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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1-14, in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first securing fixing” in claim 1, and “a second securing fixing” in claim 8 and 11.
According to [0097]-[0098], a securing fixing is interpreted as a fastener such as a pin, bolt, and stud, and its equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second deformable support”.
In claim 8, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second securing fixing”.
In claim 11, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second securing fixing”.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund-Laverick (PG-PUB 2022/0134685) in view of Muraoka (WO 2024048094, machine translation relied upon for citations) and Desautels (US 5,597,435).
Regarding claim 1, Lund-Laverick teach a method of manufacturing a composite article precursor, the method comprising the steps of:
laying down a first grouping of at least one layer of composite material upon a substantially upwardly-facing first surface of a preform of the composite article precursor (Figure 7A-7P and [0088]-[0094]);
disposing a first sealing member in the form of a vacuum bag over the first grouping of the at least one layer of composite material (Figure 7A-7P, items 60 and 62 and [0093], [0099]);
securing the first sealing member to the preform by fastening (e.g., by double sided tape) [0056]-[0057];
rotating the preform about an axis such that the first surface is no longer
substantially upwardly-facing and a second surface of the preform is substantially
upwardly-facing (Figure 7A-7P and [0097]-[0098]);
laying down a second grouping of at least one layer of composite material
upon the second surface of the preform (Figure 7A-7P and [0088]-[0094], [0099); and
vacuum debulking an assembly comprising the first grouping of at least
one layer of composite material, the second grouping of at least on], [e layer of
composite material, the first deformable support, and the preform [0088], [0092], [0102].
Lund-Laverick does not teach disposing a first deformable support over the first grouping of the at least one layer of composite material securing the first deformable support to the preform via a first securing fixing.
Muraoka teaches an assembly for vacuum debulking using a breather, tensioning generating film, and release film. Muraoka teaches the breather forms a degassing circuit that serves as a flow path through which the internal atmosphere of the bag film flows during vacuum suction.
Muraoka teaches the breather 14 is arranged to cover the outside of the mold 11, the tension-generating film 12, and the pressure plate 13 installed on the bottom plate 35, and its periphery is placed on the bottom plate 35, and the breather 14 is arranged so as to face the suction hole 15a (Figure 6 and Page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lund-Laverick with breather structures coupled to each cavity for the purpose of providing a porous structure that serves as a degassing circuit and allows for unhindered vacuum suction as taught by Muraoka.
Desautels teaches a L-shaped restraining knuckle clamp attached to a mold base for clamping ends of an assembly of base duction portion 112, restraining caul 120, elastomer member 130, and elastomer restraint 140 (Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 18-67). Desautels teaches the clamp uses a bolt to pass through the clamp to attach the clamp (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lund-Laverick, in particularly the fastening mechanism of the sealing members, in view of Muraoka with the restraining knuckle clamps of Desautels, a known suitable mechanism for fastening sealing members and composite material against a work surface.
Regarding claim 2, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising disposing a second deformable support over the second grouping of at least one layer of composite material (Lund-Laverick, Figure 7A-7P, items 60 and 62 and [0088]-[0091], [0093], [0099], Muroka, Figure 6 and Page 5); securing the second deformable support to the first deformable support via a second securing fixing (Desautels, Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 18-67).
Regarding claim 4, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels does not teach:
placing a first release layer over the first grouping of at least one layer of composite material before disposing the first deformable support over the first grouping of at least one layer of composite material; and/or
placing a second release layer over the second grouping of at least one layer of composite material before disposing the second deformable support over the second grouping of at least one layer of composite material.
Muraoka teaches an assembly for vacuum debulking using a breather, tensioning generating film, and release film. Muraoka teaches the release film allows for the removal of the composite material (Page 3). Muraoka teaches the breather 14 is arranged to cover the outside of the mold 11, the tension-generating film 12, and the pressure plate 13 installed on the bottom plate 35, and its periphery is placed on the bottom plate 35, and the breather 14 is arranged so as to face the suction hole 15a (Figure 6 and Page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lund-Laverick with the release films of Muroka for the benefit of easy composite removal.
Regarding claim 5, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the wherein the first surface of the preform
and the second surface of the preform of the composite component are opposed (Lund-Laverick, Figure 7A-7P).
Regarding claim 6, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first deformable support is porous (Muraoka, Figure 6 and Page 5).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first securing fixing forms a clamping arrangement, wherein the clamping arrangement is a bolting arrangement comprising a plurality of studs aligned in a common direction (see rejection of claim 1, Lund-Laverick Figures 7A-7P and Desautels, Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the bolting arrangement of the first securing fixing is aligned with the bolting arrangement of a second securing fixing (Lund-Laverick, Figures 7A-7P and [0088]-[0094] and Desautels, Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 18-67).
Regarding claim 11, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein, the first securing fixing and a second securing fixing is located in a peripheral portion of the preform that surrounds a core portion of the preform (Lund-Laverick, Figures 7A-7P and [0088]-[0094] and Desautels, Figure 6 and Col 5, ln 18-67).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite article is an airfoil, wherein the aerofoil is a fan blade of a wind turbine blade (Lund-Laverick, [0008]-[0009]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund-Laverick (PG-PUB 2022/0134685) in view of Muraoka (WO 2024048094, machine translation relied upon for citations) and Desautels (US 5,597,435), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Astwood (US 8,419,886).
Regarding claim 7, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein vacuum debulking the assembly comprising disposing flexible and non-porous bags (i.e., vacuum bags) on each stack of composite material and at least partially evacuating the flexible and non-porous bag (Lund-Laverick, [0088], [0092], [0102].
Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels does not teach
placing the assembly within a flexible and non-porous bag, sealing the flexible and non-porous bag, and at least partially evacuating the flexible and non-porous bag.
Astwood teaches a method of manufacturing composite parts assembling composite material onto a mandrel and disposing the assembly into a vacuum bag for debulking (Figures 8-10 and Col 4, ln 20-32 and 52-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lund-Laverick, in particularly the two individual vacuum bags, with the single vacuum bag of Astwood, a known suitable vacuum bag for debulking at least two composite parts on a mandrel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund-Laverick (PG-PUB 2022/0134685) in view of Muraoka (WO 2024048094, machine translation relied upon for citations) and Desautels (US 5,597,435), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Osborne (PG-PUB 2018/0056610).
Regarding claim 12, Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels does not teach:
at least one additional method is performed on at least the composite article precursor to form a composite article, the at least one additional method being selected from one of trimming the composite article precursor, reinforcing the composite article precursor and/or coating the composite article precursor.
Osborne teaches a method of fabricating a composite structure, comprising trimming a cured composite structure and removing the composite from a mandrel [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lund-Laverick with a step of trimming as taught by Osborne, a known suitable processing step for finishing a cured composite to yield a finished article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels teaches the process as applied to claim 3.
Lund-Laverick in view of Muraoka and Desautels does not teach the second securing fixing comprises an elastically deformable member which applies a compressive force to the first grouping of at least one layer of composite material and a compressive force to the second grouping of at least one layer of composite
material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745