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 A
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal et al. USP 11331833 B2 (hereinafter “Dalal”) in view of Kline et al. USP 5453226 (hereinafter “Kline”).
As to claim 1, Dalal teaches a method of manufacturing a composite part (col. 1 line 65- col. 2 line 22 “composite is positioned within the heated environment and is supported by the support mandrel”), the method comprising: applying thermocouples to a plurality of locations on a composite material (FIG. 4 and col. 8 line 63- col. 7 line 10); applying curing heat to the composite material (FIG. 4 and col 9 lines 1-20); determining, at predetermined time intervals, a predicted percentage of cure of the composite material based on a current temperature sensed by at least one of the thermocouples, what type of material the composite material comprises (col. 4 line 33- col. 5 line 22 and FIG. 4-8); and removing heat from the composite material when the predicted percentage of cure reaches a predetermined percentage of cure (col. 3 line 51- col. 4 line 10 and FIG. 3).
Dalal does not explicitly teach a curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material comprises.
However, Kline teaches a curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material comprises (col. 6 lines 2-37).
Dalal and Kline are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to curing process of a composite material part.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above curing process of a composite material part, as taught by Dalal, and incorporating curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material, as taught by Kline.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a methodology employing analytic models for continuously selecting new optimal cure cycles during the curing process in response to actual material behaviors which occur over time within the composite part during the curing process, as suggested by Kline (col. 3 lines 16-21).
As to claim 2, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches further comprising identifying one of the thermocouples with a lower temperature than all others of the thermocouples after a predetermined time segment as a lagging thermocouple, wherein the at least one of the thermocouples is the lagging thermocouple (col. 6 lines 12-32).
As to claim 3, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kline further teaches wherein the curing model is a statistical model developed by testing, for a range of different thermal ramp up speeds and hold temperatures, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of a polymer of the type of material that the composite material comprises to determine an amount of energy the polymer outputs per unit mass (col. 4 line 50-col. 6 line 29).
As to claim 6, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein the applying of the curing heat comprises ramping up to a cure temperature at a predetermined rate and holding at the cure temperature until the predicted percentage of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure (col. 6 lines 33-50).
As to claim 7, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches further comprising training the curing model based on one or more estimated kinetic parameters identified by a differential scanning calorimeter using the Borchardt and Daniels Method (col. 7 lines 11-39).
As to claim 8, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein the heat source comprises a plurality of heat zones each having independent temperature control, wherein at least some of the thermocouples are located at different ones of the plurality of heat zones (FIG. 4 and col. 6 line 63-col. 7 line 24).
As to claim 9. Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches further comprising determining, at the predetermined time intervals, zone-specific predicted percentages of cure of the composite material on each of the plurality of heat zones based on temperatures sensed by each of the thermocouples and the curing model; and instructing each of the plurality of heat zones of the heat source independently to turn off when a corresponding one of the zone- specific predicted percentages of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure (FIG. 3 and col. 3 line 50- col. 4 line 20).
As to claim 10, Dalal teaches a system for manufacturing a composite part (abstract and FIG.1), the system comprising: a composite material (col. 2 line 25-30 “composite material” and FIG. 1); thermocouples at a plurality of locations on the composite material (FIG. 4 shows thermocouples are located in different locations and col. 6 line 63-col. 7 line 10); a heat source configured to apply curing heat to the composite material (col 9 lines 10-20 “heat source applying…”); a processor at least one of electrically and communicably coupled to the heat source and the thermocouples, wherein the processor is configured to automatically (col. 3 line 50- col. 4 line 10 and FIG. 4): identify one of the thermocouples with a lower temperature than all others of the thermocouples after a predetermined time segment as a lagging thermocouple (col. 6 lines 12-32), determine at predetermined time intervals a predicted percentage of cure of the composite material based on a current temperature sensed by the lagging thermocouple (col. 4 line 33- col. 5 line 22 and FIG. 4-8), what type of material the composite material comprises (col. 4 line 33- col. 5 line 22 and FIG. 4-8), and instruct the heat source to turn off when the predicted percentage of cure reaches a predetermined percentage of cure (col. 3 line 51- col. 4 line 10 and FIG. 3).
Dalal does not explicitly teach a curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material comprises.
However, Kline teaches a curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material comprises (col. 6 lines 2-37).
Dalal and Kline are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to curing process of a composite material part.
Therefore at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above curing process of a composite material part, as taught by Dalal, and incorporating curing model corresponding to the type of material the composite material, as taught by Kline.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a methodology employing analytic models for continuously selecting new optimal cure cycles during the curing process in response to actual material behaviors which occur over time within the composite part during the curing process, as suggested by Kline (col. 3 lines 16-21).
As to claim 11, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kline further teaches wherein the curing model is a statistical model developed by at least one of a) dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) and b) testing, for a range of different thermal ramp up speeds and hold temperatures, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of a polymer of the type of material that the composite material comprises to determine an amount of energy the polymer outputs per unit mass (col. 4 line 50-col. 6 line 29).
As to claim 13, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to automatically interpolate data associated with the curing model to predict at least one of a cure kinetic state of a matrix of the composite material and an amount of time left before the predicted percentage of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure at the current temperature of the lagging thermocouple (col. 6 lines 12-32).
As to claim 14, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein the heat source comprises a plurality of heat zones each having independent temperature control, wherein at least some of the thermocouples are located at different ones of the plurality of heat zones (FIG. 4 and col. 6 line 63-col. 7 line 24).
As to claim 15, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine at the predetermined time intervals zone-specific predicted percentages of cure of the composite material on each of the plurality of heat zones based on temperatures sensed by each of the thermocouples, what type of material the composite material comprises, and the curing model for the type of material the composite material comprises, and instruct each of the plurality of heat zones of the heat source independently to turn off when a corresponding one of the zone-specific predicted percentages of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure (FIG. 3 and col. 3 line 50- col. 4 line 20).
As to claim 16, is related to claim 10 with similar limitations also rejected by same rational.
As to claim 18, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Kline further teaches further comprises receiving input regarding the type of material that the composite material comprise and selecting the curing model from a plurality of statistical models based on the type of material (abstract and col. 6 line 31-50).
As to claim 19, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches wherein during the generating step, the processor automatically interpolates data associated with the curing model to predict an amount of time left before the predicted percentage of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure (col. 6 lines 33-50).
As to claim 20, Dalal and Kline teach all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Dalal further teaches, wherein the heat source comprises a plurality of heat zones each having independent temperature control, wherein at least some of the thermocouples are located at different ones of the plurality of heat zones, wherein the method of claim 16 further comprises: determining, with the processor, at the predetermined time intervals, zone- specific predicted percentages of cure of the composite material on each of the plurality of heat zones based on temperatures sensed by each of the thermocouples and the curing model; and instructing, via the processor, each of the plurality of heat zones of the heat source to independently turn off when a corresponding one of the zone- specific predicted percentages of cure reaches the predetermined percentage of cure (FIG. 3 and col. 3 line 50- col. 4 line 20).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holtzberg USP 6344160 B1 teaches a method of molding composite, structural plastics and the objects fabricated thereby. In particular, this invention relates to a method of casting plastic commercial components in conventional metalcasting molds without the need for injection or compression molding. This invention further relates to the rapid fabrication of prototypes in composite, structural plastics using conventional soft tooling or rapid prototyping techniques.
Hamilton et al. USP 11453148 B2 a method of curing a composite article and associated curing apparatus. A heat source is provided for heating the composite article. A temperature related property is detected proximal to the heat source and the heat output is regulated to a predetermined temperature vs. time profile. Heat output vs time data is acquired and functionalised and the curing completion time is determined based on the functionalised heat output vs time data. The method provides for heating a composite article so as to follow a predetermined temperature vs. time profile (i.e. a cure profile) and avoid excessively high temperatures. The required heat output vs time has also been found to be broadly reproducible, and the curing completion time can be more readily determined from functionalised heat output vs time data, for example by identifying reproducible characteristics of the functionalised data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights