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 Amendment
The Amendments filed 02/18/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 11/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 12 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 02/18/2026 in pages 5-7, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “McCarville does not disclose or suggest transporting the breather fabric at all, much less immediately after removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric, transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed." (page 6).
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Firstly, the claimed amendment “immediately after removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric…the second manufacturing tooling where the additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed” is unsupported. The instant specification discloses that “at the end of the manufacturing process of a first composite part, the removed and cleaned of residues breather fabric is transported, i.e., transferred to another place in which another manufacturing process is or is going to be performed…the removed breather fabric may be transported to another manufacturing tooling and immediately reused or being stored until it is reused.” (Pa [0028]) as Applicant recited in the arguments, but does not disclose immediately after removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric, transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed. The term “immediately reused” in the paragraph rather means “without being stored”. (See the rejection under 112 (a) below).
Secondly, McCarville teaches providing a release film covering the composite laminate (“a parting film 36, preferably Release-Ease® parting film produced by Air-Tech International, is laid over the prepreg sheets 34”, co 6 li 10-12), and implies removing the release film covering the composite laminate from the composite laminate to obtain the composite laminate, but the combination does not explicitly teach that the release film is removed after transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling in which the additional manufacturing process of the another composite part is being performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the order between removing the release film and transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling in which the additional manufacturing process of the another composite part is being performed for the purpose of obtaining the composite part and reusing the breather fabric to the additional manufacturing process of another composite part, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Since transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling in which the additional manufacturing process of the another composite part is being performed, of course, is performed after inspecting the breather fabric to detect resin residues, and after removing the resin residues from the breather fabric in order to reuse the cleaned breather fabric in the additional manufacturing process, it would have been obvious to perform removing the release film after inspecting the breather fabric to detect resin residues, and after removing the resin residues from the breather fabric in order to reuse the cleaned breather fabric in the additional manufacturing process.
Applicant further argues that “Lockett similarly fails to disclose or suggest another composite part which has "an uneven surface which is not a flat surface and which has a non-uniform thickness." (page 7).
Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Lockett teaches an aircraft manufacturing, and the component 24 includes first area 103 and second area 104, first area 103 may have a different thickness than second area 104 (Pa [0043]). Since McCarville does not teaches away forming the panel having different thickness areas, one would have found it obvious to form the component 24 including first area 103 and second area 104, first area 103 having a different thickness than second area 104 in the method for the purpose of manufacturing the aircraft part.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10 and 12 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “immediately after removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric, transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed, …after transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling in which the additional manufacturing process of the another composite part is simultaneously being performed” in lines 20-26. The instant specification discloses that “at the end of the manufacturing process of a first composite part, the removed and cleaned of residues breather fabric is transported, i.e., transferred to another place in which another manufacturing process is or is going to be performed…the removed breather fabric may be transported to another manufacturing tooling and immediately reused or being stored until it is reused.” (Pa [0028]), but does not disclose immediately after removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric, transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed. The term “immediately reused” in the paragraph rather means “without being stored”.
The remaining dependent claims 3, 5-10 and 12 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 1.
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 8 and 12 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 8 recites the limitation “the removed breather fabric is stored” in line 2. It renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the limitation “transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tooling where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is simultaneously being performed” in the referred claim 1.
Claim 12 recited the limitation “when storing” in line 3. It renders the claim indefinite due to the same reason above.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarville et al. (US 5,968,445) in view of Letterman (US 4,622,091) and Lockett et al. (US 2013/0264751) (All of record).
With respect to claim 1, McCarville teaches a composite part manufacturing method (“a method of forming a composite part”, co 4 li 7 and Fig. 2) comprising the following consecutive steps:
providing a first manufacturing tooling (“a lay-up mandrel 30”, co 5 li 31),
providing a composite laminate on the first manufacturing tooling (“arranging a composite material on a lay-up mandrel”, co 4 li 7-8; “The layers of prepreg sheets 34 are placed onto the upper face 31 of the lay-up mandrel 30”, co 6 li 6-7),
providing a release film covering the composite laminate (“a parting film 36, preferably Release-Ease® parting film produced by Air-Tech International, is laid over the prepreg sheets 34”, co 6 li 10-12),
providing a breather fabric covering the release film (“A single porous structural spacer, preferably a fiber metal mesh sheet of sintered metal fibers 40, is laid over the first breather blanket 38 to cover the compacted prepreg sheets 34.”, co 6 li 17-20), the breather fabric configured for facilitating aeration during a curing process (“The vacuum draws reaction by-products through the external vacuum ports 52 and through the breather blankets 38 and 42 and the fiber metal mesh sheet 40 (shown by the arrows 62).”, co 7 li 38-41),
providing a vacuum bag film covering the composite laminate, the release film and the breather fabric (“A bagging film 50 made of a fluid impervious nylon, Kapton®, or similar products known in the art, is applied over the top of the second breather blanket 42.”, co 6 li 46-49),
providing a sealing tape for sealing the vacuum bag film to the manufacturing tooling (“The outer edges of the bagging film 50 are sealed to the upper surface of the lay-up mandrel 30 by sealant tape”, co 6 li 59-60),
sealing the vacuum bag film to the manufacturing tooling (“The outer edges of the bagging film 50 are sealed to the upper surface of the lay-up mandrel 30”, co 6 li 59-60), and
curing the composite laminate (“cure the composite material.”, co 6 li 67).
Even though McCarville does not explicitly mention unsealing the vacuum bag film from the manufacturing tooling, removing the vacuum bag film, and removing the breather fabric, one having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciate that McCarville implies these operations to obtain the composite part. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to unseal the vacuum bag film from the manufacturing tooling, remove the vacuum bag film, and remove the breather fabric in order to obtain the composite part.
McCarville further teaches that because the spacer, a fiber metal mesh sheet of sintered metal fibers 40, does not degrade at the curing temperature, it is reusable (co 6 li 21-22), but does not explicitly teach transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tool where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is performed. However, one would have found it obvious to perform transporting the breather fabric to the place where a new/another composite laminate is after removing the breather fabric from the first vacuum bagging operation in order to reuse it in the new vacuum bagging operation.
McCarville teaches providing a release film covering the composite laminate (“a parting film 36, preferably Release-Ease® parting film produced by Air-Tech International, is laid over the prepreg sheets 34”, co 6 li 10-12), and implies removing the release film covering the composite laminate from the composite laminate to obtain the composite laminate, but does not explicitly teach that the release film is removed after transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tool where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the order between removing the release film and transporting the removed breather fabric to the second manufacturing tool where an additional manufacturing process of another composite part is performed for the purpose of obtaining the composite part and reusing the breather fabric to the additional manufacturing process of another composite part, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
McCarville is silent to providing a breather tape located adjacent to the sealing tape.
In the same field of endeavor, a method and apparatus for creating monolithic structures formed of fiber reinforced resin composites, Letterman teaches that the dry preform and the resin layer(s) are enclosed by a resin content control envelope through which a conduit such as breather tape, passes, the resin content control envelope is, in turn, enclosed by a vacuum envelope, first, air and other gases are withdrawn via the envelopes, thereafter, the composite is heated, as the resin enters the preform, air and other gases remaining in the preform are withdrawn via the conduit created by the fibers that form the preform and the breather tape (co 2 li 50-59). Letterman further teaches that the vacuum envelope 37 houses a layer of breather paper 61 that overlies the upper release film 51 and the vacuum port breather tape layers 49, the vacuum envelope 37 includes several outer breather tape layers 63, the outer breather tape layers 63 surround the resin content control envelope 11 and underlie the outer ends of the vacuum port breather tape layers 49 (co 5 li 61-67), and the vacuum envelope 37 also includes an outer strip of vacuum seal tape 67 that surrounds the outer breather tape layers 63 (co 6 li 10-12 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McCarville with the teachings of Letterman and provide the outer breather tape layers located just inside of the sealing tape so as to withdraw air and other gases in the preform via the conduit created by the fibers that form the preform and the breather tape.
McCarville teaches that because the spacer, a fiber metal mesh sheet of sintered metal fibers 40, does not degrade at the curing temperature, it is reusable (co 6 li 21-22), but does not explicitly teach inspecting the breather fabric to detect resin residues, removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric when an area with resin residues is approximately 1% or more of the area of the removed breather fabric, wherein when an area with resin residues is approximately 1% or less of the area of the removed breather fabric, the resin residues are not removed.
In the same field of endeavor, fabrication of composite structures, Lockett teaches that a perforated caul sheet is reused in multiple vacuum bagging operations, upon completion of a first vacuum bagging operation, the perforated caul sheet may be cleaned of excess resin, having cleaned the caul sheet and removed the resin plugs, the caul sheet may be applied in a new vacuum bagging operation (Pa [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify McCarville with the teachings of Lockett and perform cleaning the breather fabric to remove resin plugs in order to apply the breather fabric in a new vacuum bagging operation. Even if Lockett is silent to inspecting the breather fabric, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform this step in order to check if there are resin residues before performing cleaning the breather fabric. Besides, one would have found it obvious to perform transporting the breather fabric to the place where a new/another composite laminate is after removing the resin residues from the breather fabric in order to reuse it in the new vacuum bagging operation.
Furthermore, Lockett teaches cleaning resin plugs from the perforations in the perforated caul sheet, which means that if there is no resin plug in the perforations, the cleaning would not be needed. Namely, Lockett teaches when an area with resin residues is approximately 0% of the area of the removed breather fabric, the resin residues are not removed. Even though Lockett does not explicitly teach that removing any detected resin residues from the breather fabric when an area with resin residues is approximately 1% or more of the area of the removed breather fabric, wherein when an area with resin residues is approximately 1% or less of the area of the removed breather fabric, the resin residues are not removed, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reuse the spacer as it is to another operation if the spacer is clean enough to function as the breather in order to form another composite part. The artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the invention to be obvious because the range of the percentage of an area with resin residues in the area of the removed breather fabric taught by Lockett overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, since it has been held that “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Lockett teaches an aircraft manufacturing, and further teaches that the component 24 includes first area 103 and second area 104, first area 103 may have a different thickness than second area 104 (Pa [0043]). Since McCarville does not teaches away forming the panel having different thickness areas, one would have found it obvious to form the component 24 including first area 103 and second area 104, first area 103 having a different thickness than second area 104 in the method for the purpose of manufacturing the aircraft part.
With respect to claim 3, even though McCarville as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the sealing tape is positioned onto the first manufacturing tooling before providing the release film, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose the order between positioning the sealing tape and providing the release film for the purpose of forming the composite part, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
With respect to claim 10, McCarville as applied to claim 1 above further teach that the composite laminate is cured in an autoclave or in an oven (“the lay-up mandrel 30 is placed into an autoclave and the internal plumbing of the lay-up mandrel and the external vacuum ports 52 are connected to vacuum hoses. The autoclave is pressurized, vacuum is applied, and the temperature is raised to cure the composite material.”, co 6 li 62-67).
Claims 5-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarville et al. (US 5,968,445) in view of Letterman (US 4,622,091) and Lockett et al. (US 2013/0264751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL (“Breather and Bleeder Cloth”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QPu-qO_sAo, Sep 03 2014) (All of record).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, McCarville as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the step of removing the breather fabric is performed automatically or manually by rolling the breather fabric.
In the same field of endeavor, breather and bleeder cloth, NPL reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QPu-qO_sAo, Sep 03 2014) shows the stored rolls of the breather fabric and teaches directly unrolling and cutting the breather fabric to use in the vacuum bagging layup.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of NPL reference and perform unrolling the breather fabric to use in the vacuum bagging layup. Furthermore, one would have found it obvious to perform rolling the breather fabric back in order to remove the breather fabric.
With respect to claim 7, even though the combination as applied to claim 5 above does not explicitly teach that the step of removing the breather fabric is performed by automatic winding on a roller attached to a gantry crane having a translational movement along an axis, one would have found it obvious to provide the automatic removing means to remove the breather fabric, since it has been held that to provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity, which accomplishes the same result, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 8, McCarville as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the removed breather fabric is stored before the another composite part is manufactured.
In the same field of endeavor, breather and bleeder cloth, NPL reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QPu-qO_sAo, Sep 03 2014) shows the stored rolls of the breather fabric and teaches directly unrolling and cutting the breather fabric to use in the vacuum bagging layup.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of NPL reference and perform rolling and store the breather fabric in order to use in the next vacuum bagging layup.
With respect to claim 12, McCarville as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the removed breather fabric is cut to fit the another composite part to be manufactured, the cutting step being carried out when storing or during the step of removing the breather fabric.
In the same field of endeavor, breather and bleeder cloth, NPL reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QPu-qO_sAo, Sep 03 2014) shows the stored rolls of the breather fabric and teaches directly unrolling and cutting the breather fabric to use in the vacuum bagging layup.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of NPL reference and perform unrolling and cutting the breather fabric to use in the vacuum bagging layup.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarville et al. (US 5,968,445) in view of Letterman (US 4,622,091) and Lockett et al. (US 2013/0264751) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashida et al. (US 2012/0133067) (All of record).
With respect to claim 9, McCarville as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach that the vacuum bag film is automatically removed.
In the same field of endeavor, an autoclave molding method for a composite material molded product, Ashida teaches that the automatic conveying line 5 is to automatically convey the composite material 13, which is layered on the mold form 14, wrapped with the vacuum bag 15 and preliminarily vacuumed off-line, into and out of the molding chamber 1 and the drying chamber 2 on-line, and to automatically convey it to the site, which is not shown in Figs., where the vacuum bag 15 is removed and the molded product is released from the mold (Pa [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Ashida and provide the automatic conveying line in order to automatically convey the composite material and install/uninstall the vacuum bag.
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 YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742