. test sample; seen in the figure) representative for the fiber-reinforced composite component [0012] within the autoclave (as seen in the figure), wherein the sample (i.e. test sample) has at least one sensor (s1-s3; seen in figure) impregnated (as read in the Abstract) therein for measuring an actual component parameter (i.e. characteristics like ion viscosity; Abstract), c) operating the autoclave (seen in the figure) in accordance with the initial cure cycle while monitoring the actual component parameter [0013], [0019] and [0022]) with the at least one sensor (s1-s3), d) measuring actual mechanical properties (ion viscosity) of the sample (i.e. test samples), e) updating the cure cycle (as the curing cycle is updated and repeated; [0012]), f) repeating steps [0012] b) to e) until the actual mechanical properties (related to ion viscosity and curing degree; [0012]) of the sample (i.e. test sample) are in accordance with the nominal mechanical properties (i.e. a predetermined curing degree; [0012]) to obtain the defined cure cycle (i.e. a subsequent curing cycle; [0013]) for operating the curing apparatus (seen in the figure) in the production of the component (i.e. fiber composite material).
Wit et al. remains silent regarding placing the sample within the autoclave which includes the mass-produced fiber-reinforced composite component.
LI CHI teaches a similar procedure that places a sample (14) within a chamber (12; which is used for material analysis relative to heat changes) as a component (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the procedure of Wit et al. such that the test sample and the mass-produced fiber-reinforced composite component of Wit et al. is within the same chamber of the autoclave, because LI CHI teaches such a modification provides a convenient method of in-situ cure monitoring for research, product development, or process modelling, thereby improving the convenience of Wit et al.
With respect to claim 2, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step a) comprises defining an initial profile (i.e. a profile for a test sample; [0012]) of a cure rate (i.e. a rated curing condition; [0012]) as the component parameter (as Wit et al. further discloses in [0013] [t]he test sample is then cured under controlled, predetermined curing conditions to provide rated or determined curing conditions for the fiber composite material).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Wit et al. teaches all that is claimed in above rejection of claim 2 and because claim 3 defines an alternative not elected by the examiner in claim 2, claim 3 does not further differentiate the defined invention over the prior art reference Wit et al.
With respect to claim 5, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step b) comprises using a sample (i.e. test sample) with sensors (s1-s3) for measuring a cure rate as the component parameter (i.e. rated curing condition of the test sample; [0012]).
With respect to claim 6, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step c) comprises controlling the autoclave (seen in the figure) in real time (i.e. real time; [0018] as Wit et al. teaches the gathered information is used in closed loop fashion in a real time control).
With respect to claim 7, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step d) comprises measuring the actual properties of the sample by non-destructive testing (using sensors s1-s3).
With respect to claim 8, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step e) comprises e1) update the cure cycle using data from the monitoring of step c) (as Wit et al. teaches the data collected by sensors s1-s3 are used for real time monitoring of the sample to update the curing profile in a close loop manner).
With respect to claim 9, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein step f) comprises a step of calibrating of a component cure cycle comprising: fl) placing an actual component (into the autoclave; as seen in the figure) to be cured together with a sample (i.e. test sample placed into the test autoclave; as seen in the figure) having the at least one sensor (s1-s3) impregnated to measure the actual component parameter (i.e. sensed parameters using s1-s3) which depends from the curing state (as controlled by CPU), f2) operating the autoclave (seen in the figure) in accordance with the updated cure cycle obtained in step e) (as Wit et al. teaches updating the cure cycle based on the collected data from the sensors s1-s3) and monitoring the actual component parameter with the at least one sensor (s1-s3) of the sample (i.e. test sample in the test autoclave, as Wit et al. teaches monitoring parameters using the sensors; [0014]) , f4) updating the cure cycle to obtain a calibrated component cure cycle to be used in further production of the component (as Wit et al. teaches in [0014]; [t]he pressure, temperature and time control of the actual curing of fiber composite materials is then performed in closed loop fashion in response to the gathered stored information while an operator can monitor the curing operation and make corrections manually if necessary).
With respect to claim 10, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure wherein the step of calibrating the component cure cycle further comprises: f3) measuring the actual mechanical properties of the at least one of the sample (via the sensors s1-s3), wherein f4) is conducted based on the data obtained in step f3) (as the figure shows how the sensors s1-s3 and their respective data is used to updated the curing cycle).
With respect to claim 11, Wit et al. teaches a method for curing a fiber-reinforced composite component (abstract) in a mass production of the component using a curing apparatus (see in the figure) including an autoclave (see the figure) and an autoclave control system (CPU) for controlling operation parameters of the autoclave (for example temperature, pressure and timing) in accordance with a defined cure cycle (in a closed loop manner; [0014]) with predetermined functions of autoclave operation parameters over time (as defined by controlling signals derived from the sensed data from sensors s1-s3), wherein the method comprises conducting the start-up procedure according to the rejected claim 1 (as seen above), and operating the autoclave (seen in the figure) in accordance with the cure cycle obtained thereby [0014].
With respect to claim 12, Wit et al. teaches the method further comprising: g1) placing an actual component (into the autoclave seen in the figure) to be cured together with a sample (i.e. test sample placed into the test autoclave which are placed into their respective autoclaves at the same time) having the at least one sensor (s1-s3) impregnated to measure the actual component parameter (as sensed by the sensors s1-s3) which depends from the curing state, g2) monitoring the actual component parameter with the at least one sensor (s1-s3) of the sample (i.e. the test sample) and operating the autoclave (seen in the figure) in accordance with the defined cure cycle (i.e. predetermined curing conditions that define the curing process; [0013]) and controlling the autoclave operation parameters (like temperature, pressure and timing) in real time (in a closed loop real time control; [0018]) in response to the defined cure cycle and in response to the monitoring (via the sensors s1-s3).
With respect to claim 13, Wit et al. teaches the method further comprising at least one of: g3) measuring the actual mechanical properties of the at least one of the sample (as the sensors s1-s3 are embedded into the sample and used to sense actual mechanical properties of the sample).
With respect to claim 14, Wit et al. teaches a curing system for conducting the steps of rejected claim 1 (as seen above), comprising a curing apparatus (seen in the figure) including an autoclave (Autoclave; seen in the figure) and an autoclave control system (CPU) for controlling operation parameters of the autoclave (via control signals) in accordance with a defined cure cycle (i.e. predetermined curing conditions that define the curing process; [0013]) and at least one sample (i.e. test sample) made of the same material as the component (as read in the Abstract) to be produced and having at least one sensor (s1-s3) impregnated therein for measuring a specific component parameter which depends from a curing state [0013].
With respect to claim 15, Wit et al. teaches a curing apparatus (as seen in the figure) including an autoclave (Autoclave; seen in the figure) and an autoclave control system (CPU) for controlling operation parameters (i.e. control signals) of the autoclave (seen in the figure) in accordance with a defined cure cycle (i.e. predetermined curing conditions that define the curing process; [0013]) wherein the autoclave control system (seen in the figure) is configured to carry out the steps of rejected claim 1 (seen above; note the modification removes the need for two different autoclaves by having both the sample and the component within one chamber).
With respect to claim 16, Wit et al. teaches the start-up procedure according o claim 1, wherein step a) includes modelling of the initial cure cycle beyond initial manufacturing data (note: based on the above 112 rejections, the examiner is unable to find the metes and bounds of the term “beyond” initial manufacturing data; therefore, insofar as how the subjective term “beyond” is defined, the Wit et al. teaches in [0012] "[s]uch conditions are usually provided by the manufacturer of the matrix material". This implies a pre-existing specification, datasheet, or recommended curing cycle (temperature/pressure profiles) established by the material supplier, thereby reading broadly beyond modeling, as data appears to be beyond initial manufacturing data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rose et al. (2012/0326347) which teaches a method and system for monitoring and controlling a curing system that cures a composite material.
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 MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights