DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 11/19/25.
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
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/26.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. US PGPub 2012/0271445 hereinafter LI in view of Bongiovanni et al. US PGPub 2010/0222461 hereinafter BONGIOVANNI and Deteresa et al. US Patent Number 7,018,578 hereinafter DETERESA.
As for claim 1, LI teaches “A system and method for determining and controlling for cure status of binder on a fibrous product are disclosed” (abstract, lines 1-2) and “This invention relates in general to a method and apparatus for making hindered insulation products from fibrous minerals like glass and, in particular, to quality control methods for determining the cure status, i.e. whether the binder is undercured, overcured or properly cured within specifications and process control limits, and optimizing the process if it is not within control limits” (paragraph 2), i.e. Process for the production of glass-fiber paper composites.
LI teaches “The curing oven applies heated gas, typically air, and circulates it through the fibrous pack to dry and cure it” (paragraph 50, lines 1-2), i.e. comprising the following steps in sequential order: i. subjecting a non-cured glass-fiber paper composite to a curing process under curing conditions of elevated temperatures and respective dwell time.
LI further teaches “FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an image capture system 200 for capturing the image mentioned above. Upon exit from the oven 16, the cured blanket 67 is led past this image capture system 200, typically under it… The bracket 204 has two ends. A first end (to the right in FIG. 48) includes a camera arm 210, on which are secured illumination lights 212 and at least one camera 214” (paragraph 75, lines 1-11) and “The illuminating lights 212 may comprise any means of illumination, including but not limited to incandescent, fluorescent and light emitting diodes (LED)” (paragraph 78, lines 1-3), i.e. ii. irradiating the cured composite with light and scanning the cured composite with a respective detector.
LI teaches “Various image processing software packages are commercially available and it is believed that many would be suitable for use with the invention… This image is fed to a processor represented by block 134 where the software performs a suitable analysis of the image” (paragraph 80, lines 11-13), “The processor then analyzes each ROI to obtain a value for at least one color system variable, block 140… Examining the subtractive difference between these helps assess whether the blanket is curing evenly top to bottom.” (paragraph 81, lines 1-7), and “Subsequently, the process controls may be adjusted to improve the cure status, block 146” (paragraph 83, lines 11-13) i.e. iii. analyzing the outcome of step ii. by an electronic control unit being programmed to decide whether said curing conditions have to be adjusted or whether further curing of the composite is to be initiated or a reject is detected.
LI shows in FIG 6, from oven 16, box 158, processor 164 and 166 and 168 and then adjusting variables in 156, i.e. iv. if the curing conditions have to be adjusted based on the data generated under iii. adjust the parameter of the curing process in an automatic closed-loop control format.
LI is silent on compressive strength.
DETERESA teaches “Hybrid matrix fiber composites having enhanced compressive performance as well as enhanced stiffness, toughness and durability suitable for compression-critical applications” (abstract, liens 1-3) and “The current invention provides hybrid matrix fiber composites and methods for their fabrication wherein the fiber composites have predetermined properties such as compressive strength, stiffness, and toughness. These properties are due to hybridization and chemical bonding of two matrix materials, each imparting certain improved properties on the resulting composite having all these properties” (column 4, line 63- column 5, line 2).
DETERESA further teaches “The composites are comprised of a component fabricated from a plurality of fibers positionally aligned into ribbons and impregnated with a first matrix material cured or otherwise solidified to an appropriate stiffness and compression strength” (column 5, lines 3-7), i.e. wherein appropriately curing provides the desired compressive strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the composite having a desired compressive strength and curing to establish a desired compressive strength within the composite because DETERESA teaches that doing so provides a composite with desired mechanical properties.
LI and DETERES are silent on adjust the time of the curing process to effect the cure.
BONGIOVANNI teaches “Polymer compositions capable of a high degree of curing at relatively low temperatures, and prepregs, adhesives, films and composites formed therefrom are discussed” (abstract, lines 1-3).
BONGIOVANNI further shows in Figures 6A-6B that the time of a cure effects the degree of cure.
As established above, LI teaches “This invention relates in general to a method and apparatus for making hindered insulation products from fibrous minerals like glass and, in particular, to quality control methods for determining the cure status, i.e. whether the binder is undercured, overcured or properly cured within specifications and process control limits, and optimizing the process if it is not within control limits” (paragraph 2), i.e. wherein degree of cure is controlled.
LI also teaches “The invention relates to and apparatus and improved methods for continuously monitoring cure status of binder on a fibrous product and controlling the operation parameters or variables within defined control limits to improve product outcomes” (paragraph 9, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adjust the time of the curing process to control the cure of LI because BONGIOVANNI teaches that such a parameter controls the degree of cure as desired by LI.
As for claim 2, Examiner notes that based on the specification, paragraph 20, the lightning system is defined as “a real-time lightning system can preferably be used that is fully synchronized with the camera which flashes at the required wavelengths (it may also be possible to make multiple images at multiple wavelengths and combine these images in real-time).”.
With that in mind, LI teaches “They may be configured to be constantly on or they can be configures to flash or "strobe" in combination with the camera trigger” (paragraph 78, lines 3-5), wherein in the strobe embodiment it teaches wherein the irradiation is performed by a lightning system.
As for claim 3, LI teaches “The illuminating lights 212 may comprise any means of illumination, including but not limited to incandescent, fluorescent and light emitting diodes (LED)” (paragraph 78, lines 1-3). Examiner notes that all light is composed of at lest one wavelength of light, i.e. wherein the irradiation is performed at minimum one wavelength. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
As for claim 4, LI further teaches “FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an image capture system 200 for capturing the image mentioned above. Upon exit from the oven 16, the cured blanket 67 is led past this image capture system 200, typically under it… The bracket 204 has two ends. A first end (to the right in FIG. 48) includes a camera arm 210, on which are secured illumination lights 212 and at least one camera 214” (paragraph 75, lines 1-11), i.e. wherein the detector for scanning the composite is selected from the group of… cameras.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717