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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 05/23/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hanke discloses a method for producing components from fiber composite material to include the use of a molding tool, see at least [0001], Fig. 1 – (construed as a vacuum infusion system for infusing a fiber reinforcement with a resin to produce a composite molded component). The method/tool comprising: a mold 1 with a mold cavity and at least one auxiliary device 8 – (construed as a counter mold), a space between the mold and auxiliary device is construed as a mold cavity, see at least Fig. 1 and the mold having at least one curved region generally depicted at 13, 14. The counter mold being adapted to be at least partially inserted in the mold cavity, for receiving a fiber layer 2 – (construed as a fiber reinforcement) between the mold and the counter mold and to form at least one curved region 9 on the fiber layer/reinforcement contained between the mold and the at least one curved region of the counter mold, see at least Fig. 1.
The system to further include a film 3 for sealing the mold cavity, see at least Fig. 1, [0020]. As to a resin reservoir fluidly connected to a first end of the mold cavity: Hanke discloses it is common to produce a component by injecting matrix resin into the mold cavity so that the matrix resin impregnates the fiber fabric and then curing the matrix resin takes on the desired contour of the mold, see [0003], and where its inventive process has fiber fabrics infiltrated with resin and the resin is subsequently cured in order to produce a component made of fiber composite material with the contour of the mold, see [0020]. It being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner such a disclosure reasonably implies the system has a resin reservoir fluidly connected to an end of the mold cavity, where such an end is a first end. Likewise, as Hanke discloses the use of a vacuum pump 6 fluidly connected to the system suitable for evacuating the mold cavity during the forming process, see at least [0020]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner such a disclosure reasonably implies the vacuum pump is disposed on a second end of the mold cavity, the second end being opposite to the first end, for infusing the fiber reinforcement with resin.
Hanke further discloses the at least one counter mold comprises one or more elastic/flexible parts 13, 14, each flexible part including at least one of the curved regions of the counter mold, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023]. And an air source 12 – (construed as a pressure applying configuration) contributing to apply a pressure at least on the at least one curved region of the one or more flexible parts of the counter mold against the mold, to transmit a pressure to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement, infused with resin, the pressure applying configuration being configured for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024] – (construed as increasing the fiber volume ratio and/or reducing the void content of the composite molded component.
Hanke does not explicitly disclose at least one layer for being placed on the fiber reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement.
Miller discloses a method and apparatus for use in a vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process which uses resin and a fiber preform – (construed as a fiber reinforcement), see at least title/abstract, [0077] – (construed as a vacuum infusion system for infusing a fiber reinforcement with a resin to produce a composite molded component). The system to include a layer as a mold release film and/or peel layer suitable for providing a releasing interface to make it easier to separate various layers from the finished workpiece, see at least [0007] – (construed as at least one layer for being placed on the fiber reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanke’s system to include the use of a film layer placed on the fiber reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement as claimed since and disclosed by Miller to provide the system with the aforementioned benefit.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Hanke discloses elastic/flexible parts 13, 14; and an air source 12 for applying a pressure – (construed as a first pressure) at least on the at least one curved region of the one or more flexible parts of the counter mold against the mold, to transmit a pressure to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement, infused with resin, the pressure applying configuration being configured for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024]. And a suction pump 18 suitable for applying a pressure distribution – (construed as a second pressure) to the areas other than the curved regions. The other regions to include at least planar (construed as a flat plane) regions, see at least Fig. 1, [0020]. To the extent Hanke does not explicitly disclose the pressure difference between the two pressure providing device: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke to have a pressure difference such that a first pressure in the curved region is equal or higher than a second pressure difference in the areas other than the curved areas; and the other regions of the fiber reinforcement different to the at least one curved region are planar regions. Since modified Hanke discloses the first pressure is suitable for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024]. Thus, one would at least as part of routine experimentation have the first pressure in the curved regions be equal or higher than the second pressure in the other than curved planar regions to ensure the curved regions have sufficient pressure for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents. It being further considered that for a curvature radius greater than the one of the at least one curved region, one would as a matter of routine experimentation form the curved regions as corners having equal or higher pressures during forming to ensure an adequate amount of compaction in high stress vector areas.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hanke discloses the at least one curved region of the counter mold in contact with the at least one curved region 14 of the fiber reinforcement comprises an elastic membrane 13 which is pressurized by air source 12 – (construed as at least one chamber inflatable by a pressurized fluid, the chamber being located and configured to apply a pressure) to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement infused with resin, see at least Fig. 1, [0020].
Claims 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eguchi et al. (US 2016/0355702 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 6, modified Hanke does not explicitly disclose a measure of Poisson’s ratio nor the claimed silicon material. However, it is well-known in the art that Poisson’s ratio with respect to flexible materials offers a measure of bending or stiffness of the material. Further a material suitable for its intended purpose supports a prima facie case of obviousness. To that extent one would look to exemplary materials for the mold/flexible portions and appreciate Eguchi which discloses an elastic pressing member 2 formed of a silicon rubber having a Poisson’s ratio of about 0.5 – (overlaps the claimed greater than 0.4). This being sufficient to have the pressing member become through deformation during compression larger in a size dimension than that of the object being formed. That is, such a material promotes an even pressure along the contact areas of the object being formed. Thus, one would have good reason to form Hanke’s flexible members 13, 14 to be silicon material having a Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 to promote during the compression stage even pressure on the contact areas of the object being formed. And where such members are disposed within a recess for receiving and partially housing the material as reasonably suggested in Hanke Fig. 1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke to have the at least one curved region of the counter mold is made of a flexible material having a Poisson ratio greater than 0.4 to provide the aforementioned benefit. Concerning the claimed range: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cundiff et al. (US 2006/0017200 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hanke does not explicitly disclose the claimed pressing member. Cundiff discloses composite part manufacturing and, more particularly, to tooling aids for manufacturing composite parts with female tools. The tooling aids to include a support portion 232 – (construed as a pressing unit) configured for pressing a tooling aid 230 – (construed as a counter mold) a fiber material against a bottom mold surface 204 of female mold tooling 202, see at least Fig. 2, [0020] – [0021] - (construed as a pressing unit for applying a pressure to the at least one counter mould in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the molded component). And as previously discussed, modified Hanke is configured for increasing the fiber volume ratio and/or reducing the void content of the composite molded component, see the discussion of claim 1. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke as claimed since: Cundiff discloses such an arrangement contributes to forming a composite material of resin and fiber reinforcements using female mold tooling suitable for forming a U-shaped channel. That is, forming a composite with at least one curved region.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Valls Angles (US 2020/0063242 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hanke does not explicitly disclose a measure of Shore A hardness of the flexible parts. Valls Angels discloses forming molds of very flexible materials such as silicone, see [0593] and where the very flexible material has a Shore A hardness of at least 72, see [0621]. As previously discussed, modified Hanke discloses the use of flexible members, see discussion of claim 1. Thus, one would appreciate Valls Angels for its inventive mold parts formed of silicon having a Shore A hardness of at least 72 – (overlaps greater than 55). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke as claimed since: Valls Angels suggests such a composition is suitable for forming mold parts. Concerning the claimed range: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokutomi (US 2019/0210306 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, As previously discussed, modified Hanke discloses the use of a counter mold, cavity and mold. Where the fiber reinforcement 2 is placed on the surface of the mold cavity 5 – (construed as in a molding element of the mold cavity), and a vacuum layer 3 is placed between the fiber reinforcement and the at least one counter mold; but does not explicitly disclose the counter mold is covered in a gas-tight manner. However, such configurations are very well-known in the art being suitable for forming composite parts in an efficient manner. Tokutomi discloses a method and apparatus for molding a composite material. The apparatus to include a bagging film 42 which seals a mold 31 and plates 46 – (construed as counter mold) which form the central part of the molded object, see at least [0037] – (construed as a film for sealing the mold cavity). The bagging film being suitable for forming an airtight seal around all of the components, see [0037]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke to have a film for creating an airtight seal around the counter mold as taught by Tokutomi to provide the composite molding system with an airtight seal around all of the molding components during formation of the composite object as reasonably suggested by Tokutomi.
Claims 11-13, 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 19, Hanke discloses a method for producing components from fiber composite material to include the use of a molding tool and composite molded component, see at least [0001], [0006], Fig. 1 – (construed as a vacuum infusion method for infusing a fiber reinforcement with a resin to produce a composite molded component). The method/tool comprising: a mold 1 with a mold cavity and at least one auxiliary device 8 – (construed as a counter mold), a space 5 between the mold and auxiliary device is construed as a mold cavity, see at least Fig. 1, and the mold having at least one curved region generally depicted at 13, 14; laying the fiber reinforcement 2 on the mold cavity 5; at least partially inserting the at least one counter mold 8 in the mold cavity 5, the at least one counter mold comprising at least one curved region 13, 14 for forming at least one curved region on the fiber reinforcement 2 contained between the mold and the curved region of the counter mould; sealing the mold cavity with layer 3.
As to creating a vacuum in the mold cavity with a vacuum pump fluidly connected to a first end of the mold cavity; providing a resin supply to a second end of the mold cavity, the second end being opposite to the first end; infusing the fiber reinforcement with the resin: Hanke discloses it is common to produce a component by injecting matrix resin into the mold cavity so that the matrix resin impregnates the fiber fabric and then curing the matrix resin takes on the desired contour of the mold, see [0003], and where its inventive process has fiber fabrics infiltrated with resin and the resin is subsequently cured in order to produce a component made of fiber composite material with the contour of the mold, see [0020]. It being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner such a disclosure reasonably implies the method has a resin reservoir fluidly connected to an end of the mold cavity, where such an end is a first end. Likewise, as Hanke discloses the use of a vacuum pump 6 fluidly connected to the system suitable for evacuating the mold cavity during the forming process, see at least [0020]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner such a disclosure reasonably implies creating a vacuum in the mold cavity with a vacuum pump fluidly connected to a first end of the mold cavity; providing a resin supply to a second end of the mold cavity, the second end being opposite to the first end; and infusing the fiber reinforcement with the resin.
Hanke’s method further includes the at least one counter mold comprises one or more elastic/flexible parts 13, 14, each flexible part including at least one of the curved regions of the counter mold. And an air source 12 – (construed as a pressure applying configuration) contributing to apply a pressure at least on the at least one curved region of the one or more flexible parts of the counter mold against the mold, to transmit a pressure to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement, infused with resin, curing the resin; wherein the curved regions of the counter mold are flexibly deformed under the pressure applied thereto), see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024].
Hanke does not explicitly disclose placing at least one layer on the fibre reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement.
Miller discloses a method and apparatus for use in a vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process which uses resin and a fiber preform – (construed as a fiber reinforcement), see at least title/abstract, [0077] – (construed as a vacuum infusion system for infusing a fiber reinforcement with a resin to produce a composite molded component). The method to include a layer as a mold release film and/or peel layer suitable for providing a releasing interface to make it easier to separate various layers from the finished workpiece, see at least [0007] – (construed as placing at least one layer on the fibre reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanke’s system to include the use of a film layer placed on the fiber reinforcement, the layer being configured to avoid adhesion of the fiber reinforcement as claimed since and disclosed by Miller to provide the system with the aforementioned benefit.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hanke discloses elastic/flexible parts 13, 14; and an air source 12 for applying a pressure – (construed as a first pressure) at least on the at least one curved region of the one or more flexible parts of the counter mold against the mold, to transmit a pressure to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement, infused with resin, the pressure applying configuration being configured for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024]. And a suction pump 18 suitable for applying a pressure distribution – (construed as a second pressure) to the areas other than the curved regions. To the extent Hanke does not explicitly disclose the pressure difference between the two pressure providing devices: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke to have a pressure difference such that a first pressure in the curved region is equal or higher than a second pressure difference in the areas other than the curved areas. Since modified Hanke discloses the first pressure is suitable for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents, see at least Fig. 1, [0020], [0023] – [0024]. Thus, one would at least as part of routine experimentation have the first pressure in the curved regions be equal or higher than the second pressure in the other than curved regions to ensure the curved regions have sufficient pressure for compressing the matrix to avoid reduced fiber volume contents. It being further considered that for a curvature radius greater than the one of the at least one curved region, one would as a matter of routine experimentation form the curved regions as corners having equal or higher pressures during forming to ensure an adequate amount of compaction in high stress vector areas.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hanke discloses the at least one curved region of the counter mold in contact with the at least one curved region 14 of the fiber reinforcement comprises an elastic membrane 13 which is pressurized by air source 12 – (construed as the pressure to the at least one curved region of the fiber reinforcement is applied with a chamber inflatable by a pressurized fluid, located in correspondence with the at least one curved region and comprised in a counter mold, see at least Fig. 1, [0020].
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Hanke further discloses – (construed as a pressure of from 1 to 10 bar – (overlaps 0.5 to 20 bars) is applied to the at least one curved region 9 of the fiber reinforcement; and the pressure is applied to the at least one curved region 11 of the fiber reinforcement by a tubular chamber 13 inflatable by a pressurized fluid, see Hanke [0020], [0024]. Concerning the claimed range: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cundiff et al. (US 2006/0017200 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hanke does not explicitly disclose the claimed pressure applied to the counter mold in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the molded component. Cundiff discloses composite part manufacturing and, more particularly, to tooling aids for manufacturing composite parts with female tools. The tooling aids to include a support portion 232 – (construed as a pressing unit) configured for pressing a tooling aid 230 – (construed as a counter mold) a fiber material against a bottom mold surface 204 of female mold tooling 202, see at least Fig. 2, [0020] – [0021] - (construed as applying a pressure to the at least one counter mold in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the molded component). And as previously discussed, modified Hanke is configured for infusing the fiber reinforcement with resin, curing the resin and increasing the fiber volume ratio and/or reducing the void content of the composite molded component, see the discussion of claim 11. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke as claimed since: Cundiff discloses such an arrangement contributes to forming a composite material of resin and fiber reinforcements using female mold tooling suitable for forming a U-shaped channel. That is, forming a composite with at least one curved region. It being considered, Cundiff’s pressure applying scheme with Hanke’s disclosure offers a reasonable pathway to have a step of applying a pressure to the at least one counter mold in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the molded component, after infusing the fiber reinforcement with resin and before curing the resin, to further increase the fiber volume ratio and to reduce the void content of the composite molded component.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke et al. (DE 102008017381 A1), in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0169190 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokutomi (US 2019/0210306 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, As previously discussed, modified Hanke discloses the use of a counter mold, cavity and mold. Where the fiber reinforcement 2 is laid on the surface of the mold cavity 5 – (construed as in a molding element of the mold cavity), and a vacuum layer 3 is placed between the fiber reinforcement and the at least one counter mold; but does not explicitly disclose the counter mold is covered in a gas-tight manner. However, such configurations are very well-known in the art being suitable for forming composite parts in an efficient manner. Tokutomi discloses a method and apparatus for molding a composite material. The method to include a bagging film 42 which seals a mold 31 and plates 46 – (construed as counter mold) which form the central part of the molded object, see at least [0037] – (construed as a film for sealing the mold cavity). The bagging film being suitable for forming an airtight seal around all of the components, see [0037]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Hanke to include having a film for creating an airtight seal disposed around all of the molding components during formation of the composite object as taught by Tokutomi to provide the composite molding method with a means for airtight seal as reasonably suggested by Tokutomi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749