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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an index curve …” should be “the index curve ….” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11, 13-18, and 21-25 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 Cu and curves Cj (“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 Cu and the family of curves Cj …” 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.);
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 Cj onto an initial curve Cu0 , 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 Foskey, 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].);
applying a composite ply having the flattened shape onto an index line of a tool corresponding to an 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.).
wherein the 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 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 Cj 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 Mj of Cu0 [(“an index curve”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves Cj [(“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 Cu0 (“the index curve”) is mapped onto a plane (“second tensor product spline”) at each sample point prior to mapping curves Cj (“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 Mj of Cu0 [(“an index curve”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves Cj. [(“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 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 P0=P(u0,v0) 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.).
Regarding claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey 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 Cu0 [(“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 Cu0 (“the index curve”) is mapped (“flattening”) onto a plane at each sample point prior to mapping curves Cj. 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 Mj of Cu0 [(“index curve”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves Cj.[(“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 Cu and the family of curves Cj …” 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.);
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 Cj (“constructing a flattening map by unraveling the traced curves”) onto an initial curve Cu0 (“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.);
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]);
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.).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 11, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the tracing curves on the parametric surface 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 and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the tracing curves on the parametric surface is performed according to [see formula in specification], wherein SF is the flattening map on a same parameter domain as parametric surface S, cF 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 cF, 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 xF,yF (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 and Foskey 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 and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the geodesic tracing is performed according to: [see formula in specification], wherein SF is the flattening map, cF is the curve flattening of the index curve, and θ is an angle between cF and a fixed direction in table space; and wherein constructing the reparameterization map is performed according to: τ(uF,vF)=γuF(vF), wherein τ is the reparameterization map from flat parameters uF and vF to surface parameters u and v, uF is the index curve, γuF is a surface parameter space map of the geodesic traced on the surface from the index curve at uFso that the geodesic is S°γuF, and vF: arc-length parameter of γuF (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 and Foskey 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 Cj 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 and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the offset tracing is performed using [see formula in Specification], wherein SF is the flattening map, μvF is the arc-length parameterized vF-offset of the curve flattening of the index curve in table-space, and u*F is a fixed parameter location along the vF-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 vF, uF is the arc length parameter of the surface offset at vF (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.)
Regarding claim 21, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey 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 Cu0 [(“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 Cu0 (“the index curve”) is mapped (“flattening”) onto a plane at each sample point prior to mapping curves Cj. 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 Mj of Cu0 [(“index curve”)], we obtain a family of discrete curves Cj.[(“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 Cu and the family of curves Cj …” 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.);
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 Cj (“constructing a flattening map by unraveling the traced curves”) onto an initial curve Cu0 (“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.);
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]);
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.)
wherein the 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 22, which depends on claim 21, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein tracing curves on the parametric surface comprises geodesic tracing (See Saroul at Section 4 and footnotes 1-3.).
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 22, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the geodesic tracing is performed according to: [see formula in Applicant’s Response], wherein SF is the flattening map, cF is the curve flattening of the index curve, and Ө is an angle between cF and a fixed direction in table space; and wherein constructing the reparameterization map is performed according to: τ(uF,vF)=γuF(vF), wherein τ is the reparameterization map from flat parameters uF and vF to surface parameters u and v, uF is the index curve, γuF is a surface parameter space map of the geodesic traced on the surface from the index curve at uFso that the geodesic is S°γuF, and vF: arc-length parameter of γuF (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 24, which depends on claim 21, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey 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 Cj 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 25, which depends on claim 24, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious:
wherein the offset tracing is performed using [see formula in Applicant’s Response], wherein SF is the flattening map, μvF is the arc-length parameterized vF-offset of the curve flattening of the index curve in table-space, and u*F is a fixed parameter location along the vF-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 vF, uF is the arc length parameter of the surface offset at vF (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.)
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(d) and 101 rejections in the Non-Final Office Action, Applicant's amendments filed June 20, 2026, have overcome these rejections.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant's arguments filed June 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After citing case law, Applicant argues:
If any of these three findings cannot be made, then the rationale in the Office Action cannot properly be used to support a conclusion that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed. It is respectfully submitted that not all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and that, even if the claimed elements were known, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed could not have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and/or with nothing more than predictable results.
Claim 1 as amended is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method of performing a curve-wise flattening to determine a two- dimensional ply shape, the method comprising:
tracing curves on a first tensor product spline representing a three- dimensional part surface;
reparameterizing the curves onto a parametric domain representative of a two-dimensional space;
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;
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, wherein the sweeping the composite ply to the tool comprises pressing the composite ply to the tool by sweeping outward from the index line.
(underline in original).
In this case, not all of these three findings can be reasonably made. In particular, the different sections of the reference(s) cited by the Office Action do not disclose or suggest at least some of the elements of the presently claimed invention. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed could not have combined the elements from the references by known methods to meet the claimed combination of elements with no change in their respective functions. In particular, the claimed combination yields more than just results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed as shown by unexpected results.
For example, the Office Action cites section 4 and Figs. 3a and 3b of Saroul; [003] of Gallego; and [0034]-[0040] and Figs. 3-4 of Foskey to meet the claimed elements of "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." However, Gallego, Saroul and/or Foskey, alone or in combination with one another, do not disclose or suggest the claimed invention because section 4 and Figs. 3a and 3b of Saroul; [003] of Gallego; and [0034]-[0040] and Figs. 3-4 of Foskey do not disclose or suggest 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. In particular, the plane of Saroul is very different from the claimed second tensor product spline. Further, the paragraph bridging pages 7-8 of the Office Action is not understood. Clarification is requested. Consequently, the Gallego, Saroul and/or Foskey reference(s) do(es) not disclose or suggest the claimed invention because Gallego, Saroul and/or Foskey, alone or in combination with one another, do not disclose or suggest the claimed elements of "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." KSR Int 'l. V. Teleflex.
See pages 9-12 of Applicant’s Response.
In summary, Applicant’s Response lists the following alleged errors:
Applicant argues “[i]n particular, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed could not have combined the elements from the references by known methods to meet the claimed combination of elements with no change in their respective functions.” Applicant alleges an error but provides no addition details with respect to why one skilled in the art “could not have combined the elements from the references by known methods to meet the claimed combination of elements with no change in their respective functions.” Accordingly, this unsupported conclusory statement is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[i]n particular, the claimed combination yields more than just results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed as shown by unexpected results.” Applicant alleges an error but provides no addition details with respect to the alleged “unexpected results.” Accordingly, this unsupported conclusory statement is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[i]n particular, the different sections of the reference(s) cited by the Office Action do not disclose or suggest at least some of the elements of the presently claimed invention.” This argument is also not persuasive for the reasons given below:
Applicant argues “Gallego, Saroul and/or Foskey, alone or in combination with one another, do not disclose or suggest the claimed invention because section 4 and Figs. 3a and 3b of Saroul; [003] of Gallego; and [0034]-[0040] and Figs. 3-4 of Foskey do not disclose or suggest 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.” Applicant then contends “[i]n particular, the plane of Saroul is very different from the claimed second tensor product spline.” However, similar to the other alleged errors listed above, Applicant provides just a conclusory statement with no further analysis as to why the “plane of Saroul is very different from the claimed second tensor product spline.” Accordingly, this unsupported conclusory statement is not persuasive.
Further, Saroul clearly shows in Fig. 3 a parallel flattening of a curved surface from the original 3D surface to a flattened surface. This flattening will require mapping using a tensor product spline. Thus, Saroul’s plane corresponds to (or is representative of), the “second tensor product spline.” As discussed above and further clarified in Item 4 below, Gallego in view of Saroul and Foskey renders obvious the claimed “mapping.”
Finally, Applicant requests clarification of the paragraph bridging pages 7-8 of the Non-Final Office Action. (Note that on page 8, line 5, a minor typographical error exists, “Olsen” should be “Foskey” – corrected in this communication.) Summarizing the pertinent points of the rejection in view of the disclosures in the cited art, Saroul discloses that the plane orientation H, which corresponds to the orientation of curves C’j that are parallel to each other, can be chosen by the user according to a desired direction along which distances should be preserved. Saroul at Section 4 and Fig. 3. However, Saroul does not explicitly disclose that the desired direction can be “in a desired fiber direction.” Foskey discloses that, in determining a ply shape with multiple fiber layers, the fibers in adjacent layers can be oriented with respect to each other so as to improve damage tolerance and fatigue resistance. Foskey at pars. [0034]-[0040] and Figs. 3 and 4. (Note that Foskey discloses that the fibers in a given direction of a layer are parallel to each other. Foskey at par. [0004].) Thus, by combining the teachings of Saroul and Foskey, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to choose a plane orientation H that corresponds to the fiber direction so that the parallel orientation of the fibers in a given direction of a layer will be preserved. By preserving the parallel orientation of the, the fiber direction in adjacent layers can be adjusted so as to improve damage tolerance and fatigue resistance. Accordingly, for the reasons given above Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 103 rejection of the claims is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2022045533 to Masahito et al. discloses taking fiber direction into account when expanding a curved surface patch to a plane.
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 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
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights