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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20, 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.
Claim 1, 6-9, 12, 13, 17-20, 22, 56, 84-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meure (US 20200207034) in view of Feerick (EP 2623302A1).
As to claim 1, Meure teaches a curing tool assembly for composite manufacturing, comprising a curing tool comprising a tool surface with a resin supply area (110) and a composite part area (120) configured to receive a dry fabric layup (inherent). The Meure resin supply area defines at least one resin well (location of 110), the composite part area configured to receive a dry fabric layup (inherent), the resin supply areas spaced from the composite part area of the tool surface (see Fig. 1, items 120 and 110), each resin well configured to hold and supply a liquid resin to the dry fabric layup during resin infusion (110). Meure further teaches a resin pressure chamber (below 132) configured to overlay the at least one resin well (location of 110), the at least one resin pressure chamber further configured to receive a pressurized fluid from the at least one compressed fluid source (pressure source(s) in [0019]) during the resin infusion of the dry fabric layup.
Meure is silent to a compaction pressure chamber configured to overlay the dry fabric layup received on the tool surface of the curing tool, the compaction pressure chamber further configured to receive a second pressurized fluid from the at least one compressed fluid source during resin infusion of the dry fabric layup, the pressurized fluid being received at a compaction pressure above that of a standard atmosphere.
Feerick teaches a compaction pressure chamber (Fig. 1(b), item 2c) capable of overlying the dry fabric layup received on the tool surface of the curing tool (Fig. 1(b), item 1a), the compaction pressure chamber further capable of receiving a second pressurized fluid (pressurized gas) from at least one compressed fluid (11) source. In the combination, the Meure resin pressure chamber would be sealed and isolated from the pressurized fluid in the Feerick compaction pressure chamber, which would be incorporated in the manner shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Feerick pressure chambers (Fig. 1(b), items 2a-2e) into Meure as an obvious improvement that provides the expected benefit of driving air out of the article and (Feerick, [0008]). Meure provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by use of the pressure chambers to control flow within the composite, however, Feerick provides a similar device for fabricating composites with pressure chambers applicable to the Meure vacuum bag apparatus. One would have recognized the driving airflow from the composite to be a predictable result and provide an improved system.
As to claims 6-8, Feerick provides a compressed air (page 5, line 10) and the relative pressures constitute unpatentable process steps in an apparatus claim. The combined Meure and Feerick apparatus is capable of being used in the recited manner. As to claim 9, Meure provides a fluid impervious membrane. In the combination with Feerick, who provides the compaction pressure chamber, a fluid impervious membrane is also positioned between the dry fabric layup and the compaction pressure chamber. As to claim 12, Feerick teaches a compaction pressure chamber which applies a compaction force on a fluid impervious membrane and is capable of doing the same during Meure’s resin infusion. As to claim 13, Feerick provides a curing plate (Fig. 1(b), item 1b) comprising a plate surface opposing the tool surface of the curing tool, defining a cavity, and enclosing the fluid impervious membrane and compaction pressure chamber. As to claim 17, Feerick provides to the combination a compaction pressure chamber (item 2c) comprising an inflatable bladder and a curing plate (item 1b) configured to receive and provide pressurized fluid to the inflatable bladder compaction pressure chamber. As to claims 19 and 20, Feerick provides to the combination a resin pressure chamber (item 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e). The valve associated with each of items 2a, 2b, 2d, and 2e is capable of being used in the manner recited by the claim and provides all claimed structural features. The Feerick curing plate (Fig. 1(b), item 1b) is capable of being clamped to the curing tool, enclose the fluid impervious membrane, the resin pressure chamber and the compaction pressure chamber between the curing tool and the curing plate during the resin infusion of Meure. As to claim 22, Feerick provides to the combination an inflatable bladder resin pressure chamber (Fig. 1(b), item 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e) to receive a pressurized fluid from the compressed air source (11).
As to claim 56, Meure teaches a curing tool assembly for composite manufacturing. The Meure system provides a least one compressed fluid source (pressure source(s) in [0019]). Meure teaches a curing tool comprising a tool surface with a resin supply area (110) and a composite part area (120). The Meure resin supply area defines at least one resin well (location of 110) and the composite part area is configured to receive a dry fabric layup (inherent), the resin supply areas spaced from the composite part area of the tool surface (see Fig. 1, items 120 and 110), each resin well configured to hold and supply a liquid resin to the dry fabric layup during resin infusion (110). Meure further teaches a fluid impervious membrane configured to overlay the dry fabric on the tool surface of the curing tool and a resin pressure chamber (below 132) configured to overlay the at least one resin well (location of 110), the at least one resin pressure chamber further configured to receive a pressurized fluid from the at least one compressed fluid source (pressure source(s) in [0019]) during the resin infusion of the dry fabric layup.
Meure is silent to a compaction pressure chamber configured to overlay the dry fabric layup received on the tool surface of the curing tool, the compaction pressure chamber further configured to receive a second pressurized fluid from the at least one compressed fluid source during resin infusion of the dry fabric layup, the pressurized fluid being received at a compaction pressure above that of a standard atmosphere.
Feerick teaches a compaction pressure chamber (Fig. 1(b), item 2c) capable of overlying the dry fabric layup received on the tool surface of the curing tool (Fig. 1(b), item 1a), the compaction pressure chamber further capable of receiving a second pressurized fluid (pressurized gas) from at least one compressed fluid (11) source. In the combination, the Meure resin pressure chamber would be sealed and isolated from the pressurized fluid in the Feerick compaction pressure chamber which would be incorporated in the manner shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Feerick pressure chambers (Fig. 1(b), items 2a-2e) into Meure as an obvious improvement that provides the expected benefit of driving air out of the article and (Feerick, [0008]). Meure provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by use of the pressure chambers to control flow within the composite, however, Feerick provides a similar device for fabricating composites with pressure chambers applicable to the Meure vacuum bag apparatus. One would have recognized the driving airflow from the composite to be a predictable result and provide an improved system.
As to claims 84 and 85, Feerick provides to the combination a resin pressure chamber (item 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e). The valve associated with each of items 2a, 2b, 2d, and 2e is capable of being used in the manner recited by the claims and provides all claimed structural features. As to claim 86, Meure provides a fluid impervious membrane positioned above the dry fabric layup. Feerick provides the compaction pressure chamber as discussed above in the rejection of claim 56. Meure provides a seal (142) between a periphery of the curing tool (130) and the fluid impervious membrane (140) to form a sealed volume curing resin infusion (inherent).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 21, 23 (including claims 24 and 27 which depend on claim 23) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Each of claims 16, 21, and 23 includes a seal between the periphery of the curing plate and the fluid impervious membrane, which is not disclosed by the best available prior art, shown above. Claims 24 and 27 are dependent on claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered. The arguments point to the amended feature for patentability, namely the configuration of the resin pressure chamber and compaction pressure chamber configured to receive fluid and wherein the at least one resin pressure chamber is sealed and isolated from the compaction pressure chamber such that the pressurized fluid in the resin pressure chamber is isolated from the pressurized fluid in the compaction pressure chamber.
The Examiner has carefully considered these arguments, but does not see how the amended claim distinguishes over Meure and Feerick. The Examiner has revised the rejection to illustrate how the Feerick compaction pressure chambers are envisioned to be included in the Meure device by placing them over the vacuum bag already present in Meure. The ordinary artisan considering Feerick would have recognized the similarity of Meure’s vacuum bag with the vacuum bag already provided in Feerick, and the benefit that Feerick’s compaction pressure chamber(s) would have on the Meure vacuum bag. In this proposed combination, the Meure resin pressure chamber is always sealed and isolated from the Feerick compaction pressure chamber and the pressurized fluid in that Feerick chamber.
While it is true that Feerick’s apparatus uses pre-impregnated fiber reinforced resin, Applicant acknowledged the role that the bladders have in defining the shape of a pressurized zone to drive gas towards a vacuum port. The Examiner maintains that this compaction behavior would be useful and desirable in the similar Meure composite after resin impregnation for driving gas out of the chamber, or alternatively, for distributing resin. The Examiner provided drawings demonstrating how the ordinary artisan would make the combination, and the amended features drawn to the fluid isolation between the chambers would be a natural result of the combination.
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