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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “flange” (26) as disclosed in [0069] is not found in Fig 5; rather the top two instances of “16” in Fig 5 appear to be misnumbered and should be instances of “26”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L2: at least one portion of a curved part, the curved part having a first part surface
Claim 9, L4: cavities, each removable insert comprising an open space…
Claim 11, L1-2: A moulding method comprising heating a resin and a main reinforcement in [[a]] the mould according to claim 1, so as to…
Claim 12, L1: The method according to claim 11, wherein the composite part comprises…
Claim 13 L1-2, 6-7: A moulding method comprising heating a resin and a main reinforcement in [[a]] the mould according to claim 9, so as to mould a composite part… via the bearing system,
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sauer discloses a mould (“tool” (10)) for moulding at least one portion of a part (“fiber-reinforced plastic component” (12)), the part having a first part surface and a second part surface separated by a thickness (Fig 4), the mould comprising:
a shell comprising:
a first portion (“mold insert” (14)) comprising a first moulding surface for moulding the first part surface (Fig 1, 4), and a first outer surface opposite the first moulding surface (Fig 1, 4),
a second portion (“mold insert” (16)) comprising a second moulding surface for moulding the second part surface (Fig 1, 4), and a second outer surface being non-planar (Fig 4); and
a bearing system comprising:
a first bearing device (“tool half” (18)) mechanically coupled to the first portion and configured to press on the first portion in a first direction ([0023]), and
a second bearing device (“tool half” (20)) mechanically coupled to the second portion and configured to press on the second portion in the first direction ([0023]);
the mould being configured to allow, between the first portion of the shell and the first bearing device, and between the second portion of the shell and the second bearing device , sliding in at least one direction perpendicular to the first direction ([0032] via “slide bearings” (28), Fig 4-5).
While Sauer does not explicitly disclose that the at least one portion of the moulded part is curved, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as it has been held that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the at least one portion of the moulded part being curved is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Sauer teaches that the mechanical coupling between the first outer surface and the first bearing device comprises protrusions extending from the first outer surface to the first bearing device and/or protrusions extending from the first bearing device to the first outer surface; and the mechanical coupling between the second outer surface and the second bearing device comprises protrusions extending from the second outer surface to the second bearing device and/or protrusions extending from the second bearing device to the second outer surface (“support elements” (38), Fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, Sauer teaches a moulding method comprising heating a resin and a main reinforcement in a mould according to claim 1 (as set forth above), so as to mould a composite part ([0021], [0024]), incorporating the main reinforcement and resin ([0021]), and whose first part surface is moulded against the first moulding surface and second part surface is moulded against the second moulding surface (Fig 1, 4, 5), while resin is injected between the first moulding surface and the second moulding surface ([0021]), and that a pressure in the first direction is applied via the bearing system ([0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 11. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and Sauer teaches that the mould is capable of use for creating “particularly large and/or particularly precise components” ([0010]), which aircraft components are. Examiner notes that when the claim “merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” (see MPEP 2111.02(II)).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214).
Regarding claim 3, Sauer discloses all limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. While Sauer does not explicitly disclose that at least some of the protrusions comprise ridges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Vlavianos, which is within the molding art, teaches that the surface of a connecting protrusion (“attachment disk” (131, 132) on “pins” (110)) that comes into contact with a mold surface (“polymer mold” (752)) can be roughened (which would create small ridges in the surface) for the benefit of improved attachment ([0064]).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation) and Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Santoni (US20200331215).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. While Sauer does teach that the first and second portions are heated ([0024]), modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the heating is done by heating elements fastened to the first outer surface, and/or to the second outer surface, and/or to the bearing system, and located between protrusions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Santoni, which is within the moulding art, teaches that it is typical to locate heating elements and any necessary connections (whether electrical or fluid) at the press (which would include between protrusions) for the benefit of worker safety ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 4 as set forth above. Additionally, Santoni teaches that the bearing system comprises passages configured to pass a heat transfer fluid ([0054], in that the molding system is setup with fluid connection passages to enable heating).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), and Santoni (US20200331215) as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 5 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the mechanical coupling between the first outer surface and the first bearing device and the mechanical coupling between the second outer surface and the second bearing device comprises a first thermal insulation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Massoptier-David, which is within the molding art, teaches that it is known within the moulding art to arrange for insulation between the mould and other parts of the molding apparatus ([0035], which would include at the mechanical coupling between outer surfaces and the bearing devices). One would have been motivated to do so as it is typical in the art for the predictable result of ensuring the mold is properly heated.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 6 as set forth above. Additionally, Sauer teaches that the sliding between the first portion and the first bearing device occurs over a plurality of first slide zones (Fig 4, [0029]) and the sliding between the second portion and the second bearing device occurs on a plurality of second slide zones (Fig 4, [0029]), and that the length of the all the “support elements” (38) are the same, which would in turn mean the distance of the first and second slide zones to each other in the first direction over the entire mold would be roughly the same ([0011], which is within the claimed range of less than 20%, see Modified Sauer Fig 5 below) .
PNG
media_image1.png
407
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Modified Sauer Fig 5 in which the labels have been removed and circles drawn around protrusions of the top and bottom mold inserts in the same approximate area showing the similarity in length.)]
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), Santoni (US20200331215), and Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US20070108668).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the first portion comprises a first segment and a second segment assembled by a mechanical fastener outside the first moulding surface and by a weld along the first moulding surface; and/or the second portion comprises a first segment and a second segment assembled by a mechanical fastener outside the second moulding surface and by a weld along the second moulding surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Hutchinson, which is within the molding art, teaches that a mold portion can be broken up into multiple portions (“first/second portion” (2060, 2024)) for the benefit of facilitating replacement and maintenance of the mold portions ([0516]) and that such portions can be coupled via mechanical fasteners and/or welding ([0516]).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), Santoni (US20200331215), Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157), and Hutchinson et al. (US20070108668) as applied to claims 1-8 above, and further in view of Rayer et al. (FR2941642) (machine translation) and Kirsch et al. (US20200164556).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the shell comprises cavities in the first moulding surface and/or the second moulding surface; the mould comprising removable inserts located in the cavities, each insert comprising an open space intended to receive a projecting reinforcement; the mould comprising removable arms configured to carry the inserts and to be inserted, at least partially, into grooves of the first moulding surface, and/or of the second moulding surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) Rayer, which is within the molding art, teaches that moulds can be designed to comprise of a shell (“shell”) that comprises cavities in the moulding surface with removable inserts (“removable inserts”) comprising an open space located in the cavities for the benefit of improved tool lifespan and improving mould modification (p.5-6); and
b) Kirsch, which is within the mold art, teaches that a mould comprising of multiple replaceable inserts (“mold segments” (14)) can also comprise of removable arms (“exchange unit” in the form of a “six-axis robot arm”) configured to manipulate said inserts into whatever position is necessary for molding ([0010]) for the predictable result of properly arranging and setting up the inserts for a moulding operation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above, which is considered the mould as part of a moulding system. Additionally, Sauer teaches that the molding system further comprises a tightening device ([0005], [0024] via “fixed bearing” (24)) and a resin injection system configured to inject a resin between the first moulding surface and the second moulding surface ([0021] via the device used to initiate a resin into the tool “to wet the preform”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above with regards to the mould. Additionally, Sauer teaches a moulding method comprising heating a resin and a main reinforcement in the mould according to claim 9 ([0024]), so as to mould a composite part, incorporating the main reinforcement and resin ([0021]), and whose first part surface is moulded against the first moulding surface and second part surface is moulded against the second moulding surface (Fig 1, 4, 5), while resin is injected between the first moulding surface and the second moulding surface ([0021]), and that a pressure in the first direction is applied via the bearing system ([0005]), the method comprising, prior to the resin injection, inserting the inserts into the cavities and inserting protruding reinforcements into the open spaces, so that the protruding reinforcements, the main reinforcement and the resin are united by the moulding so as to form a piece ([0021]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), Santoni (US20200331215), Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157), Hutchinson et al. (US20070108668), Rayer et al. (FR2941642) (machine translation) and Kirsch et al. (US20200164556) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13 above, and further in view of Mao et al. (CN109501313) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above. Additionally, Hutchinson teaches preheating mold surfaces above dew point temperatures prior to molding operations ([0247], which would include insertion of the inserts into the cavities) to limit condensation formation and aid in spreading the injected material during moulding ([0247]). While Hutchinson does not explicitly teach the temperature at which the mold is preheated or that it is above 40oC when the inserts are inserted into the cavities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Mao, which is within the molding art, also teaches the benefits of preheating an insert (“die” (2-5)) prior to inserting it into a cavity of a portion of a mould (“die holder” (2-4)) ([0015]-[0017]) to improve the life cycle of the components by avoiding repeated high temperature/normal temperature heat cycling ([0021]), giving a temperature recommendation of preheating the insert to be 60-70oC higher than the melting temperature of the molded material ([0022]), as well as giving an example temperature preheating of 280oC ([0040] which is within the range of above 40oC).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), Santoni (US20200331215), Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157), Hutchinson et al. (US20070108668), Rayer et al. (FR2941642) (machine translation), Kirsch et al. (US20200164556) and Mao et al. (CN109501313) (machine translation) as applied to claims 1-9, 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Stewart (US20030227107).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the heating takes place during: a period during which the pressure in the first direction is uniform over the entire shell, and at least one other period during which the pressure in the first direction on a central shell zone is different from the pressure on a peripheral shell zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Stewart, which is within the moulding art, teaches a method of active pressure control across the entirety of the mold surface for the benefit of ensuring rapid filling of complex mold and preforms as well as uniformity in the fill process ([0111]).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation), Vlavianos et al. (US20200331214), Santoni (US20200331215), Massoptier-David et al. (US20170355157), Hutchinson et al. (US20070108668), Rayer et al. (FR2941642) (machine translation) and Kirsch et al. (US20200164556) as applied to claims 1-9, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Stewart (US20030227107).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the heating takes place during: a period during which the pressure in the first direction is uniform over the entire shell, and at least one other period during which the pressure in the first direction on a central shell zone is different from the pressure on a peripheral shell zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Stewart, which is within the moulding art, teaches a method of active pressure control across the entirety of the mold surface for the benefit of ensuring rapid filling of complex mold and preforms as well as uniformity in the fill process ([0111]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above. While modified Sauer does not explicitly teach that the heating takes place during: a period during which the pressure in the first direction is uniform over the entire shell, and at least one other period during which the pressure in the first direction on a central shell zone is different from the pressure on a peripheral shell zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Stewart, which is within the moulding art, teaches a method of active pressure control across the entirety of the mold surface for the benefit of ensuring rapid filling of complex mold and preforms as well as uniformity in the fill process ([0111]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al. (DE102013016259) (Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Stewart (US20030227107).
Regarding claim 16, Sauer teaches all limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. While Sauer does not explicitly teach that the heating takes place during: a period during which the pressure in the first direction is uniform over the entire shell, and at least one other period during which the pressure in the first direction on a central shell zone is different from the pressure on a peripheral shell zone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Stewart, which is within the moulding art, teaches a method of active pressure control across the entirety of the mold surface for the benefit of ensuring rapid filling of complex mold and preforms as well as uniformity in the fill process ([0111]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749