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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10, 13 and 14 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for trimming and removing scrap, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 13, 2025.
Additionally, claims 6, 7, 21 and 23 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Provisional election was made without traverse via telephone interview held on July 11, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 15 and 17-20, 22 and 24-30 are 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.
Claim 1, lines 7-9 recite, “wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part.” While ultrasonic parting horn (304) is spaced from the trimmed part (1012) so as to not directly contact trimmed part (1012), and there appears to be minimal contact between ultrasonic parting horn (304) and scrap (1010, i.e., as shown in fig. 10), if scrap (1010) is deflected by ultrasonic parting horn (304), would there be internal or shearing forces transmitted through the scrap into the uncured composite structure as the ultrasonic knife moves through the uncured composite? As such, it is unclear what can or cannot be included with in the scope of “the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part.” Claim 15, lines 8-10 recite, “wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part.” While ultrasonic parting horn (304) is spaced from the trimmed part (1012) so as to not directly contact trimmed part (1012), and there appears to be minimal contact between ultrasonic parting horn (304) and scrap (1010, i.e., as shown in fig. 10), if scrap (1010) is deflected by ultrasonic parting horn (304), would there be internal or shearing forces transmitted through the scrap into the uncured composite structure as the ultrasonic knife moves through the uncured composite? As such, it is unclear what can or cannot be included with in the scope of “the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part.”
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.
As best understood, claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 15, 18-20, 22, 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ahn et al (US Publication 2020/0376783), herein referred to as Ahn, in view of Floreancig et al (US Patent 4,879,933), herein referred to as Floreancig, Harrop (US Patent 6,530,768), Blanchette et al (US Publication 2020/0164539), herein referred to as Blanchette, Skoglund et al (US Publication 2018/0125090), herein referred to as Skoglund, and Miyaji et al (US Patent 4,592261), herein referred to as Miyaji, and further in view of Hinckley (US Patent 5,159,865). Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a trimming and scrap removal system for composite structures comprising: an ultrasonic knife (220; para. 0040) connected to a robotic arm (106); the ultrasonic knife configured to trim an uncured composite structure along a path (para. 0059) to form a trimmed part and scrap. • Ahn fails to disclose the system includes a parting horn connected to the robotic arm, the parting horn configured to separate scrap from the uncured composite structure, wherein a position of the parting horn relative to the ultrasonic knife is adjustable, and wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part; and a web support connected to the robotic arm, the web support providing a firm, planar surface to support the uncured composite structure, wherein a position of the web support relative to both the ultrasonic knife and the parting horn is adjustable. However, the following references provide teaching pertinent to this limitation: A. Floreancig discloses a trimming and scrap removal system for composite structures (e.g., layered glass and plastic) comprising: a knife (10) connected to a robotic arm (col. 2, lines ~28-33); the knife [capable of trimming] capable of trimming an uncured composite structure along a path (i.e., plastic along an outer edge of the glass); a parting horn (11, 16) connected to the robotic arm (via arms 12, 17, respectively), the parting horn configured to separate scrap from the uncured composite structure (col. 5, lines ~33-37), wherein a position of the parting horn relative to the knife is adjustable (col. 4, lines 39-50); and a web support (42) connected to the robotic arm (via arm 12), wherein a position of the web support (42) relative to both the ultrasonic knife (10) and the ultrasonic parting horn (16) is adjustable (col. 4, lines 39-50). B. Harrop teaches it is known in the art of ultrasonic cutting systems with an ultrasonic knife (15) to include a web support (18) configured to support the workpiece (16) relative to the ultrasonic knife (15). C. Blanchette et al (US Publication 2020/0164539) teaches it is known in the art of robotically operating cutting devices for notching a workpiece to provide a notching head (10) which represents a workpiece support that can be coupled to a multi-axis positioning device (i.e., robot arm 30) that allows for movement of notching head (10) relative to the workpiece (para. 0020). D. Skoglund et al (US Publication 2018/0125090) teaches it is known in the art of cutting systems for a soft material (e.g., extruded ice cream) to include a work support (14) providing a firm, planar surface to support the work (para. 0055). E. Miyaji teaches it is known in the art of cutting devices for trimming scrap from a workpiece (i.e., the trimmed part) to include a parting horn (16) arranged at an angle (α) with respect to the cutting blade so as to be spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Ahn with the teaching of Floreancig, Harrop, Blanchette, Skoglund and Miyaji such that the system includes a parting horn connected to the robotic arm, the parting horn configured to separate scrap from the uncured composite structure, wherein a position of the parting horn relative to the ultrasonic knife is adjustable and wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part; and a web support connected to the robotic arm, the web support providing a firm, planar surface to support the uncured composite structure, wherein a position of the web support relative to both the ultrasonic knife and the parting horn is adjustable in order to allow composite material to be supported in the vicinity of the ultrasonic knife during the trimming process performed by the ultrasonic knife and to allow the scrap to be supported after the scrap has been trimmed from removed from the uncured composite material and appropriately guided away from the uncured composite material. • The modified system of Ahn substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the parting horn is ultrasonic. However, Hinckley teaches it is known in the art of trimming and separation systems for composite materials (i.e., for separating bonded assemblies) to provide a parting horn (9) that is subjected to vibrations by a vibrating source (10). While Hinckley does not specifically teach vibrating source (10) is an ultrasonic transducer, the teaching of Hinckley suggests it is known in the art to vibrate the parting horn so help facilitate movement of the parting horn through the materials being separated. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Ahn substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Hinckley such that the parting horn is ultrasonic since Ahn already discloses ultrasonic vibrations are utilized for the cutting knife and lower frequency vibrations (e.g., from a rivet gun) would likely cause undue stress and deformation in the composite materials. Thus, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. Regarding claims 3 and 18, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes a leading edge of the ultrasonic parting horn is parallel with a trailing edge of the ultrasonic knife (as taught by as Hinckley, fig. 3). Regarding claims 4 and 19, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes a surface of the ultrasonic parting horn contacts the scrap (as taught by Hinckley) and the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the uncured composite structure (as taught by Floreancig). Regarding claims 5 and 20, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes the surface of the ultrasonic parting horn is oriented at an angle relative to the path of the ultrasonic knife (as taught by Hinckley). The modified system of Ahn substantially disclosed above fail to specifically disclose the angle of the surface of the ultrasonic parting horn with respect to the path of the ultrasonic knife at a 1 to 5 rise-over-run ratio. However, Miyaji states in col. 3, lines 8-15, “side plate 16 is mounted on the unitary structure including the fixed frame 2 and the upper cover 14 and arranged near the rear edge 9b of the endless band cutter 9 and having a side surface thereof forming an obtuse angle alpha (α) with the rear face 9a of the endless band cutter 9 for the purpose of preventing the cut off end portion B" of the interlayer B from getting on the surface of the plate glass A.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Ahn substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Miyaji such that the angle of the surface of the ultrasonic parting horn with respect to the path of the ultrasonic knife at a 1 to 5 rise-over-run ratio because it would be obvious to try any reasonable angular orientation between the surface of the ultrasonic parting horn and the path of the ultrasonic knife in order to achieve the desired separation of the scrap from the composite material. Regarding claims 8 and 24, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn disclosed above includes the web support comprises guide wheels (Harrop, annotated fig. 2) in contact with a conveyor belt track (Harrop, 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 26, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes a position of the conveyor belt track is dynamically adjustable in response to curvature along a length of the uncured composite structure (as taught by Floreancig, col. 4, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 15, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection for claim 1 includes a composite manufacturing system comprising: a robotic arm (106); and a trimming and scrap removal system for composite structures comprising: an ultrasonic knife (220, 300) connected to the robotic arm (Ahn, fig. 3); the ultrasonic knife configured to trim an uncured composite structure along a path (Ahn, para. 0059) to form a trimmed part and scrap; and an ultrasonic parting horn (as taught by Floreancig and Hinckley) connected to the robotic arm, the parting horn configured to separate the scrap from the trimmed part (Id.), wherein a position of the parting horn relative to the ultrasonic knife is adjustable (as taught by Floreancig, col. 4, lines 39-50) and wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is spaced from the trimmed part such that the ultrasonic parting horn imparts zero forces on the trimmed part (as taught by Miyaji).
Regarding claim 16, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection for claim 1 the parting horn is an ultrasonic parting horn (as suggested by Hinckley).
Regarding claim 22, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection for claim 1 includes the trimming and scrap removal system further comprises a web support (as taught by Floreancig and Harrop) connected to the robotic arm, wherein a position of the web support relative to both the ultrasonic knife and the parting horn is adjustable (as taught by Floreancig). Regarding claim 25, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejection for claim 1 includes a position of the web support is adjustable relative to the ultrasonic knife and the parting horn (as taught by Floreancig).
Regarding claim 27, the modified composite manufacturing system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes a controller (Ahn, 228); and a vision system (Ahn, 230); wherein the vision system provides visual feedback as the trimming and scrap removal system follows the path along the uncured composite structure and wherein the controller, based on the visual feedback received from the vision system, adjusts parameters for the trimming and scrap removal system (Ahn, para. 0051). Regarding claim 28, the modified composite manufacturing system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes wherein the ultrasonic knife, the ultrasonic parting horn, and the web support move together along the path relative to the incurred composite structure (as taught by Floreancig. Regarding claim 29, the modified composite manufacturing system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes wherein the ultrasonic parting horn is wedge shaped (as suggested by Hinckley) and comprises a surface oriented at an angle relative to the path for contacting the scrap (as taught by Miyaji); and a planar surface opposite the surface, the planar surface spaced from the trimmed part and parallel with the path (Miyaji, fig. 1). Regarding claim 30, the modified composite manufacturing system of Ahn substantially disclosed above includes the ultrasonic knife and the ultrasonic parting horn do not touch as the uncured composite structure is trimmed (as taught and suggested by Hinckley).
As best understood, claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US Publication 2020/0376783), Floreancig (US Patent 4,879,933), Harrop (US Patent 6,530,768), Blanchette (US Publication 2020/0164539), Skoglund (US Publication 2018/0125090), Miyaji (US Patent 4,592261) and Hinckley (US Patent 5,159,865) in further view of Murasaki et al (US Patent 4,979,411), herein referred to as Murasaki, and Collins (US Patent 3,494,396).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above describes the knife (Ahn, 220) as being an ultrasonic knife (para. 0040). • The modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose wherein the ultrasonic knife comprises a first vibration generator. However, Murasaki teaches it is known in the art of trim and scrap removal systems (fig. 1) with an ultrasonic knife (11) to include an ultrasonic transducer (9). Additionally, Harrop teaches it is known in the art of ultrasonic cutting systems to drive the ultrasonic cutting knife (15) with a block horn (11). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Murasaki and Harrop such that the ultrasonic knife includes an ultrasonic transducer in order to provide the necessary features that are essential for performing the functions disclosed by Ahn. • The modified trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the ultrasonic parting horn comprises a second vibration generator.
Collins teaches it is known in the art of cutting systems to provide a main cutting blade (170) with a reciprocating driving means (166, 173; as per the description of fig. 1, a similar reciprocating driving means 40 is a hydraulic reciprocating mechanism) and at least one secondary cutting blade (137, 138, 139, 152, 153, 154) configured to form a groove in the workpiece (176) prior to final cutting is performed by main cutting blade (170). While the secondary cutting blade precedes main cutting blade (170), second cutting blade (137-139, 152-154) are driven in a similar manner to help separate the two portions of the workpiece that are to be cut by main cutting blade (170). The teaching of Collins suggested that multiple cutting and parting elements can be driven to reciprocate or vibrate independently of one another for the purposes of cutting through a workpiece. Additionally, Collins discloses another embodiment (i.e., figs. 7 and 8) in which Collins teaches it is known in the art of cutting systems to use ultrasonic cutting means (183) to vibrationally reciprocate at least one cutting blade (194) to help cutting through a workpiece. The teaching of Collins suggests it is known that ultrasonic drive means are known in the art of cutting systems as suitable alternatives as reciprocating driving means of the cutting blade depending upon the operating parameters of the system. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the trimming and scrap removal system of Ahn substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Collins such that the ultrasonic parting horn comprises a second vibration generator in order to facilitate the appropriate vibrations for each of the ultrasonic knife and the ultrasonic parting horn separately as they are adjustable with respect to one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gerber (DE 3437908) discloses an ultrasonic cutting knife with work support foot that moves the knife.
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 SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 March 5, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724