DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathon (US 9,889,611) in view of Flonc (US 5,080,851) and Coquel (US 20160151983).
As to claims 1 and 2, Mathon teaches a method for injecting an impregnation resin (3:43) for the manufacture of a revolution part made of composite material (Fig. 4A) wherein several clamping blocks (Fig. 2, items 132 and 112) are bearing on a fiber texture (18) wound on an impregnation mandrel forming an injection mold (16) for holding during the cutting of the last layer of the fiber texture in an end-of-winding position (4:50-55).
Mathon does not specifically teach (a) the fiber texture is heated before the removal of the clamping blocks and the closing of the mold to inject the impregnation resin therein, and (b) pressing a heating pad against the fiber texture, the heating pad being interposed between one of the clamping blocks and the fiber texture.
Regarding (a), Flonc teaches spraying resin (3:12-14) on a fiber texture during layup prior steps of heating (3:17-22; 3:53-56), pressing (3:57-68, similar to clamping), and closing of a mold for resin impregnation (4:19-28). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these steps from Flonc into Mathon motivated by the benefits the Flonc process would provide to the Mathon process. Flonc provides these steps to partially consolidate and rigidify the layers thereby eliminating debulking as a problem in resin molding (3:57-4:2) and to permit handling/cutting/trimming without fraying or disturbing fiber position (4:3-8) and these benefits would also apply to the Mathon process. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in the combination since Flonc’s improvement applies to resin transfer molding processes, and Mathon’s process can be considered a resin transfer molding process.
Regarding (b), Coquel teaches providing a base plate (30) equivalent to the Mathon clamping block, and pressing an interposed heating pad (Fig. 2, items 51, 40, 44, 42) against a fiber texture ([0010]; Fig. 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Coquel heating pad into Mathon because Mathon teaches/suggests a complex contour, and the Coquel pad is specifically taught/suggested for adapting to complex contours. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that Coquel and Mathon are both for shaping composites.
As to claim 3, Flonc teaches spraying resin (3:12-14) on a fiber texture during layup prior steps of heating (3:17-22; 3:53-56), pressing (3:57-68, similar to clamping), and closing of a mold for resin impregnation (4:19-28), which would be obvious for the same reasons discussed above. As to claim 4, Flonc teaches that the amount of resin applied is small, preferably 1-5 of the weight of the unimpregnated reinforcement layer (3:12). While Flonc does not specifically teach the relationship between the amount of applied impregnation resin sprayed onto the layer and the amount of resin injected into the mold, one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the Mathon process with the Flonc spraying would have recognized the amount of resin sprayed to be a result effective variable. One would have optimized the sprayed resin amount to cause rigidification (Flonc, 3:68) sufficient to achieve a rigid shaped structure (Flonc, 4:3-8) and arrived at the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation. As to claim 5, Flonc teaches that it is known to apply a vacuum bag to the composite layers to press the composite material against a mandrel (3:39-52). In the combination with Mathon’s mandrel, one would have found it obvious to apply the Flonc vacuum bag to press the Mathon layers on the Mathon mandrel in order to also provide the debulking that is the benefit of the Flonc process (3:57-4:8).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Finck (US 6,367,531) provides a method of making a resin injection molding (RIM) preform that is pertinent to the claimed method since it holds a preform with mold parts. See Fig. 6. However, Finck does not teach holding during cutting.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Plante (US 20140239540) provides a device for fabricating a composite material part with blocks (115) for compacting corners (Fig. 2), which can be considered holding a preform. See Fig. 3. However, Plante does not teach holding during cutting.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fabre (US 20210379844) teaches an RTM injection mold of an article having a similar configuration to the claimed invention. Compare Fabre Fig. 3 to instant Fig. 1. However, Fabre is not disclosed as holding during cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s February 25, 2026 arguments are directed to the amendments. However, a heating pad having the characteristics recited in the claim is already disclosed by Coquel for laying and conforming composite materials to complex curvatures.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights