DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 were elected without traverse in the November 26, 2025 response. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
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, 2, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (US 20070063378) in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545).
As to claim 1, O’Donoghue teaches a method for resin transfer molding (RTM) a composite part ([0138]-[0140]). O’Donoghue teaches forming a fiber preform ([0221]), placing the fiber preform on a skin mold (item 12 or 12(b)) that meets the claimed transfer plate, and closing the RTM mold to enclose the fiber preform in the RTM mold (Fig. 2). O’Donoghue teaches infusing the fiber preform with resin while the RTM mold is closed ([0138]), curing ([0146]), and opening the RTM mold and removing the skin mold and composite part from the mold ([0164] “release of the skin-mold from the backing-mold”).
O’Donoghue is silent to forming the fiber preform on the transfer plate while the transfer plate is supported on a preforming base and transferring the transfer plate and the fiber preform together from the preforming base to an RTM mold base.
Stiesdal teaches forming a fiber preform on a carrier or membrane (3:63-65; 4:18-21) which meets the claimed transfer plate while it is supported on a forming tool (3:63-67) that meets the claimed preforming base. Stiesdal teaches transporting/transferring the carrier and the fiber preform together from the forming tool/preforming base to an RTM mold base (3:66-4:1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these steps from Stiesdal into O’Donoghue because this is the use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same way. O’Donoghue teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by preforming fiber preforms separately from the resin transfer mold. However, Stiesdal teaches a comparable resin transfer molding process improved in the same way as the claimed invention by preforming on a separate forming tool and moving to a resin transfer molding tool. One could have applied this improvement in the same way to O’Donoghue to provide the predictable result of reducing the cycle time by preforming separate from the resin transfer molding tool (see Stiesdal 4:55-59).
As to claim 2, one practicing the modified O’Donoghue process with the separate preforming according to Stiesdal would have recognized that the preforming could be performed simultaneously while forming another composite part in the RTM mold, and this constitutes a rearrangement or duplication of steps already taught by O’Donoghue and Stiesdal. As to claim 4, Stiesdal is silent to any heating, and therefore is interpreted to provide a step of forming the fiber preform in an ambient temperature environment. As to claim 9, O’Donoghue teaches sealing a mold tool (14(a)) against the skin mold (12(b)) using another skin plate (12(a)) as a seal. As to claim 10, O’Donoghue teaches a clamp (24) for clamping a mold tool (12(a) and/or 14(a)) against the skin plate (12(b)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (US 20070063378) in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545), and further in view of Taggart (US 20020059976). O’Donoghue and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 3, O’Donoghue teaches a process interpreted to be an isothermal RTM process ([0136], ambient temperature by an exothermic reaction).
O’Donoghue is silent to preheating before transferring to the RTM mold.
Taggart teaches a shuttle which pre-heats a preform to the desired temperature and rapidly shuttling the preform to a mold ([0060]-[0062]). In the combination with the modified O’Donoghue process, one would have found it obvious to use the Taggart preheat shuttle to heat a skin mold and preform during transfer from Stiesdal’s forming tool to the RTM tool of O’Donoghue.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Taggart into the O’Donoghue process motivated by heating the preform to the curing temperature prior to placement in a resin transfer mold. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references are directed to heating of composite materials.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (US 20070063378) in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545), and further in view of Cundiff (US 6,319,447). O’Donoghue and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 5, O’Donoghue provides a mandrel with material wound upon the mandrel ([0236]), but O’Donoghue and Stiesdal are silent to the index formations to locate the mandrel at a predetermined location on the mold/transfer plate.
Cundiff teaches providing a mandrel, wrapping fiber around the mandrel, and indexing the mandrel to the mold (3:1-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Cundiff into the O’Donoghue process motivated by positioning the mandrel at a correct location within the mold. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references are directed to resin transfer molding and mandrels.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (US 20070063378) in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545), and further in view of Kornylak (US 4,252,512). O’Donoghue and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 6, O’Donoghue and Stiesdal collectively teach or suggest transferring of a skin mold from a preforming base to an RTM mold (see Stiesdal in the rejection of claim 1 above).
O’Donoghue and Stiesdal are silent to transferring comprises activating an air bearing of the preforming base and an air bearing of the RTM base to lift the transfer plate and the preform as the transfer plate is slid from the preforming base to the RTM base.
Kornylak teaches an air bearing for providing a directional gas along a surface to support and convey a plurality of articles (Abstract). In the combination, one would have provided the air bearing on both the preforming base of Stiesdal and the RTM base mold of O’Donoghue to support a skin mold during transfer from a preforming base to an RTM mold.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Kornylak into the O’Donoghue process motivated by easier transferring or movement of articles on a gas cushion. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that Kornylak is for sheet articles and the modified O’Donoghue process uses sheets or skin molds.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donoghue (US 20070063378) in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545), and further in view of Tunis (US 6,773,655). O’Donoghue and Stiesdal teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 7 and 8, O’Donoghue or O’Donoghue in view of Stiesdal teaches a feature that meets the claimed transfer plate. See rejection of claim 1 above.
O’Donoghue is silent to the transfer plate having a resin distribution groove for directing resin in the transfer plate or a vacuum distribution groove for drawing vacuum.
Tunis teaches a sheet mold (104) with a resin distribution groove (114) for directing resin in the sheet mold and a vacuum distribution groove (116) for drawing vacuum.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Tunis into the O’Donoghue process because this is the use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same way. O’Donoghue teaches a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing resin and vacuum grooves to facilitate the flow or resin or air in a resin transfer mold. However, Tunis teaches a comparable resin transfer molding process improved in the same way as the claimed invention by providing grooves in a sheet mold for routing air and vacuum. One could have applied this improvement in the same way to O’Donoghue to provide the predictable result of improving flow of resin and air through the similar O’Donoghue mold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
James (US 5,204,042) is the most pertinent reference besides O’Donoghue. The James expansion member (32) would meet the claimed transfer plate. Note that James already teaches a resin transfer molding process and could be combined with Stiesdal in the same manner as set forth above.
Green (US 3,097,125) provides a mold that meets the claimed transfer plate and is moved from a preforming location (Fig. 3) to an impregnation location (Figs. 6-7). However, because Green’s Fig. 7 is not interpreted to be a resin transfer molding process, O’Donoghue and Stiesdal represent the best available prior art.
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