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 .
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-15, 18-20, and 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, prong 1) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining … data”, “fitting a … model”, “simulating a preform”, “calculating”, and “determining”, which are all steps that can be performed mentally.
(Step 2A, prong 2)This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because none of the abstract steps limit the function of the apparatus claimed.
(Step 2B)The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because ENGELBART et al. (US 2016/0097728) teaches a tape laying machine, inspection system, and an autoclave (paras. 22, 24, and 42), which are all well-known apparatus components in the art.
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 11-15, 18-20, and 23-24 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.
Claim 11 recites “the measurements” in line 15, but does not define whether this refers to “respective gap measurement” or “anomaly data measurements”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the prior preform lay-up process" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 depends from claim 17, which has been cancelled. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as depending from claim 11.
Claim 24 depends from claim 17, which has been cancelled. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as depending from claim 11.
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) 11-13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENGELBART in view of KISCH (US 2009/0199948).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 24, ENGELBART teaches a tape laying machine, inspection system, and an autoclave (paras. 22, 24, and 42), wherein a laminate produced thereby could be functionally utilized in an aircraft (para. 2). A MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). It is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus which just comprises a tape laying machine with a lamination head, an inspection system and an autoclave. Applicant is not claiming a method. The whiskers are clearly material worked upon which does not distinguish the apparatus ENGELBART does not teach the inspection system includes a determination of whisker measurements remaining attached to the back wheel, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such a processor because applicant does not utilize the controller determination to perform any function in the method. ENGELBART does not teach an optical sensor. KISCH teaches another apparatus for tape laying comprising an optical sensor, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include such a sensor in the apparatus of ENGELBART in order to allow correcting of tape misplacements (KISCH; para. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on 4/6/2026 that “tape laying machine” and “inspection system” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they are amended to require a lamination head and optical sensor, respectively. Examiner agrees that the structures amended are sufficient to define the structures for performing the function claimed.
Applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach measurement of whiskers has been fully considered but is not persuasive. While such a such a measurement is not described in the provided art, applicant’s claims do not relate to utilizing this measurement, so the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
