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 10/08/2025 responsive to the Office Action filed 07/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13 and 15 have been amended. Claims 14, 16 and 17 have been canceled. New claims 21-23 have been amended. Claims 12, 13, 15 and 18-20 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-13, 15 and 18-23 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 4 has been amended to address the indefiniteness, the rejection of claim 4 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 in page 9, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claim 1 is made in view of Weinzierl et al. (WO 2019/122431A1-of record) further in view of Borgmann et al. (US 2011/0277935A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant has been advised to replace “a stack” in line 4 to – the stack --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, 9-11, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl et al. (WO 2019/122431A1-of record) in view of Borgmann et al. (US 2011/0277935A1).
With respect to claim 1, Weinzierl teaches a part formation system (“a production line 800”, Figs. 3, 4 and 12) comprising:
a mobile robot comprising a base (“300”) and a table (“100”), wherein the table is configured to rotate relative to the base (“a table which can be displaced and rotated relatively to the base 300 of the fiber tape laying system 1”, pg 34 li 10-11);
a first material feeding device (“first feeding means 230a”, pg 37 li 1) configured to feed carbon fiber prepreg material, one layer at a time, onto the table of the mobile robot to form a stack of carbon fiber prepreg layers on the mobile robot (“carbon fibers”, pg 27 li 6; “The first fiber tape … comprising a binding means arranged at least partially on the first surface and as well as a second surface opposite to the first surface.”, pg 6 li 1-2; “The fiber tapes will typically be laid such that the fibers are oriented according to a predetermined ply schedule.”, pg 6 li 13-14; “semi-finished product comprising multiple layers of fiber tape”, pg 19 li 15);
a second material feeding device (“second feeding means 230b”, pg 37 li 5-6); and
a heat press (“first tool 830a”) configured to form and cure the resultant stack of layers to provide a resultant painted part by heating and compressing the resultant stack of layers (“the semi-finished product 2a, 2b can be pressed by means of the foam member 812 onto a first tool surface 831a of the first tool 830a which assists in draping of the semi-finished product 2a, 2b and obtain proper alignment of the semi-finished product 2a, 2b and the first tool surface 831 a.”, pg 40 li 23 – pg 41 li 2; “The process of draping may be assisted by inducing hot gas (e.g. air) into the semi finished product”, pg 22 li 10-11).
Weinzierl teaches the second material feeding device (“second feeding means 230b”), but does not explicitly teach that the second material feeding device configured to feed a paint film onto the stack of carbon fiber prepreg layers to provide a resultant stack of layers. Weinzierl further teaches that the layers may be identical layers originating from the same fiber tape, however, at least some of the layers may be made from a different fiber tape (pg 19 li 17-18). Thus, it is noted that this limitation is an intended use since the second material feeding device taught by Weinzierl is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Furthermore, it has been held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Weinzierl does not explicitly teach a mobile robot comprising a mobile base and a table, wherein the table is configured to move with and rotate relative to the mobile base.
In the same field of endeavor, a fiber placement cell for making fiber composite structures, Borgmann teaches that a robotic mechanism 25 having six degrees of freedom is mounted on a linear slide 26, and is used to support the part tooling 20 that is attached to a mounting plate 22, the linear slide 26 is used to extend the range of the robot 25, and the robot 25 comprises a base 27 that is capable of rotation about a vertical axis 28, a lower arm 29, an upper arm 32, a first wrist mechanism 35, a rolling wrist, capable of rotary motion around the longitudinal axis of the upper arm 32, a second wrist mechanism 37, a bending wrist, to allow pivoting motion around an axis that is that is perpendicular to the rotation of the first wrist 35, a third wrist mechanism 40, a rolling wrist, allow to rotation around an axis that is perpendicular to the pivoting axis of the second wrist 37 (Pa [0014]). Borgmann further teaches that the robot 25 manipulates the lay-up tooling 20 relative to the dispensing head 15 to lay up the fiber tow 14 at the proper speed and angular orientation, and thus, the robot 25 is able to cause relative movement between the dispensing head 15 and the lay-up tool 20 during application of composite fiber to the lay-up tool so that composite fiber may be applied to the lay-up tool in the desired pattern and orientation (Pa [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Weinzierl with the teachings of Borgmann and substitute Borgmann’s robot for Weinzierl’s base and table in order to apply the fiber to the lay-up tool in the desired pattern and orientation by relative movement between the feeding means and the lay-up tool during application of fiber to the lay-up tool, and in order to extend the range of the robot to the another work stations.
With respect to claim 2, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the mobile robot (“robot 25”) is configured to rotate and adjust orientation of the carbon fiber prepreg layers when laid such that the carbon fiber prepreg layers are in different orientations relative to a material feed direction of the first material feed device (“the robot 25 is able to cause relative movement between the dispensing head 15 and the lay-up tool 20 during application of composite fiber to the lay-up tool so that composite fiber may be applied to the lay-up tool in the desired pattern and orientation”, Pa [0015]). It is noted that the limitation “the carbon fiber prepreg layers are in different orientations relative to a material feed direction of the first material feed device” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 3, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches the table (“the mounting plate 22”) and the robot 25 is able to cause relative movement between the dispensing head 15 and the lay-up tool 20 during application of composite fiber to the lay-up tool so that composite fiber may be applied to the lay-up tool in the desired pattern and orientation (Pa [0015]). It is noted that the limitation “the table is configured, prior to each application of the carbon fiber prepreg material, to rotate and adjust orientation of a current stack of carbon fiber prepreg layers such that the carbon fiber prepreg layers of the stack of carbon fiber prepreg layers are laid in different orientations relative to a material feed direction of the first material feed device” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 4, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches that the mobile base (“27”) of the mobile robot and the table (“a mounting plate 22”) of the mobile robot are configured to rotate (“a base 27 that is capable of rotation about a vertical axis 28”, “the third wrist 40 allows rotation around an axis”, Pa [0014]). It is noted that the limitation “such that at least one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers is in each of 0°, 45°, 90°, −45° orientations” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claim 5, Weinzierl as applied to claim 1 above further teaches a laser cutter configured to cut each of the carbon fiber prepreg layers when laid and prior to another layer being stacked on that carbon fiber prepreg layer (“a laser cutter”, pg 16 li 11; “a first separator 250a that is configured to separate a predefined strip of first fiber tape 10a from the first supply 21 0a before being compacted onto the substrate 110.”, pg 35 li 22-24).
With respect to claim 7, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches that the mobile robot is configured to adjust a height of the table of the mobile robot (Figs. 1-4). It is noted that the limitation “adjust a height…prior to the stacking of each one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers” is an intended use since the system taught by the prior art is capable of performing the claimed operation. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Weinzierl as applied to claim 1 above further teaches at least one of a stamper and a press (“a first compaction means 220a”) configured, each time a respective one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers is stacked, to apply pressure to flatten and remove air below the respective one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers (“a first compaction means 220a that is adopted to compact the first fiber tape 10a onto the substrate 110. The first compaction means 220a comprises a compaction roller 221 a.”, pg 35 li 4-5).
With respect to claim 11, it is noted that the limitation “the paint film comprises a tie layer, the tie layer aiding in bonding the paint film to the stack of carbon fiber prepreg layers when heated and compressed in the heat press” is an intended use since the system taught by Weinzierl is capable of using the claimed material. It has been held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 22, Weinzierl as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the first material feeding device comprises a first roll (“a reel 700”) of the carbon fiber prepreg material and rotates the first roll to feed the carbon fiber prepreg material, one layer at a time, onto the mobile robot to form a stack; and the second material feed device comprises a second roll (another reel) of paint film and rotates the second roll to feed the paint film onto the stack (Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 23, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the mobile base (“27”) is configured to rotate (“a base 27 that is capable of rotation about a vertical axis 28”, Pa [0014]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl et al. (WO 2019/122431A1-of record) in view of Borgmann et al. (US 2011/0277935A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Szarski (US 2024/0070837A1-of record).
With respect to claim 6, Weinzierl as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the method further comprises the method step of cutting of the laid semi-finished product to obtain a pre-defined shape (e.g. outer contour), prior to draping of it to align with the first tool surface of the first tool, thus, on the one hand the amount of cutting/ shaping of a final product during post processing can be decreased, on the other hand semi-finished products having a precise pre-defined outer contour can be obtained which is highly advantageous if e.g. multiple semi-finished products have to be aligned with a first tool surface at the same time (e.g. adjacent to each other) such as in order to obtain products that have relatively complex or three-dimensionally highly curved shapes, such cutting may take place while the semi finished products are still on the table, alternatively or in addition, at least some of the cutting may take place after removal from the table, and good results may e.g. be obtained by using a knife or a laser cutter (pg 24 li 1-12), but is silent to one or more overhead cameras configured to detect a perimeter of one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers and a control module configured to control the laser cutter to cut another one of the carbon fiber prepreg layers or the paint film based on the detected perimeter.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatus, system, and computer program product for manufacturing composite parts, Szarski teaches that fabrication controller 112 can control fabrication equipment 108 to cut composite ply 116 to have shape 118 defined by ply shape model 123 for composite part 104 using automated manufacturing equipment 114 (Pa [0063]), prior to or after cutting composite ply 116 to have shape 118, fabrication controller 112 generates image 120 of composite ply 116 using sensor system 121, sensor system 121 includes camera system 122, which generates image 120, and camera system 122 can be one or more cameras that can generate images (Pa [0064]), and each of these cutting machines can have a camera (Pa [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Weinzierl with the teachings of Szarski and provide the fabrication controller with one or more cameras with Weinzierl’s system in order to control the laser cutter and generate images of the laid semi-finished product prior to or after cutting.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl et al. (WO 2019/122431A1-of record) in view of Borgmann et al. (US 2011/0277935A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang et al. (US 2015/0210018A1-of record).
With respect to claim 8, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not explicitly teach a gripper robot configured to pull at least one of the carbon fiber prepreg material and the paint film onto the mobile robot.
In the same field of endeavor, a device and a method for producing fiber-reinforced three-dimensional components, Lang teaches that the device includes a plurality of grippers, arranged alongside one another, for gripping fiber tapes impregnated with matrix material, the grippers can be moved linearly on mutually parallel paths, in each case between a pick-up position and a maximum position such that the fiber tapes can be tentered between the grippers and respectively associated transfer devices (Pa [0009]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combinaiton with the teachings of Lang and provide a plurality of grippers with the system for the purpose of gripping fiber tapes such that the fiber tapes can be tentered between the grippers and respectively feeding devices.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl et al. (WO 2019/122431A1-of record) in view of Borgmann et al. (US 2011/0277935A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2006/0162143A1).
With respect to claim 21, Borgmann as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that a robotic mechanism 25 having six degrees of freedom is mounted on a linear slide 26, the linear slide 26 is used to extend the range of the robot 25, and other systems may use a different method for extending the range of the robotic mechanism (Pa [0014]), but does not explicitly teach that the mobile robot comprises motors and wheels and is configured to drive to different stations.
In the same field of endeavor, systems and methods relating to composite lamination, Nelson teaches that the vertical beams 20 can move along the tracks 24, thus the tracks 24 may be, for example, rails over which wheels attached to the vertical beams 20 travel (Pa [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combinaiton with the teachings of Nelson and substitute the rail for the linear slide and provide wheels with the Borgmann’s robot in order to allow the robot travel over the rail, since it has been held that where the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 (I)(B))
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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
Prosecution Insights