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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (a), claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda (US 10,717,241).
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda teaches a method of forming a perform for a composite component, the method comprising:
laying up a plurality of plies to form an initial preform having an initial shape (Figure 3A and 3B, 5A; Col 6, ln 23-57);
partially bonding adjacent plies of the plurality of plies to each other to form a bonded preform having the initial shape, the bonded preform including a high-adherence region and a low-adherence region, the bonding between adjacent plies being greater in the high-adherence region than in the low-adherence region (Figure 1, 3B and 5B; Col 4, ln 54-62; Col 6, ln 23-57 and Col 7, ln 12-57); and
forming the bonded preform from the initial shape to a final shape to generate a shaped preform, the final shape having a low-contour region formed from the high-adherence region and a high-contour region formed from the low-adherence region (Figure 1 and 4 and Col 7, ln 44- Col 8, ln 12).
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein each ply of the plurality of plies includes a plurality of fiber tows (Col 4, ln 1-26).
Regarding claim 3, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the plurality of plies is laid up on a lay-up tool prior to transporting to a preform die (Col 9, ln 63- Co 10, ln 10 and Figure 1).
While Kuroda does not explicitly teach the lay-up tool having a planar surface on which the plurality of plies is laid up, given that the laid up plies are form a flat preform (Figure 1) prior to being disposed into the preform die, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the lay-up tool would be flat, as no shaping is necessary.
Regarding claim 4, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, the initial shape has a contour and the high-contour region has a contour, the contour of the initial shape being less than the contour of the high-contour region (Figure 1, 5A, and 5B).
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the plurality of plies is laid up using an automated lay-up system, wherein the automated lay-up system lays up the plurality of plies using a fiber tape (Figure 1, item 250 and Col 9, ln 62-Col 10, ln 10).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the bonded preform is formed using a forming tool to shape the bonded preform from the initial shape to a final shape, the forming tool including a contoured molding region to impart the contour to the high-contour region (Figure 1 and 8, and Col 10, ln 48- Col 11, ln 21), wherein the bonded preform is formed using a thermoforming process Col 10, ln 48- Col 11, ln 21).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein at least one ply of the adjacent plies includes a bonding agent (Col 6, ln 5- 43), and bonding adjacent plies of the plurality of plies to each other includes activating the bonding agent (Col 6, ln 44-57 and Col 7, ln 26-56).
Regarding claim 10, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 9, wherein the bonding agent is at least one of tackifiers, binders, or a resin (Col 6, ln 5- 43).
Regarding claim 11, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 9, wherein, in bonding adjacent plies of the plurality of plies to each other, the bonding agent is at least one of a veil, a powder, or a filament within or between the at least one ply (Col 6, ln 5- 43).
Regarding claim 15, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein adjacent plies in the low-adherence region are free from bonding to eachother (Figure 5A and Col 4, ln 46-53-62).
Regarding claim 19, Kuroda teaches a method of forming a composite component (Figure 1), the method comprising:
preparing a preform using the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the plies of the plurality of plies are prepreg plies (Col 4, ln 1-45 and Col 6, ln 5-44); and
curing the preform to generate the composite component (Col 8, ln 4-40).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 10,717,241), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lucas (PG-PUB 2024/0262052).
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda teaches the method as applied to claim 9, wherein the adhesive is a powdered (solid adhesive) (Col 6, ln 5-22) with a melting temperature between 70 to 150 degrees Celsius (Col 6, ln 44-57).
Kuroda does not teach the bonding agent is heat activated, and activating the bonding agent includes heating the plurality of plies.
Lucas teaches preparing a preform by stacking a plurality of fabric sheets and fixing the sheets, wherein a binding agent is arranged in and/or in between the stacked fabric sheet prior to molding (Abstract and [0033]-[0035]). Lucas teaches the binding agent can be in the form of liquid and/or solid form [0033]. Lucas teaches the binding agent may be activating using at least one binding agent activation means, such as heat [0037].
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 Kuroda, in particularly the solid adhesive of Kuroda, with a heat-activated solid binding agent as taught by Lucas, a known suitable solid adhesive for fixing a plurality of fiber layers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 10,717,241) in view of Lucas (PG-PUB 2024/0262052), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Chujo (PG-PUB 2017/0106608).
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda in view of Lucas teaches the method as applied to claim 12, wherein the varying content density of the adhesive is applied to suppress wrinkle and deformation (Col 7, ln 44-55), and the produced composite can have different three-dimensional shapes (Col 2, ln 16-35 and Col 4, ln 28-32).
Kuroda in view of Lucas does not teach the low-adherence region is formed by heating adjacent plies of the low-adherence region to a lower temperature than that of the high-adherence region.
Chujo teaches a process of manufacturing a fiber-reinforced composite material, the process comprising a first binder resin applied to a first portion for forming a deformed part of a fiber base material and a second binder resin is applied to a second portion excluding the first portion (Figure 2 and 4 and [0015]-[0018]), so that the reinforcing fiber pieces in the first portion can be partly bound to prevent the orientation disturbance; thus, the orientation disturbance can be prevented while sufficient formability of the first portion is maintained and the fiber base can be shaped more accurately and easily to prepare the preform containing the approximately uniformly oriented reinforcing fiber pieces [0014].
Chujo teaches the fiber base material is then heated so that the degree of melting of the first binder resin during shaping is less than the degree of melting of the second binder resin and the second binder resin is softened (Figure 5 and [0012]-[0014]). Specifically, Chujo teaches in the heating step, the first portion is heated at the first temperature, at which the force of the binder resin for binding the reinforcing fiber pieces can be maintained and the second portion is heated
at the second temperature, at which the binder resin can be softened to achieve the sufficient formability [0018], [0062]-[0063].
Both Kuroda and Chujo teaches providing varying levels of binding between a plurality of stacked fiber layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Kuroda in view of Lucas with the technique of Chujo of using binders with different softening pints and heating the low-adherence and high-adherence regions based on the appropriate softening points.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 10,717,241) in view of Lucas (PG-PUB 2024/0262052), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Buckley (PG-PUB 2007/0023975).
Regarding claim 14, Kuroda in view of Lucas teaches the method as applied to claim 12, wherein no binder is applied in the low-adherence region (Kuroda, Col 4, ln 46-53).
Kuroda in view of Lucas does not teach the heat to bond adjacent plies is selectively applied only to the high-adherence region.
Buckley teaches manufacturing a coplanar multilayer web structure, comprising applying a binder to a plurality of webs and pressing the webs together (Figure 4, 5, and 23 and [0077]-[0079]). Buckley teaches local heating of the webs to cure the binder to bind the webs together [0082] for the purpose of minimizing wrinkling or buckling of the reinforcing material (Figure 9 and [0079]). Buckley teaches the source may be periodically activated or its emission may be periodically gated to provide curing at spaced zones in the desired locations of the webs [0081]-[0082].
Kuroda in view of Lucas teaches activating the binder in the entire region when the binder is applied. Buckley teaches a technique of periodically activation portions of the binder disposed on the webs is sufficient for minimizing wrinkling and buckling of the layers of reinforcing material. 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 Kuroda in view of Lucas with the local heating technique of Buckley, a known suitable technique for fixing fiber reinforcement to minimize wrinkling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply heat only to the regions where the binder is applied. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kuroda in view of Lucas and Buckley to spot-heating only within the high-adherence region where binder is applied while avoiding heating the low-adherence region where no binder is applied.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 10,717,241), as applied to claim 15, in further view of Shair (PG-PUB 2014/0060732).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Kuroda teaches the process as applied to claim 15, wherein the plies are laid on a flat surface using a robot (Figure 1 and Col 9, ln 63-Col 10, ln 10) and shaped in a preform die (Col 10, ln 25-45).
Kuroda does not teach:
positioning a separator between adjacent plies of the plurality of plies in the low-adherence region to prevent bonding between adjacent plies,
wherein the separator is a sheet of material.
Shair teaches a method for preparing a preform, comprising:
applying at least one ply onto a complex molding surface of a layup tool or an uncured composite layup disposed on the tool;
positioning nonstick separations onto the molding surface of the tool and removing the one or more nonstick separators from the molding surface; and
automatically positioning the at least one ply on the at least one nonstick separator to inhibit at least a portion of the at least one ply from adhering to the tool or to the uncured composite layup, wherein a compressive force is movably applied to drape, tack, secure, or adhere the center portion of the ply and the side edges of the ply may be under tension and pulled slightly inward [0032]-[0034], [0040]. Shair teaches the nonstick separator inhibits the ply from sticking to the tool prior to the ply being draped and tacked onto the tool [0023], [0023]. Shair teaches the nonstick separator is made to be reusable [0023].
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 Kuroda with a lay-up tool with a complex-shaped surface as taught by Shair, a known suitable technique lay-up tool for preparing laid stacks for prior processing.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kuroda in view of Shair with the non-stick separators and lay-up rollers for the purpose of sequentially applying pressure from the center of the ply to the ends, maintaining tension at the ends, and preventing premature tacking of the plies, as taught by Shair.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 10,717,241) in view of Shair (PG-PUB 2014/0060732), as applied to claim 17, in further view of Schubiger (WO 2010046770A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kuroda in view of Shair teaches the process as applied to claim 17.
Kuroda in view of Shair does not teach the separator is formed from at least one of polyester, polytetrafluoroethylene, or polyimide.
Schubiger teaches a process for making reactive polymer prepregs (Abstract). Schubiger teaches the reinforcement material 510 may be overlaid on the releasable surface 540 of the film 530 so that the substantially non-volatile composition 4 is sandwiched between the at least one layer 520 of the reinforcement material 510 and the releasable surface 540 of the film 530, and the film is then released, leaving the composition 4 as a deposit on the at least one layer 520 of the reinforcement material 510 [0148]. Schubiger teaches the film 530 is made from a material selected from the group consisting of paper coated with silicone release agent. Alternatively, the film 530 may be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy polymer resin, PFA, polyfluoroalkanes, or polyethylene film, and polypropylene film [0148].
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 Kuroda in view of Shair, in particularly the composition of the separator, with a release film made of PTFE as taught by Schubiger, a known suitable composition for a release sheet.
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
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights