DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues the prior art reference does not teach the newly amended limitations of “respective portion of the scroll of material is stored on each respective spindle of the multiple spindles.” The Examiner agrees that the prior art references do not teach this newly amended limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Marlow et al (U.S. 4,541,886), hereinafter MARLOW.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in regards to in regards to ONISHI have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues in regards to claim 16, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not attempt to modify HALBRITTER to include the roll from MUELLER-HUMMEL’s device because there are no supported reasons to do so, nor any explanation as how such explanation as how such modification could theoretically be added to, no structures or devices taught in HALBRITTER that are analogous to MUELLER unwinding stand that would be amendable to a roll and no rationale supported in the art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to unroll the material and drape it over the tool, as taught in MUELLER-HUMMEL, in order to avoid fiber gaps, even in the case of complicated surface shapes [0008].
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that MUELLER-HUMMEL is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, MUELLER-HUMMEL is in the field of placement.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlow et al (U.S. 4,541,886), hereinafter MARLOW, in view of Halbritter (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0339413), hereinafter HALBRITTER.
Regarding claim 1, MARLOW teaches: An apparatus (MARLOW teaches an apparatus [Abstract; Fig. 1].), for compacting an object onto a rigid tool (MARLOW teaches an apparatus for compacting an object on a tool [Abstract; Fig. 1].), the apparatus comprising: multiple spindles (MARLOW teaches multiple spindles (12) [Figs. 10a-10f].); and a scroll of material (MARLOW teaches a scroll of material (tape) [Col. 5, lines 45-55].), wherein a respective portion of the scroll of material is stored on each respective spindle of the multiple spindles (MARLOW teaches a respective portion of the scroll of the tape is stored on each respective spindle of the multiple spindles (12) [Figs. 10c-10e; Col. 6, lines 39-53].), wherein each respective portion of the scroll of material deployed from each respective spindle for placement onto the object on the rigid tool as each of the spindles moves apart from one other (MARLOW teaches each portion of the material is deployed from each respective spindle from placement onto the tool (6) as each spindle (12) moves away from each other [Figs. 10c-10f; Col. 6, lines 41-66].), . . . .
MARLOW is silent as to: wherein the scroll of material comprises a permeable layer and an impermeable layer membrane, and wherein the impermeable membrane extends beyond a perimeter of the permeable layer. In the same field of endeavor, composites, HALBRITTER teaches a permeable layer (130) [Fig. 4; 0021]. HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) is covered with membrane (140), which is gas impermeable [0032]. The membrane ends (142) extend beyond ends (132) of permeable layer (130) [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the tape of MARLOW, with the layers of HALBRITTER, in order to allow securement of object without sealant [0033].
Regarding claim 3, HALBRITTER further teaches: wherein: the rigid tool comprises a mandrel for a section of fuselage for an aircraft (HALBRITTER teaches the composite part may be for an aircraft wing or any suitable component [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MARLOW, by having the rigid tool be an aircraft wing or any suitable component, as suggested by HALBRITTER, in order to reduce the cost of an aircraft [0048].
Regarding claim 4, HALBRITTER further teaches: further comprising: a port that penetrates into the scroll of material in fluid communication with the permeable layer (HALBRITTER teaches the port (150) is located at an upper end portion (182) of the membrane (140) [0021; Fig. 1]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MARLOW, by having a port that penetrates into the scroll of material in communication with the permeable layer, as suggested by HALBRITTER, in order to offset leaks [0005].
Regarding claim 5, HALBRITTER further teaches: wherein: the scroll of material extends beyond the object (HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) is covered with membrane (140), which is gas impermeable [0032]. The membrane ends (142) extend beyond ends (132) of permeable layer (130) [0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to substitute the tape of MARLOW, with the layers of HALBRITTER, in order to allow securement of object without sealant [0033].).
Regarding claim 6, MARLOW teaches: the scroll of material comprises at least one layer of fiber reinforced material (MARLOW teaches the material is fibre reinforced material [Col. 1, lines 5-6].).
Regarding claim 7, HALBRITTER further teaches: further comprising: a pump that applies negative pressure via the port (HALBRITTER teaches the membrane is drawn securely by negative pressure directly onto forming tool (210) [0032]. HALBRITTER teaches the negative pressure evacuates air between membrane (140) and object (120) [0034] and offset air leaks [0008] with a pump (160) [0022].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MARLOW, by having a vacuum pump, as suggested by HALBRITTER, in order to evacuate the air and secure the object and the membrane [0006].
Regarding claim 8, HALBRITTER further teaches: wherein: the permeable layer comprises a biplanar mesh (HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) may comprise a compliant biplanar mesh [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MARLOW, by having the permeable layer be a biplanar mesh, as suggested by HALBRITTER, in order to facilitate airflow [0024].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlow et al (U.S. 4,541,886), hereinafter MARLOW, in view of Halbritter (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0339413), hereinafter HALBRITTER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stone (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0070772), hereinafter STONE.
Regarding claim 2, MARLOW and HALBRITTER teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising: an end effector that is configured to move towards the rigid tool; and at least one pair of linkages that are coupled to the end effector and are configured to pivot relative to the end effector as the end effector is moved towards the rigid tool, thereby causing respective distal ends of each linkage of the at least one pair of linkages to move apart from one another, wherein each of the spindles is coupled to a respective distal end of a respective linkage of the at least one pair of linkages and that are rotatably mounted to the respective linkage, such that the spindles are configured to rotate relative to the at least one pair of linkages to deploy the scroll of material onto the object as the end effector moves towards the rigid tool and the at least one pair of linkages are pivoted.
In the same field of endeavor, laying process, STONE teaches an end effector (204) that is configured to move towards the tool (210) [0070-0073; Figs. 2-3]. STONE teaches linkages (412) are coupled to the end effector (204) and are configured to pivot relative to the end effector [Figs. 3-4; 0075; 0080]. STONE teaches rollers (410) are coupled to the linkages (412) and are rotatable mounted to the linkages [Figs. 2-4, 6; 0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MARLOW and HALBRITTER, by having an end effector with linkages coupled to rollers, as suggested by STONE, in order to lay up the material with more efficiency [0003-0004].
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbritter (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0339413), hereinafter HALBRITTER, in view of MUELLER-HUMMEL et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0169579), hereinafter MUELLER-HUMMEL.
Regarding claim 16, HALBRITTER teaches: A scroll of material configured for placement onto an object at a rigid tool (HALBRITTER teaches an apparatus for securing an object [Abstract]. HALBRITTER teaches an object (120) placed on a rigid tool (110) [0032]), the scroll of material (HALBRITTER teaches material over an object [Fig. 1; Fig. 4]) comprising: a permeable layer (HALBRITTER teaches a permeable layer (130) [Fig. 4; 0021]); and an impermeable membrane, wherein the impermeable membrane extends beyond a perimeter of the permeable layer (HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) is covered with membrane (140), which is gas impermeable [0032]. The membrane ends (142) extend beyond ends (132) of permeable layer (130) [0032]), . . . .
HALBRITTER is silent as to: wherein the scroll of material comprises a scroll of continuous material configured to be wound about at least one spindle and further configured to be placed on the object via rotation of the at least one spindle to unroll the scroll. In the same field of endeavor, scrolls, MUELLER-HUMMEL teaches a scroll of material that comprises a continuous material wound about at least one spindle [Fig. 1; 0027]. MUELLER-HUMMEL teaches it is further configured to be placed on an objection via rotation of the at least one spindle to unroll the scroll [Figs. 2-7; 0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HALBRITTER, in order to unwind a roll of material to drape it over an object, as suggested by MUELLER-HUMMEL, in order to deposit large textile fiber webs and achieve good quality of the manufactured fiber-reinforced plastic components that avoids fiber gaps, fiber waviness and fiber drawing in complicated surface shapes [0008].
Regarding claim 17, HALBRITTER teaches: wherein: the scroll of material is configured to extend beyond the object (HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) is covered with membrane (140), which is gas impermeable [0032]. The membrane ends (142) extend beyond ends (132) of permeable layer (130) [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, HALBRITTER further teaches: wherein: the permeable layer comprises a biplanar mesh (HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) may comprise a compliant biplanar mesh [0024]).
Regarding claim 20, HALBRITTER teaches: further comprising: a port that penetrates into the scroll of material in fluid communication with the permeable layer (HALBRITTER teaches the port (150) is located at an upper end portion (182) of the membrane (140) [0021; Fig. 1]), wherein the port is configured to couple with a pump that applies negative pressure via the port (HALBRITTER teaches the membrane is drawn securely by negative pressure directly onto forming tool (210) [0032]. HALBRITTER teaches the negative pressure evacuates air between membrane (140) and object (120) [0034] and offset air leaks [0008] with a pump (160) [0022].).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbritter (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0339413), hereinafter HALBRITTER, and MUELLER-HUMMEL et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0169579), hereinafter MUELLER-HUMMEL, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Reinhold et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0007065), hereinafter REINHOLD.
Regarding claim 18, HALBRITTER and MUELLER-HUMMEL teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising: at least one layer of fiber reinforced material. In the same field of endeavor, laying, REINHOLD teaches: further comprising: at least one layer of fiber reinforced material (REINHOLD teaches the scroll of material comprises a fiber-reinforced layer [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HALBRITTER and MUELLER-HUMMEL, by having the scroll of material comprise at least one layer of fiber reinforced material, as suggested by REINHOLD, in order to reduce the amount of manual effort required in the manufacturing process [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record is considered to be Halbritter (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0339413), hereinafter HALBRITTER. HALBRITTER teaches a method for securing an object [Abstract]. HALBRITTER teaches an object (120) placed on a rigid tool (110) [0032]. HALBRITTER teaches material over an object [Fig. 1; Fig. 4]. HALBRITTER teaches a permeable layer (130) [Fig. 4; 0021]. HALBRITTER teaches the permeable layer (130) is covered with membrane (140), which is gas impermeable [0032]. The membrane ends (142) extend beyond ends (132) of permeable layer (130) [0032]. HALBRITTER teaches the membrane is drawn securely by negative pressure directly onto forming tool (210) [0032]. HALBRITTER teaches the negative pressure evacuates air between membrane (140) and object (120) [0034] and offset air leaks [0008]. Permeable layer (130) mediates the evacuation of air, ensuring the air flows sufficiently across object (120) to promote vacuum [0034]. HALBRITTER teaches the vacuum enables rapid securement of objects to the tool [0035; 0004].
HALBRITTER fails to disclose, teach or suggest: at least one spindle, comprising: an exterior; a chamber; and perforations that couple the chamber to the exterior; and a scroll of material that is wrapped around the exterior of the spindle, wherein one end of the scroll of material is sealed to the spindle, and the scroll of material comprises: a permeable layer in fluid communication with the chamber through the perforations; and an impermeable membrane that contacts the permeable layer. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention would not be reasonably motivated to modify HALBRITTER by at least one spindle, comprising: an exterior; a chamber; and perforations that couple the chamber to the exterior; and a scroll of material that is wrapped around the exterior of the spindle, wherein one end of the scroll of material is sealed to the spindle, and the scroll of material comprises: a permeable layer in fluid communication with the chamber through the perforations; and an impermeable membrane that contacts the permeable layer, and the applicant has done so for the benefit of quickly and effectively securing preforms (and/or other objects) to complex surfaces, particularly when preforms are arranged into complex assemblies, as indicated in the instant specification [0003].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748