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
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 31, 36, and 38-39 on 12/15/2025.
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.
Claim 39 is 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 39 recites “the former boards further comprising one or more couplings arranged in use to receive the intermediate elastic material for coupling to a length of Non-Crimp Fabric.” It is unclear if “Non-Crimp Fabric” is in reference to the NCF material of claim 31 or a new material. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the layer of NCF material”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues Wadsworth does not teach step (c) of claim 31 because the tensioning system of Wadsworth does not move, as the biasing elements 1014 merely stretch due to the movement of the actuator 1006 to exert a tension force and the only feature that moves is the actuator. Applicant argues the tensioning system 1008 does not move from a first position above a forming tool to a second position below the first, and does not bring the layer of NCF material into contact with the forming tool.
Examiner agrees that the actuator is the only feature actuated to move, but notes the tensioning system 1008 moves from a first position above a forming tool (Figure 9) and a second position below the first position (Figure 10) and is caused to move into the positions (i.e., moved due to the actuator).
The use of the biasing element allows for the tensioning system to move along the axis of movement of the inflatable bladder so as to bring the layer of NCF material into contact with the forming tool (Col 9, ln 51-65). Without the biasing element, the tensioning system would not likely be able to move to bring the layer of NCF material into contact with the forming tool or conform to the movements of the bladder. Accordingly, the moveable former boards would be caused to move from a first position to a second position.
Claim 31, step (c) as presented does not require the tensioning system to move vertically or for the tensioning system itself to be actuated.
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.
Claim(s) 31-35 and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth (US 11,752,711) in view of Perrillat (US 10,076,882) and Abou-Assali Rodriguez (US 11,383,465).
Regarding claim 31, Wadsworth teaches a method of forming a component from a fibrous material, the method comprising:
coupling portions of the periphery of layers of a fibrous material to one or more movable tension connectors of a laying up apparatus (Figures 4-6, 9, and 10; Col 9, ln 6-Col 10, ln 11);
causing the moveable tension connectors to move apart, thereby placing a tensile load on the layers of fibrous material (Figure 1 and 9 and Col 10, ln 24-49);
causing the tension connectors to move from a first portion above a forming tool to a second position below the first so as to bring the layer of fibrous material into contact with the forming tool (Figure 8).
Wadsworth teaches the composite part can be used in aircraft production (Col 3, ln 1-5).
Wadsworth does not teach:
forming a component from non-crimp fiber material; and
coupling portions of the periphery of a layer of the fibrous material to one or more movable former boards of a laying up apparatus, wherein the coupling is by an intermediate elastic material.
As to (1), Perrillat teaches a method of preparing a stringer, wherein the reinforcement used in the stringer preform may comprise woven, non-crimped, or unidirectional fabrics (Col 6, ln 9-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Wadsworth, in particularly the fibrous material of Wadsworth, with non-crimped fabric, a known suitable fibrous material for aircraft-related composites as taught by Perillat, to yield the predictable result of providing a suitable composite for aircraft-related composites.
As to (2), Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches a method of forming a component from a fibrous material, the method comprising: coupling portions of the periphery of a layer of the fibrous material to one or more movable former boards of a laying up apparatus, wherein the coupling is by an intermediate elastic material (Figure 14, 16-19, 24A, 24B). Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches a plurality of separation sheets disposed between fibrous layers and in the form of silicone material and elastic elements adjacent to the former boards (Figure 19 and Col 12, ln 7-60). Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches said elastic element envelops the fibers to distribute the pressure exerted by the frames on the fibers in a homogonous way, thus avoiding pressure concentrations that cause distortions in the directions of the fiber when sliding relative to the sheet due to an excessive frictional force (Col 12, ln 61-Col 13, ln 30).
Both Wadsworth and Abou-Assali Rodriguez are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to shaping complex composites using tensioning mechanisms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Wadsworth with the movable former boards, elastic material, and separation layers as taught by Abou-Assali Rodriguez, for the benefit of distributing the pressure exerted by the movable former boards and avoiding pressure concentrations that can cause distortions in the fibers.
Regarding claim 32, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the intermediate elastic material is maintained in tension due to friction against the elastic material as the movable former boards are moved from the first to the second position (Abou-Assali Rodriguez, Figure 14-18, 24A and 24B; Col 12, ln 7-60).
Regarding claim 33, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the movable former boards are further arranged to optionally move laterally away from or towards eachother before and during movement from the first to the second position (Wadsworth, Figure 9-10 and col 9, ln 21-65).
Regarding claim 34, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein as the moveable former boards move from the first to the second positions they are configured to move vertically and laterally towards a respective side of a forming tool (Wadsworth, Figure 9-10 and col 9, ln 21-65).
Regarding claim 35, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the moveable former boards are capable of moving in a vertical direction by a predetermined distance and then simultaneously both vertically and laterally towards a respective side of a forming tool (Wadsworth, Col 7, ln 5-30).
Regarding claim 37, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, further comprising lowering a pressure box over the forming tool, the pressure box comprising an inflatable bladder, and causing the bladder to inflate to apply a force to the outer surface of the forming tool (Wadsworth, Figure 9 and 10; Col 4, ln 38-50; Col 10, ln 20-29).
Regarding claim 38, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the coupling portions is in the form of a strip or length of fluoropolymer release film (Abou-Assali Rodriguez, Col 3, ln 41-51 and Col 12, ln 46-60).
Regarding claim 39, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the laying up apparatus comprises:
at least one pair of opposing moveable former boards, the former boards being arranged for positioning on opposing sides of the forming tool and movable between a first position above an upper surface of the forming tool to a second position lower than the first (Abou-Assali Rodriguez, Figure 14, 16-19, 24A, 24B and Wadsworth, Figure 9-10 and col 9, ln 21-65);
wherein each former board has a former edge which is moveable relative to the side surfaces of the forming tool (Wadsworth, Figure 1 and 9 and Col 10, ln 24-49);
the former boards further comprising one or more couplings arranged in use to receive the intermediate elastic material for coupling to the length of the NCF (Abou-Assali Rodriguez, Figure 19 and Col 12, ln 7-60).
Claim 36 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth (US 11,752,711) in view of Perrillat (US 10,076,882) and Abou-Assali Rodriguez (US 11,383,465), as applied to claim 31, in further view of Newton (PG-PUB 2019/0016063).
Regarding claim 36, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the forming tool is an elongate
tool and the forming boards are arranged to extend along the sides of the elongate tool (Wadsworth, Col 7, ln 5-18).
Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez does not teach the forming boards are arranged to extend along the longest sides of the elongate tool.
Newton teaches a composite manufacturing process, wherein the composite is a C-shaped or U-shaped wing spar of an aircraft [0011], prepared with a plurality of plies of fibrous materials extended along a tool to prepare an elongated structure (Figures 1 and 5, [0032]).
Both Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Newton are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to composite molding for aircraft components utilizing NCF. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez by utilizing said process to prepare an aircraft wing spar, a known suitable NCF-based, C-shaped aircraft composite as taught by Newton, to yield the predictable result of preparing a C-shaped aircraft composite as desired by Wadsworth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the wing spar of Wadsworth in view of Perillat, Abou-Assali Rodriguez, and Newton would be an elongated composite with a C-shaped cross-section and a length suitable for use in an aircraft wing. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the longest tool sides would be in the longitudinal direction of the preform, where a plurality of forming boards are arranged to extend along the sides of the elongate tool (Wadsworth, Col 7, ln 5-18).
Regarding claim 40, Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez teaches the process as applied to claim 31, wherein the composite manufactured is for use in aircraft production (Wadsworth, Col 3, ln 1-5).
Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez does not explicitly teach the component is a spar for an aircraft wing.
Newton teaches a composite manufacturing process, wherein the composite is a C-shaped or U-shaped wing spar of an aircraft [0011], prepared with a plurality of plies of fibrous materials, like non-crimped fabrics (Figures 1 and 5, [0032]).
Both Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Newton are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to composite molding for aircraft components utilizing NCF. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Wadsworth in view of Perrillat and Abou-Assali Rodriguez by utilizing said process to prepare an aircraft wing spar, a known suitable NCF-based, C-shaped aircraft composite as taught by Newton, to yield the predictable result of preparing a C-shaped aircraft composite as desired by Wadsworth.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights