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
Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-20, in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are related and indistinct. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus as claimed can be utilized to splice or apply protective layers to various substrates, and can be utilized in numerous other methods, in arts unrelated to producing composite parts, such that a thorough search of composite production methods would not necessarily disclose such a structure, even if the apparatus has been previously disclosed in another art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 11-15, and 17-20 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.
Claim limitations “tape laying machine” and “inspection system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structures, materials, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Both limitations recite generic placeholders “machine” and “system” respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ENGELBART.
Regarding claims 11-13, 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).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENGELBART as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of KISCH (US 2009/0199948).
Regarding claim 16, 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights