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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 08/21/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 51-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0357555 A1), in view of Mark et al. (EP 3221128 B1), in view of Rudd C. D. et al. "Tow placement studies for liquid composite molding", Composites Part A, Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, vol. 30, no. 9, 1 September 1999 (1999-09-01), pages 1105-1121, XP004171655 – of record.
Regarding claims 51, 61, 63, Liu discloses a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform a method for design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system. This to include tow laminate composite models, see at least [0043], [0064] – (construed as a computer-implemented method for forming a fiber-reinforced composite device comprising one or more fiber-comprising tows having a tow width). The method to include generating a representation of the anisotropic elastic material system computed from boundary conditions, the tow to include multiple layers, see at least [0010], [0582], [0932], [1009] – (construed as forming a first preform model comprising one or more anisotropic tow layup portions including one or more fiber-comprising tows). The method to further include geometric structural descriptors as build process parameters, see at least [0029], [0146] – (construed as receiving one or more mold geometrical components); and a forming of a voxel mesh using displacement vectors and the compressive behavior of the matrix in forming the model, see at least [0529], [0577] – (construed as receiving one or more molding force vector parameters wherein one or more of the molding force vectors parameters comprise a compressive force; and forming an intermediate device model by deforming the first preform model against the one or more mold geometrical components using the one or more molding force vector parameters). Once the displacement vector is formed the mesh (of the composite) is deformed by adding displacements to nodes coordinates, see at least [0530] – (the deformed mesh is construed as forming a second preform model, wherein the step of forming the second preform model comprises adjusting the first preform model).
Liu does not explicitly disclose transmitting the second preform model to one or more systems for applying an elongate fiber tow onto an object surface; wherein the adjusting the first preform model comprises cutting one or more of the tows into a first tow segment and a second tow segment to form a gap separating the first tow segment from the second tow segment along a corresponding tow path within the anisotropic tow layup portion.
Rudd discloses the design and manufacture of fiber preforms. This includes a process of a computer implemented method for forming a fiber reinforced composite device, see at least Fig. 3. And formation of a model, see 2.4 – 1. – (construed as a first preform model). The model is transformed kinematically to generate a template, see 2.4 – 2. – (construed as a second preform model). And the kinematic model is used to map an optimized laydown of fiber paths, see 2.4 – 3. – (construed as transmitting the second preform model to one or more systems for applying an elongate fiber tow onto an object surface). And would have good reason to utilize the aforementioned processing steps, as Rudd suggests such a process reduces the effects of fiber re-orientation on variations in preform superficial density and possibility of fiber buckling within the structure, see 3.1.
Mark discloses a machine implemented method for generating three-dimensional toolpath instructions to include forming of one or more prepregs, see at least [0020], [0067] – (construed as fiber-comprising tows having a tow width). The method to include toolpath strategies to distribute gaps to limit propagation of cracks or other modes of failure. And by example, in at least FIGS 15A-B, 19I, gaps separate reinforcement members. In FIG 15, the bottommost L-shaped member is construed as a first tow and topmost L-shaped member is construed as a second tow. Likewise, in FIG 19I the leftmost reinforcement member is construed as a first tow and rightmost reinforcing member is construed as a second tow. Their extrudate paths being adjusted to have along the longitudinal axis of the tow, gaps separating the tows – (corresponds to cutting one or more of the tows into a first tow segment and a second tow segment to form a gap separating the first tow segment from the second tow segment along a corresponding tow path within the anisotropic tow layup portion). Mark further discloses, for each of a set of shells or layers defining a portion of a 3D printed part, first isotropic fill tool paths may be generated for controlling an isotropic solidifying head to solidify, along the isotropic fill tool paths, a substantially isotropic fill material, see [0005]. And where the fill material is used to fill the gaps, see at least [0222] - (in this instance it is considered, the gaps act as reservoirs for the isotropic fill material and thusly corresponds to adjusting the first preform model comprises forming one or more reservoirs comprising an isotropic material; and filling the gap with an isotropic material). And would have good reason to utilize the aforementioned processing steps, as Mark suggests forming one or more tows having gaps within the reinforcing members limits the propagation of cracks and provides for beneficial stacking of complementary patterns, see [0203], [0217].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s method as claimed since: Rudd and Mark disclose such processing steps provide a means for reducing the possibility of fiber buckling and limiting the propagation of cracks within the structure.
Regarding claims 52-53, modified Liu discloses the deformed geometry of the nominal fabric or laydown in three-dimensional space was described. A mapping algorithm was then applied to flatten the elements or "patches" in the surface model to produce the fiat template. This geometry was then post processed as before to generate the NC part program which enabled the net-shape laydown to be produced, see Rudd 2.4 – 2. - (construed as a step of manufacturing the second preform model with one or more systems for applying an elongate fiber tow onto an object surface; receiving at least a portion of a layup of one or more target fiber-reinforced composite devices comprising one or more tows).
Regarding claims 54, 68, modified Liu discloses the object is a connecting rod and the present description and claims expressly contemplate that a layer or shell may be curved (and/or "sliced" in such curved shapes), see Mark [0087], [0124] – (construed as the first preform model comprises one or more models of profiled rods); and folding of the prepreg, see Liu FIG. 193, Mark [0256] – (construed as a fold along a longitudinal axis of the tow).
Regarding claim 55, modified Liu discloses the use of finite element numerical technique throughout the disclosure, see Liu. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Liu as claimed since: the finite element method is clearly contemplated and used throughout the disclosure. And using such a technique to represent the first preform would be at least one of routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 56, 62, modified Liu discloses the method includes using real-time responses for design optimization and/or performance prediction of the material system; and to have the modeling method to capture data on length and time scales, see Liu [0052], [0264] – (construed as one or more of the molding force vector parameter has a norm that decreases over a portion of a time wherein the force is applied; and adjusting a length of one or more of the first tow and the second tow).
Regarding claims 57-59, modified Liu discloses the tow design includes alternating the material such that adjacent materials are different. This includes forming panels to increase moment of inertia about the entire surface of the part. And where the panels are arranged as a stack of a plurality of layers, in a variety of directions and parallel tows, see Mark [0034], FIGS 19H-J. And where it is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that different materials would differ in characteristics such as porosity – (construed as one or more of the first preform model and the second preform model comprise one or more regions comprising a layup of an anisotropic material and one or more regions comprising a layup comprising an isotropic material; and at least a portion of a material comprised in the one or more regions comprising a layup of an anisotropic material has a first porosity and the one or more regions comprising a layup of an isotropic material has a second porosity; and one or more anisotropic tow layup portions comprise a plurality of layers stacked in a third direction and wherein one or more of the layers comprise a plurality of parallel tows).
Regarding claim 60, modified Liu discloses the use of twisting to provide stiffness, see Mark [0215], [0244] – (construed as adjusting the first preform model comprises longitudinally twisting one or more portions of the one or more tows from a first twist orientation to a second twist orientation).
Regarding claim 64, modified Liu discloses for a surface interaction test, the most important parameter is the surface temperature because it affects the viscosity of the resin in the composite, see Liu [1009]. Thus, one as a matter of routine experimentation seek to optimize the surface interaction of the composite with respect to temperature and spatial position. It be considered the claimed: “deforming the first preform model further comprises adjusting the temperature of the one or more mold geometrical components at one or more temperature adjusting positions each having a spatial position and a spatial extent within the volume of the one or more mold geometrical components” would be met. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Liu’s method to further include the aforementioned claim limitations as not only does Lui contemplate such functionality. But provides a reasonable pathway to using a measured temperature to arrive at a desirable characteristic (viscosity).
Regarding claim 65, modified Liu discloses a volume infill generation rule may be applied defining second isotropic fill tool paths for controlling the isotropic solidifying head to solidify the substantially isotropic fill material as a volume infill of the part, see Mark [0010] – (construed as deforming the first preform model further comprises adding a volume of fluid comprising a thermoplastic resin into the volume enclosed within the one or more mold geometrical component).
Regarding claim 66, modified Liu discloses forming a particular shape wherein in cross-section, the height of the composite swaths corresponds to the fill material layer height, see Mark [0187] – (construed as forming the second preform model further comprises receiving a target fiber layer elevation map of a surface comprising one or more layers of a layup comprising one or more fiber-comprising tows). This being suitable for enabling tightly packed build-up in the vertical direction. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Liu as claimed since: Mark reasonably suggests such an embodiment is suitable for allowing tightly packed fill layers in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 67, modified Liu discloses collecting data of response fields of the material volume of the elements computed from a material model of the material system over a predefined set of material properties and boundary conditions; applying machine learning to the collected data of response fields to generate clusters that minimize a distance between points in a nominal response space within each cluster; computing an interaction tensor of interactions of each cluster with each of the other clusters. This being usable for the design optimization and/or performance prediction of the material system, see Liu [0010] – (construed as loading one or more tow layup adjustment vectors and one or more position transformation vectors into a machine learning system, wherein the tow layup adjustment vector comprises one or more vector (V1..N) extending from one or more tows of the first preform model to one or more tow of the second preform model and the position transformation vector (U1..N) is extending from one or more tows of the first preform model to one or more tows of one or more of the intermediate device models; loading a threshold vector set into the machine learning system, the threshold vector set comprising one or more tow positions with respect to a threshold; forming a plurality of candidate tow layup adjustment vectors comprising a position offset with respect to one or more tows of the one or more tow layup adjustment vector; and training the machine learning system to compare the one or more candidate tow layup adjustment vectors to the one or more position transformation vectors). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Liu as claimed since: Liu reasonably suggests such an embodiment is suitable for optimizing the design and/or performance prediction of the material system.
Regarding claims 69-70, modified Liu discloses a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform the above-disclosed method for design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system, see Liu [0043] – (construed as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having collectively stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to at least form a fiber-reinforced composite device).This to further include having one or more processors to cause a system to perform design optimization and/or performance prediction of a material system. The system to have one or more deposition nozzles – (construed as deposition feet), see Liu [0043], Mark [0002] – (construed as a system for applying an elongate fiber tow onto an object surface, the system comprising: one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instructions to form a fiber-reinforced composite device; and one or more filament deposition feet).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on 5712705545. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749