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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16 is 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 16 recites “acceptable tolerances”. The scope of this limitation is not clear because the specification does not provide guidance as to what constitutes “acceptable.”
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, 3, 16, 19, 20, 22-24, 34, 76 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (previously cited) in view of Zieve (US 2022/0339891).
As to claims 1 and 76, Holmes discloses a method for fabrication of a layup for a composite part, the method comprising: identifying an out-of-tolerance inconsistency 450 in a current ply (tape 154/153, fig 1, 4, para 53-58) of the layup for the composite part, the current ply comprising a plurality of tows (para 35) overlaying a substrate 150/400; determining the out-of-tolerance inconsistency requires rework of a portion of one or more tows of the plurality of tows in the current ply based on the on the out tolerance inconsistency (image IR cameras, 142/145/510, para 58-60, 41, 73, fig 10, 15); removing the portion of the one or more tows in the current ply associated with the out-of-tolerance inconsistency to expose a corresponding portion of the substrate associated with the out-of-tolerance inconsistency (para 35, 53-58, 73): and depositing one or more replacement tows onto the portion of the substrate exposed for the rework of the out-of-tolerance inconsistency in the current ply (layers of tape lanes that form 400 – para 56, fig 4) using a multi-lane automated fiber placement (AFP) device 380, and a heat source 114 (fig 4, figs 1-4, 10, 12, 15, para 41, 53-60, 73).
Holmes does not disclose the depositing of the replacement tows is performing using a single-lane automated fiber placement device
Zieve discloses a method of fabricating a lay-up, comprising depositing at least one course of multiple tows for the current ply of the layup onto the substrate using a multi-lane automated fiber placement device (figs 3, 5, 6, associated text, para 48-53 63), providing a single-lane automated fiber placement device to the layup; and depositing a replacement tow to the layup using the single-lane automated fiber placement device (para 74, fig 4) using a heat source (laser heat source, par 53-65). Using a single lane AFP to deposit the replacement tow reduces the risk of roller wrap (para 76), and further reduces the risk that depositing of the replacement tow will damage the tows within the acceptable tolerance range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Holmes by, after the identifying the out-of-tolerance inconsistency, providing a single-lane automated fiber placement device to the layup; performing the depositing of the replacement tow to the layup using the single-lane automated fiber placement device (AFP) with the heat source as taught by Zieve above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
As to claim 3, Holmes discloses the identifying an out-of-tolerance inconsistency is performed using at least one imaging sensor (image IR cameras, 142/145/510, para 58-60, 41).
As to claim 16, Holmes discloses, the determining comprising the out of tolerance inconsistency requires the rework: comparing the out-of-tolerance inconsistency to tow standards for the layup of the composite part in relation to acceptable tolerances for the tow standards; determining the out-of-tolerance inconsistency is not within the acceptable tolerances for the tow standards; and determining the one or more replacement tows are required for the rework the out-of-tolerance inconsistency where the out-of-tolerance inconsistency is not within the acceptable tolerances of the tow standards (para 73, figs 10, 15, 19a-19b).
As to claim 19, Holmes discloses the method further comprising the portion of the one or more tows removed from the currently ply is proximate to the out-of-tolerance inconsistency (para 57-59, 91).
As to claim 20, Holmes discloses the replacement tow is deposited onto the substrate to replace the at least one portion of the one or more tows removed from the current ply (para 58).
As to claim 22, Holmes discloses the method further comprising the depositing of the one or more replacement tows comprising: overlapping the one or more replacement tow onto one or more retained portions (layers of tape lanes that form 400 – para 56, fig 4) of the one or more tows from which the at least one portion of the one more tows was removed (para 56-58).
As to claim 23, Holmes discloses the method further comprising depositing of the one of more replacement tows comprising: splicing the one or more replacement tow with one or more retained portions of the one or more tows from which the at least one portion was removed (para 58, fig 4 – lane is removed and replaced with prepreg tows and thus spliced to non-removed lanes 352 fig 4).
As to claim 24, Holmes discloses the method further comprising depositing of the replacement tow comprising: compacting the replacement tow on the substrate to define a nip (fig 5a-6b, compaction roller used).
As to claim 34, Holmes discloses a method for fabricating a layup for a composite part, the method comprising: depositing a first plurality of tows onto a substrate using a multi-lane automated fiber placement device to form a first ply overlaying the substrate in conjunction with fabrication of the layup for the composite part; identifying an out-of-tolerance inconsistency in the first plv; determining the out-of-tolerance inconsistency requires rework of a portion of one or more tows of the first plurality of tows; removing the portion of the one or more tows in the first ply associated with the out-of-tolerance inconsistency to expose a corresponding portion of the substrate associated with the out-of-tolerance inconsistency, depositing one or more replacement tows onto the portion of the substrate exposed for the rework of the out-of-tolerance inconsistency in the first ply using a AFP device with a heat source; and depositing a second plurality of tows onto the substrate using the automated fiber placement device with to form a second ply overlaying the first ply in conjunction with fabrication of the layup for the composite part (see Holmes text citations in discussion of claims 1,19, 20, 76 above).
Zieve discloses a method as detailed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Holmes such that the depositing of the one or more replacement tows/flys (first and second ply) is performed using a single-lane automated fiber placement device as taught Zieve above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
As to claim 77, Holmes discloses the removing of the portion of the one or more tows is performed using a tow removal tool (para 72)
Claim(s) 26-31 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes and Zieve, as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Belcher et al. (US 2022/0227074).
As to claim 26, Holmes and Zieve do not disclose the depositing of the replacement tow further comprising projecting an atmospheric pressure plasma flume proximate the nip to heat at least one of the replacement tow and the substrate. Belcher discloses a method of applying a tow to a substrate, comprising projecting an atmospheric pressure plasma flume proximate the nip to heat at least one of the replacement tow and the substrate (para 9, 25-29, fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Holmes and Zieve such that the depositing of the replacement tow further comprising projecting an atmospheric pressure plasma flume proximate the nip to heat at least one of the replacement tow and the substrate as taught by Belcher above as such improves the tack/adhesion/placement of the tows (para 25).
As to claim 27, Belcher discloses projecting of the atmospheric pressure plasma flume comprises projecting the atmospheric pressure plasma flume at an emanation angle ranging from at least one of about 0 degrees to about 20 degrees, about 0 degrees to about 10 degrees and about 0 degrees to about 5 degrees (para 29).
As to claim 28, Belcher discloses the projecting of the atmospheric pressure plasma flume comprises projecting the atmospheric pressure plasma flume at a pressure ranging from about 15 psi to about 50 psi (para 42).
As to claims 29-30 Belcher discloses the atmospheric pressure plasma flume has a width ranging from at least one of about 0.10 inches to about 0.40 inches, about 0.15 inches to about 0.35 inches and about 0.20 inches to about 0.30 inches (para 44); and a length ranging from at least one of about 0.25 inches to about 1.5 inches, about 0.5 inches to about 1.0 inches and about 0.70 inches to about 0.80 inches (para 44).
(para 44).
As to claim 31, Belcher discloses the atmospheric pressure plasma flume is about 0.5 inches to about 0.8 inches from the nip (para 39).
As to claim 78, Holmes and Zieve as modified by Belcher above disclose the depositing of the one or more replacement tows further comprising: cutting each of the one or more replacement tows to a desired length (Holmes para 45) in conjunction with the projecting of the atmospheric pressure plasma flume (see Belcher citations above) and the rework of the out-of- tolerance inconsistency (Holmes para 45, Holmes/Belcher citations with respect to claims 1, 76 and 26 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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: Holmes and Zieve disclose a method as detailed above and in section 15 of the Non-Final Rejection. However, neither Holmes, Zieve, nor any other prior art of record discloses or suggest that the resuming of the depositing of courses of the plurality of tows is performed by same the multi-lane AFP device that is re-provided after removal of the single lane AFP device, in the context of the other claim 2 limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Any arguments directed towards amended claim 2 are moot. Arguments directed at Holmes as a 102(a)(1) reference are moot. On p. 9, the applicant asserts that Homes in view of Zieve does not disclose or suggest the limitations of amended claims 1 and 76. This is a conclusory statement. Holmes in view of Zieve renders obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 76 at least for the reasons detailed in the body of the rejection above. The applicant summarizes portions of Holmes and Zieve on p.10-14 of the Remarks. Without conceding the veracity of the applicant’s summary, the examiner asserts that none of the Remarks on p. 10-14 are germane to the merits of the rejection - said remarks do not directly refute the substance of the examiner’s rejection.
On p. 15-16, the applicant cites figure 1 of the instant specification in an attempt to contrast claims 1 and 76 with Zieve and/or Holmes. The applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as limitations recited in the specification are not read into the claims. Applicant’s arguments directed at Holmes and Zieve on p. 16. 2nd full para, are not persuasive as they amount to individual attacks on each reference without considering the references in combination. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others). With respect to claim 34, Holmes in view of Zieve renders the limitations of the claims obvious for the reasons detailed in the body of the rejection above.
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 CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746