CTNF 18/663,995 CTNF 101693 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/07/2024 and 04/01/2026 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein sweeping the composite ply …” should be “wherein the sweeping the composite ply ….” Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein tracing curves …” should be “wherein the tracing curves ….” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The recited “traced curves” in claim 12 are already “isoparametric curves” (see claim 11). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected based on their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2, 4, 5, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas and/or laws of nature without significantly more, as discussed below. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a method ( i.e ., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application ( i.e ., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 1 recites “tracing curves…[,] reparameterizing the curves … [and] mapping the curves….” The claimed “tracing,” “reparameterizing,” and/or “mapping” are abstract ideas and/or laws of nature because they are mathematical concepts ( e.g ., formulas written in prose) and/or can be performed mentally ( e.g ., with pen and paper). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Further, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application. For example, claim 1 does not require that anything actually be done with the calculated information. In contrast, claims 6 and 7 positively recite steps to be performed based on the calculated information. Thus claim 1, does not integrate the claimed selecting into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites steps for “flattening” a curve, the claimed steps do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field.” Thus, the recited steps are an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or improve the relevant technology. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo , that claimed “tracing,” “reparameterizing,” and/or “mapping” represent a new idea, these steps are still abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp ., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original). For reasons analogous to those given above, the claimed “drawing an index curve …” recited in claim 3 is an abstract idea/law of nature, and claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 2-5 and 9-10 are rejected based on their dependencies. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because, while independent claim 12 falls within a statutory class of a method ( i.e ., claim 12 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 12 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application ( i.e ., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 12 recites “setting an index curve…[,] constructing a curve …[,] tracing curves …[,] constructing a reparameterization map … [and] constructing a flattening map ….” The claimed elements are abstract ideas and/or laws of nature because they are mathematical concepts ( e.g ., formulas written in prose) and/or can be performed mentally ( e.g ., with pen and paper). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Further, claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application. For example, claim 12 does not require that anything actually be done with the calculated information. In contrast, claims 19 and 20 positively recite steps to be performed based on the calculated information. Thus claim 12, does not integrate the claimed selecting into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites steps for “flattening” a curve, the claimed steps do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field.” Thus, the recited steps are an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or improve the relevant technology. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 12 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 12 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP §2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo , that claimed steps represent a new idea, these steps are still abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp ., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original). Claim 14 recites an isoparametric tracing formula , claim 16 recites a geodesic tracing formula , and claim 18 recites an offset tracing formula . For reasons analogous to those given above, the recited formulas in claims 14, 16, and 18 are abstract ideas/laws of nature, and claims 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 12 to 18 are rejected based on their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0208540 to Burgos Gallego et al . (“Gallego”) in view of Saroul, Laurent, Oscar Figueiredo, and Roger D. Hersch. "Distance preserving flattening of surface sections." IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12.1 (2006): 26-35 (“Saroul”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200047879 to Foskey et al . (“Foskey”) . Regarding claim 1 , Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: A method of performing a curve-wise flattening to determine a two-dimensional ply shape (Gallego discloses generating flattened 2D composite material part (“ two-dimensional ply shape ”) from a 3D CAD environment. See, e.g ., Gallego at pars. [0010]-[0016], [0040]-[0056], and [0063] and Figs. 1-12.), the method comprising : tracing curves on a first tensor product spline representing a three-dimensional part surface (Gallego does not explicitly disclose the details of how to flatten a three-dimensional part surface into a two-dimensional shape, but indicates that the methods are known. See, e.g ., Gallego at par. [0063]. In a same field of endeavor, flattening of 3D surfaces into 2D structures (and thus analogous art), Saroul discloses computing a set of curves C u and curves C j (“ tracing curves ”) on a curved surface S (corresponding to “ first tensor product spline ”). See, e.g ., Saroul at Sections 3 and 4 and Figs. 1 and 3a). It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have included the “flattening” method of Saroul into the system of Gallego because Gallego suggests that known methods of “flattening” can be used ( see Gallego at par. [0063]) and because the “flattening” method of Saroul minimizes metric distortions ( see Saroul at Section 4). See MPEP § 2143.I.G.); reparameterizing the curves onto a parametric domain representative of a two-dimensional space (Saroul discloses a “ new parameterization defined by the family of curves C u and the family of curves C j …” prior to flattening (“ reparameterizing the curves onto a parametric domain representative of a two-dimensional space ”). See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4 and Fig. 3a.); and mapping the curves to a second tensor product spline representing a flat table space while maintaining lengths of the curves between the first tensor product spline and the second tensor product spline in the curve-wise flattening to form a flattened shape, such that resulting table-space flattened curves are parallel straight lines in a desired fiber direction (Saroul discloses mapping each of the curves C j onto an initial curve C u0 , which is mapped to a “ plane ” (corresponding to “ second tensor product spline ”) to generate a flattened surface (“ curve-wise flattening to form a flattened shape ”). Saroul also discloses that the curves C’ j are parallel straight lines (“ resulting table-space flattened curves are parallel straight lines ”) and that the distance between consecutive sample points on each curve Cj is preserved (“ maintaining lengths of the curves between the first tensor product spline and the second tensor product spline ”). See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4 and Figs. 3a and 3b. with respect to “ table-space flattened curves are parallel straight lines in a desired fiber direction” (Saroul discloses that “plane orientation H [which corresponds to the orientation of curves C’ j ] is chosen by the user according to the desired orientation along which distances should be preserved.” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4. Gallego discloses that “composite material fabrics with carbon fibers [are] arranged in different orientations.” See, e.g., Gallego at par. [0003]. However, Gallego in view of Saroul does not explicitly disclose that the desired orientation of the curves Cj is “ in a desired fiber direction .” In a same field of endeavor, laying up composite materials (and thus analogous art), Foskey discloses the use of multiple fabric layers having fibers oriented in directions ranging from 15- to 75-degrees . See, e.g ., Foskey at pars. [0034]-[0040] and Figs. 3 and 4. Thus, Foskey teaches to orient the fibers in the fabric layer (“ two-dimensional ply shape ”) in specific directions. Based on the disclosures in Saroul and Olsen, the “desired orientation” of the “curves” as taught by Saroul would correspond to the orientation of the fiber (“ in a desired fiber direction ”) in the respective fabric layer as taught by Foskey. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have the “desired direction” of the curves be based on the fiber direction when determining the ply shape so that the laying up of the fiber layers at different fiber directions will provide improved damage tolerance and fatigue resistance. See, e.g ., Fosket at par. [0040].). Regarding claim 2 , which depends on claim 1, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein tracing the curves comprises at least one of isoparametric tracing, best fit plane isoparametric tracing, geodesic tracing, or offset tracing (Saroul discloses isoparametric tracing and geodesic tracing. See Saroul at Section 4 and footnotes 1-3. Saroul also discloses that the sample points P are chosen such that the desired orientation and distances should be preserved and to minimize angular distortions . See Saroul at Section 4. Thus, Saroul discloses that the isoparametric tracing comprises the “ best fit plane isoparameteric tracing .” Saroul further discloses that, once C’ J0 is mapped, each of the other curves C j is mapped “into a straight line parallel to C’ j0 ….” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4. The parallel lines represent “offsets” and thus Saroul discloses the claimed “ offset tracing .”). Regarding claim 3 , which depends on claim 1, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: drawing an index curve on the first tensor product spline prior to tracing the curves on the first tensor product spline, wherein the index curve intersects each of the curves (Saroul discloses that “[b]y iterating over all sample points M j of C u0 [(“ an index curve ”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves C j [(“ prior to tracing the curves on the first tensor product spline ”)].” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4.); and defining index curve flattening for the index curve prior to mapping the curves to the second tensor product spline (Saroul discloses that the initial curve C u0 (“ the index curve ”) is mapped onto a plane (“ second tensor product spline ”) at each sample point prior to mapping curves C j (“ the curves ”). See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4.). Regarding claim 4 , which depends on claim 3, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein the index curve defines a location of a composite material that is fixed in a draping process of the composite material onto the three-dimensional part surface (Foskey disclose that “ Fabric 304 [(“ composite material ”)] is draped [(“ draping process ”)] on the surface of mandrel 301 [(“ tool ”)] so that fibers 306 are oriented along the span axis 303 [(“ the index curve defines a location of a composite material that is fixed ”)] on mandrel 301.” See Foskey at par. [0034] and Fig. 3.). Regarding claim 5 , which depends on claim 3, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein tracing the curves comprises tracing the curves relative to the index curve over the first tensor product spline (Saroul discloses that “[b]y iterating over all sample points M j of C u0 [(“ an index curve ”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves C j . [(“ relative to the index curve over the first tensor product spline ”)].” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4.). Regarding claim 6 , which depends on claim 1, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: laying up a composite ply according to the flattened shape ( See, e.g., Foskey at pars. [0008]-[0009] and [0034] and Fig. 3.). Regarding claim 7 , which depends on claim 3, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: applying a composite ply having the flattened shape onto an index line of a tool corresponding to the index curve on the three-dimensional part surface; and sweeping the composite ply to the tool (Foskey disclose that “ Fabric 304 [(“ composite ply having the flattened shape ”)] is draped on the surface of mandrel 301 [(“ tool ”)] so that fibers 306 are oriented along the span axis 303 [(“ an index line of a tool corresponding to the index curve on the three-dimensional part surface ”)] on mandrel 301.” Draping the fabric 304 around the mandrel 301 will require sweeping the fabric around the mandrel (“ sweeping the composite ply to the tool ”). See Foskey at par. [0034] and Fig. 3.). Regarding claim 8 , which depends on claim 7, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein sweeping the composite ply to the tool comprises pressing the composite ply to the tool by sweeping outward from the index line (Draping the fabric 304 around the mandrel 301 will require pressing the fabric 304 to the mandrel 301 and sweeping the fabric 304 around the mandrel 301 (“ outward from the index line ”). Regarding claim 9 , which depends on claim 3, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein reparameterizing the curves onto the parametric domain representative of the two-dimensional space comprises constructing a partial reparameterization map of the first tensor product spline whose isoparametric curves are the curves on the first tensor product spline, and wherein mapping the curves to the second tensor product comprises constructing a flattening map by unraveling the traced curves along parallel straight lines indexed by the index curve (As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Saroul discloses “reparameterizing” and “mapping” of curves corresponding to surface S (“ first tensor product spline ”). In performing the “reparameterizing,” Saroul discloses that “the user selects a point P 0 =P(u 0 ,v 0 ) on the surface S as the center of his region of interest .” See, e.g ., Saroul at Sections 3 and 4 and Figs. 1 and 3a. Thus, Saroul discloses selecting a region of interest within the surface S (“ partial reparameterization map of the first tensor product spline ”). Accordingly, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious the claimed feature. In addition, the claim uses the open-ended term “comprises.” Thus, any “ reparameterization ” will include a “ partial reparameterization .”). Regarding claim 10 , which depends on claim 1, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: wherein the desired fiber direction is one of 0 degrees, 15 degrees , 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, 75 degrees, or 90 degrees ( See, e.g ., Foskey at pars. [0035]-[0038], 0-degrees, 15-degrees, 75-degrees, 90-degrees, and 45-degrees.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallego in view of Saroul . Regarding claim 11 , Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: A method of performing a flattening to determine a two-dimensional ply shape (Gallego discloses generating flattened 2D composite material part (“ two-dimensional ply shape ”) from a 3D CAD environment. See, e.g ., Gallego at pars. [0010]-[0016], [0040]-[0056], and [0063] and Figs. 1-12.), the method comprising : setting an index curve on a parametric surface (Gallego does not explicitly disclose the details of how to flatten a three-dimensional part surface into a two-dimensional shape, but indicates that the methods are known. See, e.g ., Gallego at par. [0063]. In a same field of endeavor, flattening of 3D surfaces into 2D structures (and thus analogous art), Saroul discloses that the “system then chooses the parametric curve C u0 [(“ setting an index curve ”)]… on surface S [(“ parametric surface ”)] as the reference curve along which angular distortions are to be minimized (Fig. 3a).” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have included the “flattening” method of Saroul into the system of Gallego because Gallego suggests that known methods of “flattening” can be used ( see Gallego at par. [0063]) and because the “flattening”) method of Saroul minimizes metric distortions ( see Saroul at Section 4). See MPEP § 2143.I.G.); constructing a curve flattening of the index curve (Saroul discloses that the initial curve C u0 (“ the index curve ”) is mapped (“ flattening ”) onto a plane at each sample point prior to mapping curves C j . See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4.); tracing curves on the parametric surface relative to the index curve to form traced curves (Saroul discloses that “[b]y iterating over all sample points M j of C u0 [(“ index curve ”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves C j .[(“ traced curves ”)].” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4.); constructing a reparameterization map of the parametric surface whose isoparametric curves are the traced curves on the parametric surface (Saroul discloses a “ new parameterization defined by the family of curves C u and the family of curves C j …” prior to flattening (“ reparameterizing the curves onto a parametric domain representative of a two-dimensional space ”). Footnote 1 of Saroul indicates that isoparametric curves were chosen. See, e.g ., Saroul at Sections 3 and 4 and Fig. 3a.); and constructing a flattening map by unraveling the traced curves along parallel straight lines indexed by the index curve (Saroul discloses mapping each of the curves C j (“ constructing a flattening map by unraveling the traced curves ”) onto an initial curve C u0 (“ index curve ”), to generate a flattened surface. Saroul also discloses that the curves C’ j are parallel straight lines . See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4 and Figs. 3a and 3b.). Regarding claim 12 , which depends on claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein tracing curves on the parametric surface comprises isoparametric tracing (Footnote 1 in Saroul indicates that isoparametric curves were chosen. See, e.g ., Saroul at Sections 3 and 4). Regarding claim 13 , which depends on claim 12, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein the isoparametric tracing comprises a best fit plane isoparametric flattening (Saroul discloses that the sample points P are chosen such that the desired orientation and distances should be preserved and also teaches to minimize angular distortions . See Saroul at Section 4. Thus, Saroul discloses that the isoparametric tracing comprises the “ best fit plane isoparameteric flattening .”) Regarding claim 14 , which depends on claim 12, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein the isoparametric tracing is performed according to [see formula in specification] , wherein S F is the flattening map on a same parameter domain as parametric surface S , c F is the curve flattening of the index curve , τ is a function from u parameter of the surface that gives a location of an intersection of the isoparametric curve at u with the index curve, as a parameter point in a parameter space of c F , S is a function from the u parameter of the parametric surface that gives arc length along the isoparametric curve at u at its intersection with the index curve, α is an arc length along the isoparametric curve at u at its v parameter location, and θ is an angle between the isoparametric curve at u and the index curve; wherein S(u,v) is a parameterized surface, the index curve is a curve c(t)=(u(t),v(t)) into the parameter domain of S, Physical space coordinates are x,y,z, and flat table-space coordinates are x F ,y F (As discussed above, Saroul discloses isoparametric tracing. Saroul discloses that the sample points P are chosen such that the desired orientation and distances should be preserved and also teaches to minimize angular distortions . See Saroul at Section 4. Thus, the “flattening” method of Saroul takes into account the variables listed in the claimed formula. Accordingly, the claimed formula, if not inherent, is obvious over the disclosure in Saroul.) Regarding claim 15 , which depends on claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein tracing curves on the parametric surface comprises geodesic tracing ( See Saroul at Section 4 and footnotes 1-3.). Regarding claim 16 , which depends on claim 15, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein the geodesic tracing is performed according to: [see formula in specification] , wherein S F is the flattening map, c F is the curve flattening of the index curve, and θ is an angle between c F and a fixed direction in table space; and wherein constructing the reparameterization map is performed according to: τ(u F ,v F )=γ uF (v F ), wherein τ is the reparameterization map from flat parameters u F and v F to surface parameters u and v, u F is the index curve, γ uF is a surface parameter space map of the geodesic traced on the surface from the index curve at uFso that the geodesic is S°γ uF , and v F : arc-length parameter of γ uF (As discussed above, Saroul discloses geodesic tracing. Saroul discloses that the sample points P are chosen such that the desired orientation and distances should be preserved and also teaches to minimize angular distortions . See Saroul at Section 4. Thus, the “flattening” method of Saroul takes into account the variables listed in the claimed formula. Accordingly, the claimed formula, if not inherent, is obvious over the disclosure in Saroul.). Regarding claim 17 , which depends on claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein tracing curves on the parametric surface comprises offset tracing (Saroul discloses that, once C’ J0 is mapped, each of the other curves C j is mapped “into a straight line parallel to C’ j0 ….” See, e.g ., Saroul at Section 4. The parallel lines represent “offsets” and thus Saroul discloses the claimed “ offset tracing .”). Regarding claim 18 , which depends on claim 10, Gallego in view of Saroul renders obvious: wherein the offset tracing is performed using [see formula in Specification] , wherein S F is the flattening map, μ vF is the arc-length parameterized v F -offset of the curve flattening of the index curve in table-space, and u* F is a fixed parameter location along the v F -offset; and wherein constructing the reparameterization map comprises: [see formula in specification] is a surface parameter space map of the offset tracing on a surface of an index map by a distance of v F , u F is the arc length parameter of the surface offset at v F (As discussed above, Saroul discloses offset tracing. Saroul discloses that the sample points P are chosen such that the desired orientation and distances should be preserved and also teaches to minimize angular distortions . See Saroul at Section 4. Thus, the “flattening” method of Saroul takes into account the variables listed in the claimed formula. Accordingly, the claimed formula, if not inherent, is obvious over the disclosure in Saroul.) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallego in view of Saroul ,and further in view of Foskey . Regarding claim 19 , which depends on claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: laying up a composite ply according to the flattening map (Gallego in view of Saroul does not explicitly disclose the claimed “laying up.” In a same field of endeavor, laying up composite materials (and thus analogous art), Foskey discloses that “ Fabric 304 [(“ composite ply ”)] is draped on the surface of mandrel 301 [(“ tool ”)] so that fibers 306 are oriented along the span axis 303 [(“ according to the flattening map ”)] on mandrel 301.” See Foskey at par. [0034] and Fig. 3. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to perform the “laying up” based on the fiber direction as disclosed by Foskey because laying up of the fiber layers in the disclosed directions will provide improved damage tolerance and fatigue resistance. See, e.g ., Fosket at par. [0040]). Regarding claim 20 , which depends on claim 19, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious: applying the composite ply onto an index line of a tool corresponding to the index curve; and sweeping the composite ply to the tool (Foskey disclose that “ Fabric 304 is draped [(“ applying the composite ply” )] on the surface of mandrel 301 [(“ tool ”)] so that fibers 306 are oriented along the span axis 303 [(“ an index line of a tool corresponding to the index curve ”)] on mandrel 301.” See Foskey at par. [0034] and Fig. 3. Draping the fabric 304 around the mandrel 301 will require pressing the fabric 304 to the mandrel 301 and sweeping the fabric 304 around the mandrel 301 .) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0181056 to Urick et al . discloses determining a sweep surface of an object. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0155986 to Schmitter et al. discloses curve flattening. Bennis, Chakib, Jean-Marc Vézien, and Gérard Iglésias. "Piecewise surface flattening for non-distorted texture mapping." ACM SIGGRAPH computer graphics 25.4 (1991): 237-246. Bennis discloses curve flattening. Olsen, Howard B., and John J. Craig. "Automated composite tape lay-up using robotic devices." [1993] Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 1993. Olsen discloses composite tape lay-up. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs . 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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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. /B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 2 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 3 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 4 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 5 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 6 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 7 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 8 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 9 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 10 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 11 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 12 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 13 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 14 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 15 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/663,995 Page 16 Art Unit: 2116
Prosecution Insights