DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 4, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutting (US 3,677,305) in view of Bucher (US 3,900,051).
As to claim 1, Cutting teaches a method for manufacturing a cloth (1:65) capable of the stated intended use of a turbomachine preform in a weaving installation (1:52). Cutting teaches feeding warp filaments (2:36) and inherently feeds weft filaments (which become the horizontal lines in the cloth in Fig. 3) and weaving the warps and wefts together to form a cloth/preform (1:66). The Cutting weaving installation comprises a driven (75, 76) take up roll (20) which would inherently apply a predetermined tension on the cloth/preform. Cutting inherently winds and stores the cloth/preform around the take up roll (20). Cutting provides various rolls (47, 48, 50, 53) that can be interpreted as a first delivery roll mounted upstream of the take up roll (20) and movable in rotation about a second axis of rotation (see each of 47, 48, 50, and 53 for respective axes).
Cutting is silent to (a) a reed being independent from a flange, and (b) a flange configured to immobilize the preform on the first delivery roll during stoppage, and (c) an immobilization step being carried out by stopping the weaving installation and driving the preform and immobilizing being carried out by the flange arranged adjacent the first delivery roll and mounted on a structure of the weaving installation.
Bucher provides (a) a reed (62) independent from a flange/clamping beam and (b) a clamping beam (41) that meets the claimed flange and is configured to immobilize a preform on a first delivery roll. Bucher further teaches (c) an immobilization step by clamping the flange material on a delivery roll (22) when pressed against the delivery roll in the “clamping position”. The “beat-ups of the loom” in Bucher (Abstract) are interpreted to be a step of stopping the weaving installation and driving of the preform. Even in the alternative that the Bucher “beat-ups of the loom” cannot be considered to be an immobilization step, pausing operation of the Bucher loom would have been obvious since periodic replacement of either/both of the feeding filaments or the take-up roll would be inherently necessary.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Bucher clamping beam into any of the various rolls (47, 48, 50, 53) in the Cutting device because Bucher teaches that the clamping beam provides the beneficial effect of avoiding a backward pull-out of the thread material (Abstract). The Bucher device is improved in the same way as the claimed invention and is comparable to the base Cutting device. The results of the combination are predictable (avoiding a backward pull-out of thread material).
As to claims 3-4, Bucher performs an immobilization step with a flange (41) arranged close to a delivery roll (22) which compresses a cloth/preform between the roll and flange using a cam element (29’) which is inherently either manual or motorized. When the Bucher step is performed with any one of the Cutting delivery rolls (47, 48, 50, or 53), all claimed steps are met. As to claim 6, while Bucher does not specifically teach the claimed 0.1 MPa to 2 MPa, since Bucher teaches that the pressure is sufficient to avoid backward pullout (Abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the pressure to be a result effective variable. One would have arrived at the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization to avoid backward pull out. As to claim 13, Cutting provides various rolls (47, 48, 50, 53) that can be interpreted as a first delivery roll and a take up roll (20) arranged in a storage unit (Fig. 1 generally). While Cutting is silent to a reed, Bucher provides a reed (62) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Bucher teaches that the reed (62) is arranged in a weaving area (Fig. 3), which would necessarily be incorporated upstream of the Cutting storage unit (take up roll 20) which collects the woven material. As to claim 14, Bucher provides a flange (41) with a bearing surface oriented towards a delivery roll (22) and has a complementary (curved) shape with a peripheral surface of the delivery roll and a material (2) thereon.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutting (US 3,677,305) in view of Bucher (US 3,900,051), and further in view of Suzuki (US 4,364,002).
As to claim 5, Bucher already provides to the combination above a moving member for setting in motion the clamping beam/flange (cam 29’ or item 44).
However, Cutting and Bucher are silent to an electronic control system for stopping and starting the installation.
Suzuki teaches controlling operation of a loom using signals (4:11, for example), which inherently constitutes an electronic control system. Suzuki’s control method includes a motor signal and a brake control signal (Fig. 1, item 7) to stop the loom at a predetermined position (3:55-4:4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Suzuki electronic control system into the modified Cutting process motivated by providing automatic control of the Cutting loom to avoid operator error. Automating (by the Suzuki process) a manual process (such as that of Cutting/Bucher) that accomplished the same result is generally not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (III).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutting (US 3,677,305) in view of Bucher (US 3,900,051), and further in view of Fremont (US 20150040396).
As to claim 12, Cutting and Bucher teach the subject matter of claim 1 above, and is incorporated by reference herein.
While Cutting and Bucher are silent to the additional steps of placing the preform around a mandrel, installing a counter-mold, injecting a matrix into the injection chamber, polymerizing, and demolding, these aspects are taught by Fremont. Fremont teaches weaving a blank (Figs. 2-4) having a longitudinal direction, installing a tooling element that meets the claimed mandrel in the hollow/non-interlinked zone ([0044]), installing the preform in a mold chamber (held in its tooling, [0070]), injecting a matrix resin into the tooling (injection, [0070]), polymerizing the matrix (curing of a resin such as epoxy, [0070]), and inherently demolding the composite material component.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Fremont process into the modified Cutting process because Cutting teaches a weaving process generally, and Fremont teaches a process for manufacturing final articles from woven preforms. Therefore, the Fremont process teaches/suggests incorporating a weaving process into a manufacturing process for a turbomachine component and Cutting/Bucher provide a weaving process applicable to the Fremont process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant argues that Bucher does not disclose immobilizing a preform on a first delivery roll when the installation is stopped using a flange because the clamping beam 41 clamps warp threads of a lower bar 22 during the weaving process, and the lower bar 22 is part of an intermediate storage means only for the warp. Applicant argues that the goal of Bucher is to advance warp threads and the maintenance of tension in the threads in infinitely variable fashion and prevent a backward pull-out during formation of a cloth. Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that the claimed invention prevents the reform from sliding toward the reed or toward the tensioning take-up roll and avoids mechanical weakness caused by loosening of tension on the preform.
The Examiner takes the position that the combination of Cutting and Bucher still renders the clamed invention obvious. Cutting teaches many aspects of the claimed invention as discussed in the rejection and Applicant’s arguments. As discussed in the rejection, Cutting is silent to the claimed flange and immobilization step. Bucher provides a clamping beam (41) that meets the claimed flange and is provided for an obvious purpose of clamping material to prevent avoiding a backward pull-out of thread material. This device and its purpose are known even if (as Applicant argues) Bucher clamps only warp threads. Beginning at Cutting, the pertinent inquiry is whether one would have found it obvious to stop the Cutting device and clamp to prevent backward pull-out of the material in the Cutting loom. The reasoning for incorporating the Bucher clamping beam/flange is applicable even if Bucher only applies the clamp to warp filaments. Regarding the immobilization, the “beat-ups” seem to meet the immobilization step, but even if this cannot meet the immobilization, the Examiner maintains that stopping and immobilizing of the Cutting device would have been obvious in order to replace either the feed material or the take-up roll. Unless Applicant’s position is that the Cutting device operates continuously and permanently, stopping and immobilizing the Cutting device would benefit from the clamping beam (41) of Bucher.
Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to discuss possible amendments or the pending rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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 J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742