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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “The manifold and controller of claim X . . . ” (where X refers to a previous claim number) should instead read “The manifold of claim X” for each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sala et al. (US 2004/0089975), hereinafter Sala.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Sala discloses manifold for use in a system for resin transfer molding of composite articles (par. 0018) and a mold enclosure for enclosing a fiber pack (mold 3; Fig. 1),
the manifold comprising a body and a plurality of valves (6a, 6b, 6c; Fig. 1; par. 0071-0072),
wherein the body of the manifold defines a resin inlet (4, flowing into reservoir 14), a plurality of resin outlets (“injection feed lines” 5a, 5b, 5c; par. 0072; Fig. 1) and an internal resin chamber therebetween (reservoir 14; par. 0073), and each valve is arranged to control flow between the internal resin chamber (reservoir 14) and a corresponding one of the outlets (“the flow of material through the injection feed lines 5a, 5b, 5c is regulated by valves 6a, 6b, 6c”) (par. 0072);
and the plurality of resin outlets (“injection feed lines” 5a, 5b, 5c) are coupled to a corresponding plurality of resin ports (unlabeled, but the location where injection feed lines 5a, 5b, 5c flow into the mold would be the “corresponding plurality of resin ports”) distributed across the mold enclosure (3) so that each valve of the manifold (6a, 6b, 6c) is arranged to control resin ingress into the mold and fiber pack through the ports (par. 0072 explains that the flow of material into the mold is regulated by the valves, as outlined above, and this flow is into a mold).
Regarding claim 5, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses a pressure sensor (12) for registering the pressure within the reservoir, the manifold pressure sensor (12) being arranged to communicate the pressure to a controller (8) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that here are valve control mechanisms (“valves . . . are electronically controlled with the support of computers 7”) (par. 0072) arranged to receive control signals and operate the valves.
Regarding claims 7-9, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and valves are understood to be able to be fully or partially open/closed in routine use from the subject matter of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 10, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and a controller (computer 7, 8) (par. 0072) configured to transmit valve control signals to each of the plurality of control mechanisms.
Regarding claim 11, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 10, and further discloses a manifold pressure sensor (12, Fig. 1) (par. 0073) that is used to communicate pressure to the computer(s) (7,8) (par. 0072-0073) as to control the flow of the material through the valves by opening the valves or closing the valves.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is directed to an intended use: “for use in a system for the resin transfer molding of composite articles” clearly outlines an intended use of the claimed system. As such, the subject matter here is not considered limiting with respect to the controller. Sala discloses the computer or controller (7, 8) as outlined above and would be considered to be capable of performing these limitations in routine use.
Regarding claim 13, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further discloses that there is a resin pump (extruder screw 10) coupled to the resin inlet (4), wherein the controller (8) is in communication with the resin pump to control the resin pump (par. 0073; Fig. 1), and thereby the pressure and flow rate of the material flowing into the reservoir.
Regarding claim 15, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the resin ports are spaced apart from one another (as shown in Fig. 1) and positioned in a sequence along a resin flow path.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is directed to subject matter relating to the control of the claimed system. Accordingly, these limitations are not considered limiting as an intended use of the claimed structure (see MPEP 2114).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sala (US 2004/0089975) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhang et al. (US 2002/0046596), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claims 2-4, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that each valve has a valve head and valve seat which are slidable relative to one another along a valve axis to control flow between a resin chamber and a corresponding outlet (see instant specification at Figs. 9-10).
However, Zhang discloses a valve system that is used in accordance with a resin transfer molding system (in this case, to drain the mold, instead of a reservoir, but the function of the valve is similar in either case) (Zhang, Figs. 6-12).
Zhang discloses a valve that comprises a valve head (not labeled, but is the flared portion at bottom of Figs. 6 and 10), and a valve seat (adapter 38a) (Zhang, Fig. 9; par. 0035) which are slidable relative to one another along a valve axis to control flow between the reservoir and the outlets and detachable from one another as shown.
Sala discloses a “base” system that shows a valve schematically, but does not show the structure of the valve as is required in the claims. Zhang discloses an “improvement” to the base system in that it specifies the structure of the valve in the same way as in the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, could have incorporated the valve structure of Zhang into the system of Sala above, as to have performed the function of a valve with respect to a flowing resin material. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the valve structure from Zhang is incorporated into the system of Sala above. See MPEP 2143(I).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sala (US 2004/0089975) as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Usui (US 2017/0312997).
Regarding claims 17-19, Sala discloses the subject matter of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that a solvent is used with a solvent tank/waste tank as to clean the manifold from resin material.
However, Usui discloses a process that also involves the injection of resin into a mold, and teaches that the mold is degreased using a solvent (Usui, par. 0034), demonstrating that such a technique was known in the art for removing residue from a surface when using resin. Although Usui uses the solvent within a mold, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a solvent would also have been useful in the device of Sala above as to have cleaned the device of resin that may have solidified within the device during use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that this would have been applicable in the device of Sala above as to have likewise cleaned the items from remaining residue. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a solvent tank and waste tank and a valve configuration (as already provided for above) as to provide solvent to the system and clean the system and purge it of resin that may have solidified undesirably within the system during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742