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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 31 and 39 on 07/06/2026.
The 112(b) rejection previously presented is withdrawn in view of amendments.
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.
Applicant argues:
“In the arrangement taught in Wadsworth, it is the actuator 1006 that moves the inflatable bladder 1004 into engagement with the composite material 2000, squishing the composite material against the mold 1002 (see column 9, lines 44-50 of Wadsworth). As stated in column 9, lines 54-47 of Wadsworth, "The composite tensioning system 1008 may be configured to induce tension in the composite 55 material 2000 as the composite material 2000 is draped over the mold 1002 via the inflatable bladder 1004". Therefore, Wadsworth teaches that the movement of the inflatable bladder 1004 (caused by the actuator 1006) is what causes the composite material to come into contact with the mold, and not the tensioning system 1008 (mapped by the Examiner onto the former boards of claim 31).
Claim 31 conversely requires that "the movement of the former boards from the first position to the second position brings the layer of NCF material into contact with the forming tool." In the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that in Wadsworth, the actuator 1006 is the only feature actuated to move. Therefore, it appears to be common ground with the Examiner that it is the movement of the actuator 1006 of Wadsworth that causes contact of the composite material with the forming tool (via the inflatable bladder), and not the tensioning system 1008.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Examiner agrees movement of the actuator of Wadsworth contributes to the composite material contacting the forming tool via the inflatable balloon, Examiner disagrees that the movement of the tensioning system of Wadsworth does not bring the composite material to a second position.
Wadsworth teaches the tensioning system move along the axis of movement of the inflatable bladder ( e.g., downward) during forming to more effectively control an amount of tension on the composite material 2000 (Col 9, ln 56-65). The force applied to the composite material causes the tension connectors to apply tension and move, thereby allowing the composite material to be lowered.
If the tensioning system of Wadsworth were configured to be incapable of moving to the second position at which the composite material contacts the forming tool, the tensioning system would not elongate to allow for movement and tension adjustment and would resist the force applied by the actuator and bladder.
Claim 31 (C) limitation recites “causing the moveable former boards to move from a first position … to a second position”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, it appears the limitation does not preclude passive movement of the moveable former boards or moving the moveable former boards due to tension and in response to an external applied forced.
Claim 31 limitation (C) does not require movement of the former boards alone to bring the layer of NCF material into contact with the forming tool. Claim 31 limitation (C) does not require actuating the moveable former boards to move from the first position to the second position.
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 34 and 35 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 31 recites “causing the moveable former boards to move from a first position above a forming tool to a second position below the first.”
In claims 34 and 35, it is unclear if “a forming tool” is reference to the forming tool recited in claim 31 or a different forming tool. For examination purposes, the forming tool recited in claims 34 and 35 will be interpreted to be the same forming tool of claim 31.
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.
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:
(A) 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);
(B) 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);
(C) causing the tension connectors to move from a first portion above a forming tool to a second position below the first, wherein movement of the tension connectors from the first position to the second position bring the layer of fibrous material into contact with the forming tool (Figure 9-10; Col 9, ln 32-65; Col 10, ln 24-36).
In response to force applied to the layers of fibrous material to assist in pressing the layers of fibrous material, the tensioning system are elongated and moved in order to apply tension to the layers of fibrous material (Figure 9-10 and Col 9, ln 32-56; Col 10, ln 6-36).
Wadsworth teaches the composite tensioning system, including the tension connectors, may be configured to move along the axis of movement of the inflatable bladder (e.g., downward) during forming to more effectively control an amount of tension on the composite material 2000 (Col 9, ln 56-65).
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 the 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 the 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);
wherein 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
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
Prosecution Insights