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 Amendment
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-21 are pending. Claims 1, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 13-14 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 15 and 17-19 have been withdrawn.
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 21-22 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 21 recites, “wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, the cutting device, and the optical device are distributed on two sides of the radial braider.”
Claim 22 recites, “wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, the cutting device, and the optical device are distributed on a single side of the radial braider.”
It is unclear what constitutes a “side” in claims 20 and 21. Reference to [0015] in Applicant’s disclosure does not clarify matters. It is unclear if opposite radial positions or opposite axial positions are conveyed by “side” or if the claim is meant to include both as the respective side(s).
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) 1, 4-5, 7-9, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9).
Regarding claim 1, Moghe discloses a system for forming a braided preform (tubular braiding apparatus 20, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D), the system comprising: a mandrel having a rotational axis (core 12, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D), the mandrel being translatable along (axial movement, col. 17 ll. 13-28) and rotatable about the rotational axis (col. 15 ll. 46-50, Fig. 1D); a radial braider for winding fibers onto the mandrel to form a braided layer (deck 21 of braider 20 to form braided layer 14, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D); an applicator for applying a polymer binder to the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel (“Subsequent to formation of the thread-defining elements and non-thread-defining elements they may be polymer coated or impregnated prior to or upon application to or subsequent to application to the core in the form of a braided layer.”, col. 10, ll. 63-67; col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D); a debulking tool for debulking the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel (application of heat and pressure in an autoclave, col. 15 ll. 15-21, vacuum bag, col. 17 ll. 54-56), a cutting device for cutting fibers interconnecting the radial braider to the braided layer (implicit in having cut the braided structure, col. 16 ll. 15-25), wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, and the cutting device, are collocated to the radial braider such that each device is operable on the mandrel (components are positioned to perform their relative functions, col. 10, ll. 63-67; col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D; col. 15 ll. 15-21, col. 17 ll. 54-56; col. 16 ll. 15-25; Consistent with [0015] of Applicant’s disclosure, “collocation” means that the components are positioned to be able to perform the task.).
Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose an optical device for inspecting the braided layer, wherein the optical device is collocated to the radial braider such that the optical device is operable on the mandrel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of braiding composites (9.1, p. 306), Campbell teaches an optical device for inspecting the braided layer (“vision systems for in-process inspection,” p. 317), wherein the optical device is collocated to the radial braider such that the optical device is operable on the mandrel (optical device positioned to perform the function, p. 317; Consistent with [0015] of Applicant’s disclosure, “collocation” means that the components are positioned to be able to perform the task).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moghe to add a vision system because p. 317 of Campbell teaches that a vision system is state of the art for in-process inspection of producing a composite with braided fibers.
Regarding claim 4, Moghe as modified teaches wherein the radial braider comprises: a guide ring for guiding the fibers onto the mandrel (rings visible in Fig. 1E that guide carriers 23 to guide reinforcements 18 onto the mandrel).
Regarding claim 5, Moghe as modified teaches wherein the fibers are formed from silicon carbide (silicon carbide fibers from Dow Corning and Nippon Carbon Company of Japan, col. 19. ll. 11-18).
Regarding claim 7, Moghe as modified teaches wherein the applicator is a bath containing the polymer binder (col. 18 ll. 36-40).
Regarding claim 8, Moghe as modified teaches wherein the polymer binder comprises polyvinyl alcohol (col. 7 ll. 45-46).
Regarding claim 9, Moghe as modified teaches wherein the polymer binder further comprises: ceramic particles formed from at least one of silicon carbide, boron carbide, silicon nitride, pure silicon, pure carbon, aluminum oxide, and hafnia (carbon or ceramic matrices, col. 13 ll. 15-29).
Regarding claim 19, Moghe discloses a system for forming a braided preform (tubular braiding apparatus 20, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D), the system comprising: a mandrel having a rotational axis (core 12, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D), the mandrel being translatable along (axial movement, col. 17 ll. 13-28) and rotatable about the rotational axis (col. 15 ll. 46-50, Fig. 1D); a driven device for translating and rotating the mandrel (implicit as the mandrel is translatable axially, col. 17 ll. 13-28, and rotationally (col. 15 ll. 46-50); a radial braider for winding fibers onto the mandrel to form a braided layer (deck 21 of braider 20 to form braided layer 14, col. 9 ll. 59 to col. 10 ll. 25, Fig. 1D); an applicator for applying a polymer binder to the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel (“Subsequent to formation of the thread-defining elements and non-thread-defining elements they may be polymer coated or impregnated prior to or upon application to or subsequent to application to the core in the form of a braided layer.”, col. 10, ll. 63-67; col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D); a debulking tool for debulking the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel (application of heat and pressure in an autoclave, col. 15 ll. 15-21, vacuum bag, col. 17 ll. 54-56); a cutting device for cutting fibers interconnecting the radial braider to the braided layer (implicit in having cut the braided structure, col. 16 ll. 15-25), wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, and the cutting device, are collocated to the radial braider such that each device is operable on the mandrel (components are positioned to perform their relative functions, col. 10, ll. 63-67; col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D; col. 15 ll. 15-21, col. 17 ll. 54-56; col. 16 ll. 15-25; Consistent with [0015] of Applicant’s disclosure, “collocation” means that the components are positioned to be able to perform the task.).
Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose an optical device for inspecting the braided layer, wherein the optical device is collocated to the radial braider such that the optical device is operable on the mandrel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of braiding composites (9.1, p. 306), Campbell teaches an optical device for inspecting the braided layer (“vision systems for in-process inspection,” p. 317), wherein the optical device is collocated to the radial braider such that the optical device is operable on the mandrel (optical device positioned to perform the function, p. 317; Consistent with [0015] of Applicant’s disclosure, “collocation” means that the components are positioned to be able to perform the task).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moghe to add a vision system because p. 317 of Campbell teaches that a vision system is state of the art for in-process inspection of producing a composite with braided fibers.
Regarding claim 21, Moghe in view of Campbell teaches wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, the cutting device, and the optical device are distributed on two sides of the radial braider (as indicated above, the meaning of this claim is indefinite; to the extent that permutations of arrangements of the applicator (Moghe col. 10, ll. 63-67), the debulking tool (Moghe col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D; col. 15 ll. 15-21, col. 17 ll. 54-56), the cutting device (Moghe col. 16 ll. 15-25), and the optical device (Campbell p. 317) differ from that claimed by the Applicant, the difference constitutes a rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144(VI)(C); all components are taught as being positioned so as to be operable; no difference in operation has been disclosed by Applicant).
Regarding claim 22, Moghe in view of Campbell teaches wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, the cutting device, and the optical device are distributed on a single side of the radial braider (as indicated above, the meaning of this claim is indefinite; to the extent that permutations of arrangements of the applicator (Moghe col. 10, ll. 63-67), the debulking tool (Moghe col. 13 ll. 21-29, Fig. 1D; col. 15 ll. 15-21, col. 17 ll. 54-56), the cutting device (Moghe col. 16 ll. 15-25), and the optical device (Campbell p. 317) differ from that claimed by the Applicant, the difference constitutes a rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144(VI)(C); all components are taught as being positioned so as to be operable; no difference in operation has been disclosed by Applicant).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilhelmi (WO 2012/083921).
Regarding claim 2, Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose how the mandrel is translated and rotated.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a composite braiding apparatus (abstract) Wilhelmi teaches a robotic arm for translating and rotating the mandrel (robot arm 36 holds the braid core 32 and guides it relative to the fiber guide system 30, p. 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Moghe to use a robotic arm as claimed because Moghe is silent as to how core 12 is moved and p. 14 of Wilhelmi teaches that a robotic arm is a known way to do so in the same technical context.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams (US 5,203,249).
Regarding claim 3, Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose a guide rail for translating and rotating the mandrel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a composite braiding apparatus (abstract) Adams teaches a guide rail for translating and rotating the mandrel (guide track 12 and mandrel spindle 119 in mandrel supports 120, col. 3 ll. 51 to col. 4 ll. 9, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Moghe to use a guide rail as claimed because Moghe is silent as to how core 12 is moved and col. 3 ll. 51 to col. 4 ll. 9 of Adams teaches that a guide rail is a known way to do so in the same technical context.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dignam (US 2012/0179272).
Regarding claim 6, Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose wherein the applicator is configured to spray or apply droplets of the polymer binder to the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of braiding composites, Dignam teaches wherein the applicator is configured to spray or apply droplets of the polymer binder to the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel (resin applied by spray, [0051] [0070]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Moghe spray the polymer binder to the braided layer while mounted on the mandrel because col. 10, ll. 63-67; col. 13 ll. 21-29 of Moghe teaches applying the resin at that time and [0051] [0070] of Dignam teaches that spraying is one of a few art recognized equivalents for applying resin in this technical context.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rossi (US 2015/0217508).
Regarding claim 10, Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose wherein the debulking tool comprises two segments having inner surfaces complementary to an outer surface of the mandrel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of braiding composites (abstract, [0002]), Rossi teaches wherein the debulking tool comprises two segments having inner surfaces complementary to an outer surface of the mandrel ([0084], complementary roller dies 342, 344, Fig. 10; 352, 354, Fig. 11; 362, 364, Fig. 12; shown as operating in series, Fig. 13; or press system 400, [0095-97], Fig. 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Moghe include roller dies 342, 344, 352, 354, 362, 364 of Rossi because [0084] of Rossi teaches that such structures shape the braided composite as desired. Alternatively, usage of press system 400 for similar reasons because [0097] of Rossi teaches a similar shaping benefit.
Regarding claim 11, Moghe in view of Campbell and Rossi teaches wherein each segment is translatable along an orthogonal axis relative to the rotational axis to converge on the mandrel (clamping press system 400 of Rossi to shape the braided composite, [0095-97], Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 12, Moghe in view of Campbell and Rossi teaches wherein the debulking tool is configured to apply pressure and heat to the braided layer mounted on the mandrel. (application of heat and pressure in an autoclave, col. 15 ll. 15-21, vacuum bag, Moghe col. 17 ll. 54-56; applying heat and using a press, Rossi [0097]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moghe (US 5,127,783) in view of Campbell (Liquid Molding: You Get a Good Preform and Tool … You Get a Good Part, Chapter 9) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Wilhelmi (WO 2012/083921).
Regarding claim 20, Moghe teaches a system substantially as claimed. Moghe does not disclose wherein the driven device comprises one of a robotic arm and a translatable guide rail.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a composite braiding apparatus (abstract) Wilhelmi teaches wherein the driven device comprises a robotic arm (robot arm 36 holds the braid core 32 and guides it relative to the fiber guide system 30, p. 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Moghe to use a robotic arm as claimed because Moghe is silent as to how core 12 is moved and p. 14 of Wilhelmi teaches that a robotic arm is a known way to do so in the same technical context.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the applicator, the debulking tool, and the cutting device, are collocated to the radial braider such that each device is operable on the mandrel.” Applicant does not substantiate this assertion. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, the cited prior art teaches positioning these components so as to be operable. With reference to [0015] of Applicant’s disclosure, having these components located so as to be operable is within the scope of “collocated” as used by Applicant.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744