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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the inclusion of legal phraseology such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0001 on page 1 of the specification (Cross-Reference to Related Applications), the phrase –now U.S. Patent no. 12,699,056—should be inserted after the phrase “U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/416,717, filed January 18, 2024”, and the phrase –now U.S. Patent no. 12,422,831—should be inserted after the phrase “U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/811,433, filed July 8, 2022” so as to update the status of these parent applications. In paragraph 0002 on page 1 of the specification (Cross-Reference to Related Applications), the phrase –now U.S. Patent no. 12,705,722—should be inserted after the phrase “U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/416,615, filed January 18, 2024”, and the phrase –now U.S. Patent no. 12,566,132—should be inserted after the phrase “U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/416,653, filed January 18, 2024” so as to update the status of these applications. Also, in paragraph 0002 on page 1 of the specification, the serial number for the application referred to in the phrase “U.S. Patent Application Serial No. _______, filed even date thereof, entitled “Fiber Verification for Composite Material Manufacturing” should be provided.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25 and 28 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.
On line 5 of claim 5, the “distance model” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes this distance model. Similarly, on line 7 of claim 5, the “statistical model” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes this statistical model. What types of models are used in the system as the distance and statistical models?
On line 10 of claim 7, the phrase “changing a number of input parameters” is indefinite since it is not clear what the input parameters are for. Are the input parameters in this phrase input parameters of the manufacturing method of the unconsolidated composite material?
On lines 1-3 of claim 9, the phrase “wherein the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system to generate Fourier transform infrared scans with dimensions as raw Fourier infrared scans” should be changed to -- wherein the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system generates Fourier transform infrared scans with dimensions as raw Fourier infrared scans—in order to make proper sense. On lines 6-7 of claim 9, the phrase “wherein the number of the reference Fourier transform infrared scans has the reduce dimensions” should be changed to --wherein the number of the reference Fourier transform infrared scans has the reduced dimensions—in order to make proper sense.
On lines 1-3 of claim 10, the phrase “wherein the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system to generate Fourier transform infrared scans with dimensions as raw Fourier infrared scans” should be changed to -- wherein the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system generates Fourier transform infrared scans with dimensions as raw Fourier infrared scans—in order to make proper sense.
Claim 11 is indefinite since it is not clear how the reference and the test Fourier transform infrared scans are “preprocessed” by the analyzer of the system. What steps does the analyzer take to “preprocess” the reference and the test Fourier transform infrared scans? On line 2 of claim 11, the phrase “the reference Fourier transform infrared scan” should be changed to -- the reference Fourier transform infrared scans--.
On lines 3-4 of claim 14, the phrase “a Raman” should be changed to –a Raman spectroscopy system—so as to make proper sense.
On line 10 of claim 17, the “tack model system” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes this tack model system. Without knowing what the “tack model system” is in the tack assessment system, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what exactly the system includes, and whether they are infringing on the tack assessment system.
On lines 4-5 of claim 20, the phrase “wherein the tack quality is a known tack quality for the reference Fourier transform infrared scan” should be changed to -- wherein the tack quality is a known tack quality for the identified reference Fourier transform infrared scan—in order to positively refer to the reference Fourier transform infrared scan identified in the step of determining the tack quality.
On line 5 of claim 23, the “distance model” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes this distance model. Similarly, on line 6 of claim 23, the “statistical model” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes this statistical model. What types of models are used in the system as the distance and statistical models?
On line 10 of claim 25, the phrase “changing a number of input parameters” is indefinite since it is not clear what the input parameters are for. Are the input parameters in this phrase input parameters of the manufacturing method of the unconsolidated composite material?
On line 9 of claim 28, the phrase “wherein the machine learning model has been training” should be changed to –wherein the machine learning model has been trained—in order to make proper sense.
Inventorship
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,422,831 (submitted in the IDS filed on May 7, 2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a tack assessment system comprising a computer system, and an analyzer in the computer system which is configured for controlling a spectroscopy system to generate a test electromagnetic scan for a test section of an unconsolidated composite material at a test location in a composite material manufacturing system in real time during manufacturing of the unconsolidated composite material by the composite material manufacturing system (see instant claims 16-17 and claims 1 and 13 in U.S. 12,422,831); and determining a tack quality for the test section of the unconsolidated composite material at the test location using a tack model system and the test electromagnetic scan, wherein the tack model system comprises a machine learning model (see instant claims 16-18 and claims 1, 9 and 15 in U.S. 12,422,831 which recite determining a quality level for test portions in an unconsolidated composite material based upon comparison to a machine learning model (claim 9), wherein the quality level is based on a prepreg tack level (claim 15)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining a test Fourier transform infrared scan of a test section of an unconsolidated composite material at a test location in a composite material manufacturing system in real time during manufacturing of the unconsolidated composite material by the composite material manufacturing system, mentally comparing the test Fourier transform infrared scan of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material to a number of reference Fourier transform infrared scans for a number of reference unconsolidated composite materials having a number of known tack qualities, and based on the comparison, determining a tack quality for the test section of the unconsolidated composite material based on either a distance between the test Fourier transform infrared scan and the reference Fourier transform infrared scans or based on a machine learning model that has been trained using reference Fourier transform infrared scans for reference unconsolidated composite materials. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to abstract ideas comprising mental evaluations and comparisons with no other steps that practically use the results of the mental comparisons to perform a specific action. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps of obtaining the test Fourier transform infrared scan for a test section of an unconsolidated composite material constitutes routine data gathering, and the additional steps of performing a generic action such as issuing a warning or generating an alert amounts to merely a step of generically “applying” the abstract ideas. The additional steps in the claims beyond the abstract ideas comprise only insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities, and are mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas.
When considering the claims under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (January 2019), it is noted that the claims meet step 1 of the guidance since the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e. are directed to a process or an apparatus/system). The claims meet prong one of revised step 2A since the claims recite a judicial exception comprising the abstract ideas of obtaining a test Fourier transform infrared scan of a test section of an unconsolidated composite material at a test location in a composite material manufacturing system in real time during manufacturing of the unconsolidated composite material by the composite material manufacturing system, mentally comparing the test Fourier transform infrared scan of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material to a number of reference Fourier transform infrared scans for a number of reference unconsolidated composite materials having a number of known tack qualities, and based on the comparison, determining a tack quality for the test section of the unconsolidated composite material based on either a distance between the test Fourier transform infrared scan and the reference Fourier transform infrared scans or based on a machine learning model that has been trained using reference Fourier transform infrared scans for reference unconsolidated composite materials. These comparisons and evaluations in the instant claims are abstract ideas in that they can be performed in the human mind, or by a person using a pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). The claims only recite making evaluations of a tack quality of an unconsolidated composite material based upon making mental comparisons, which all fall under the judicial exception category of abstract ideas. Additionally, the Examiner notes that even though the claims recite performing the mental analysis steps using a computer or an analyzer in the computer, this also does not make the claims patent eligible under 35 US C 101 since performing a mental process on a generic computer, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform a mental process represents abstract ideas when the computer is presented at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C).
The claims do not meet prong two of revised step 2A since the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As stated above, the steps of mentally comparing the test Fourier transform infrared scan of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material to a number of reference Fourier transform infrared scans for a number of reference unconsolidated composite materials having a number of known tack qualities, and based on the comparison, determining a tack quality for the test section of the unconsolidated composite material constitute a judicial exception (i.e. abstract ideas), and the additional recitations in the claims constitute routine extra-solution activity which is incidental to the primary process and/or are nominal or tangential additions to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(g). With regards to dependent claims 2-12, 14-15, 18 and 20-26, these claims merely recite how the abstract ideas (i.e.. mental evaluations) are performed (i.e. with distance or machine learning models), and insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities (i.e. data gathering and outputting test results). With regards to claims 1-18, these claims do not confer patent eligibility to the claims since according to MPEP 2106.04(d), “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not "sufficient" to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).”
The claims also do not meet step 2B of the guidance since the additional elements of obtaining the test Fourier transform infrared scan for a test section of an unconsolidated composite material constitutes routine data gathering, and the additional steps of performing a generic action such as issuing a warning or generating an alert amounts to merely a step of generically “applying” the abstract ideas. The additional steps in the claims beyond the abstract ideas comprise only insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities, and are mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)”. Therefore, the elements recited in the claims which are in addition to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy scan data, the outputting of results, and the apparatus/generic computer for performing the method) do not amount to an inventive concept that qualifies as significantly more to the judicial exception. For this reason, the claims are not patent eligible under step 2B of the 35 USC 101 analysis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelley et al (US 2010/0276578, submitted in the IDS filed on September 18, 2024).
With regards to claims 1, 13-15, 17-19 and 27, Shelley et al teach of a system and a method for assessing tack quality in an unconsolidated composite material (see paragraphs 0022 and 0047 in Shelly et al which state):
PNG
media_image1.png
192
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
101
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising a computer system (see paragraph 0036 in Shelley et al), a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system (see paragraph 0024 in Shelley et al), and an analyzer in the computer system, wherein the analyzer is configured to control the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system to generate a test Fourier transform infrared scan of a test section of an unconsolidated composite material at a test location in a composite material manufacturing system in real time during manufacturing of the unconsolidated composite material by the composite material manufacturing system (see paragraphs 0007 and 0047 in Shelley et al that disclose performing real-time in-situ IR spectroscopy measurements of uncured, unconsolidated polymer resins such as prepreg during aircraft manufacturing), comparing the test Fourier transform infrared scan of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material to a number of reference Fourier transform infrared scans for a number of reference unconsolidated composite materials having a number of known tack qualities, and based on the comparison, determining a tack quality for the test section of the unconsolidated composite material using a tack model comprising a multivariate calibration model between the test Fourier transform infrared scan and the reference Fourier transform infrared scans. See paragraphs 0036, 0040-0041 and 0048-0049 in Shelley et al which state:
PNG
media_image3.png
304
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
437
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
339
349
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shelley et al fail to specifically teach that the tack quality of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material at the test location is determined based on a distance or a distance model between the test Fourier transform infrared scan and the reference Fourier transform infrared scans of the reference unconsolidated composite materials. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a distance or a distance model to determine the tack quality of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material at the test location in the system and method taught by Shelley et al because Shelley et al teach of determining “a degree of change of the IR spectra from a reference spectrum” or spectra (see paragraph 0040 in Shelley et al), and this degree of change of the test Fourier IR spectrum from the Fourier IR spectra of the reference samples constitutes how far or the distance that the test Fourier IR spectrum of the test section of unconsolidated composite material differs or deviates from the reference Fourier IR spectra.
With regards to claims 2-3 and 20-21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the reference Fourier transform infrared scan that has the shortest distance to the test Fourier transform infrared scan using a distance model, and to determine the tack quality of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material taught by Shelley et al using a voting process in the computer that uses the candidate tack qualities of the reference samples since the reference Fourier transform infrared scan that has the shortest distance to the test Fourier transform infrared scan taught by Shelley et al would represent the closest match in tack quality to the test section, and the computer in the system taught by Shelley et al could be programmed to choose the reference Fourier transform infrared scan that most closely matches the test Fourier transform infrared scan of the test section of unconsolidated composite material.
With regards to claims 4 and 22, Shelley et al teach of performing interpolation of the test Fourier transform infrared scan with the reference Fourier transform infrared scan to determine tack quality. See paragraphs 0036 in Shelley et al where it states:
PNG
media_image6.png
88
336
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 5 and 23, Shelley et al teach of using a multivariate statistical model to compare the test Fourier transform infrared scan with the reference Fourier transform infrared scans. See paragraphs 0036-0041 in Shelley et al.
With regards to claims 6-7 and 24-25, Shelley et al teach performing an action using the tack quality of the test section of the unconsolidated composite material, wherein the action comprises generating an alert such as a pass/fail type of determination. See paragraph 0035 in Shelley et al where it states:
PNG
media_image7.png
132
355
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 8 and 26, Shelley et al teach that the tack quality is based on a chemistry of the polymer resin of the unconsolidated composite material. See paragraph 0048 in Shelley et al where it states:
PNG
media_image8.png
147
348
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 9-11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transform the infrared scans of the test and reference samples of unconsolidated composite material taught by Shelley et al by reducing dimensions of the raw test and reference Fourier transform infrared scans, selecting a number of frequencies to form the test and reference Fourier transform infrared scans, and to preprocess the test and reference Fourier transform infrared scans because Shelley et al teach of performing various transformation steps on the raw infrared scans of the test and reference samples of unconsolidated composite material in order to improve the comparison between the test and reference scans. See paragraph 0040 in Shelley et la where it states:
PNG
media_image9.png
248
325
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 12, Shelley et al teach that the unconsolidated composite material in the method and system comprises a aerospace-grade prepreg. See paragraph 0022 in Shelley et al where it states:
PNG
media_image10.png
185
324
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Shahan et al (US 12,699,056) who teach of a method for verifying a material chemistry of an unconsolidated composite material using Fourier transform IR spectroscopy; Shahan et al (US 12,705,722) who teach of a method for detecting fiber inconsistencies in an unconsolidated composite material during manufacture of the composite material; and Shahan et al (US 12,566,132) who teach of a method for determining contaminants during composite material manufacturing using a Fourier transform infrared scan of the material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1254. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights