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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CEBOLLA GARROFE (US 20210187787) In view of Parkinson (US 20220212421) and Lee (US 7527759).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by CEBOLLA GARROFE (US 20210187787) In view of Parkinson (US 20220212421) and Lee (US 7527759) .
Regarding Claim 12, CEBOLLA GARROFE discloses forming system that comprises comprising: a mandrel configured to support a flat uncured composite laminate or a bent laminate (Figure 2, [0005], [0029]), wherein the mandrel comprises comprising a web surface with a kink/twist region and flange forming surfaces on either side of the web surface ( mandrel-7 with surface -7.1 as the web surface, flange forming surfaces 7.2 with edges, [0029], [0030]), wherein the flange forming surfaces connect to the web surface by two corner forming edges (Figure 1, [0029], lateral edges-7.2).
However, the amended claim recites the web surface defined by a first section, a kink region across a center of the web surface, and a second section, wherein a first angle exists between the first section and the kink region, CEBOLLA GARROFE didn’t particularly disclose the limitation. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Parkinson discloses web surface, defined by a first section, a kink region across a center of the web surface and a second section, wherein a first angle exists between the first section and the kink region, the kink region, wherein an end, away from the kink region, of the first section is higher than the kink region and an end, away from the kink region, of the second section is higher than the kink region; (Figure 5, [0027).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CEBOLLA GARROFE teaching with that of Parkinson’s teaching for the purpose of making complex shaped objects.
Further, the above combination of CEBOLLA GARROFE and Parkinson did not disclose that each of the flange forming surfaces comprise, respectively, a number of support brackets configured to support a composite laminate that extend outward orthogonally and away from the flange forming surface. In the relate field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Lee discloses that flange forming surfaces comprise, respectively, a number of support brackets configured to support a composite laminate that extend outward orthogonally and away from the flange forming surface (Figure 2, 4, 13E, Col 11 line 22-24, support-25).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CEBOLLA GARROFE and Parkinson’s teaching with that of Lee’s of support brackets for the purpose of slippage prevention to minimize the defects.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses further comprising: support brackets movably connected to move downward onto the flange forming surfaces of the mandrel ( Figure 2, 4, bracket/clamp-24, Col 1 line 15-25)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CEBOLLA GARROFE (US 20210187787) view of Parkinson (US 20220212421) and Lee (US 7527759) as applied in Claim 12 further in view of Kato (US 6458308) .
Regarding Claim 15 CEBOLLA GARROFE/Parkinson disclose forming system that comprises comprising: a mandrel configured to support a flat uncured composite laminate or a bent laminate but didn’t disclose that comprising: a presser foot/ pressure plate configured to apply pressure locally over the kink region in the web surface. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Kato discloses a pressure plate-40 press the web part of the laminated sheet-30 including the kink/bend region (Figure 2, Col 5 line 5-7).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of CEBOLLA’s forming system with the pressure plate taught by Kato for the purpose of crease free edges of the web part of the laminate
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CEBOLLA GARROFE (US 20210187787) view of Parkinson (US 20220212421) and Lee (US 7527759) as applied in Claim 12 in view of Wilden US 6814916.
Regarding Claim 17 CEBOLLA GARROFE/Parkinson disclose forming system that comprises comprising: a mandrel configured to support a flat uncured composite laminate or a bent laminate but didn’t disclose that a number of sweepers having a curvature matching the web surface of the mandrel. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Wilden discloses . a number of sweepers/urging device having a curvature matching the web surface of the mandrel (Figure 2b, sweepers-32, Col 5 line 49-53).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of CEBOLLA’s forming system with the urging device taught by Wilden for the purpose of which can slide over the edged/bend of the material being flexible (Col 5 line 49-50).
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights