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Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 15, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are examined.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the compaction pressure along a contact-interface between the roller and the ply is substantially uniformly distributed on the ply”. The term “substantially uniformly” will be interpreted in line with claim 9 and 10 and in the instant specification in ¶ [0068, 0070, 0078] as “the compaction pressure that is uniform (e.g., the variation is less than or equal to a desired threshold” and “the compaction pressure is determined as uniform when the variation in the compaction pressure along the test-contact-interface is less than 5 PSI”.
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 11 is 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 “measuring the compaction pressure” in line 8. It is unclear if the limitation is reciting back to previous citation of “the step of measuring the compaction pressure” in line 2 of the claim 11 or is recitation an additional limitation of “measuring the compaction pressure”. Clarification 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeicer (FR 3133334 A1, and English machine translation is provided in the Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Maeicer discloses method for compacting a ceramic composite material (¶ [0020] – method of manufacturing a part in composite material) comprising a ceramic reinforcement (¶ [0045] – fibers of fibrous structures 7 can be ceramic) and a ceramic matrix (claim 9, ¶ [0020] –formation of a matrix in the porosities of the fibrous preform), the method comprising steps of:
positioning a roller (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over fibrous structures) in contact with a ply-surface (¶ [0029] – on draping surface) of a ply of the ceramic composite material (¶ [0020] – a part in composite material), wherein the ply is positioned on a compaction-surface (¶ [0042] – 1 for draping fibrous structures 7 onto a draping surface S to form a fibrous preform);
applying a compaction pressure to the ply using the roller (¶ [0054] – controlling the compaction pressure P) such that the compaction pressure along a contact-interface between the roller and the ply (¶ [0054] – apply an optimal compaction pressure P adapted at each moment to the geometry of the draping surface S) is substantially uniformly distributed on the ply (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface); and
with the roller in contact with the ply-surface (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures) and applying the compaction pressure (¶ [0054] – controlling the compaction pressure P), moving the roller across the ply to conform the ply of the ceramic composite material (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface) to a contour of the compaction-surface (¶ [0054] – obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties),
wherein the roller is selected such that a variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface between the roller and the ply (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface; ¶ [0058] – P applied by 1 are then compared with the desired value P using a comparator 503, which transmits a corrected value P) is less than predetermined threshold (¶ [0059] - when the compaction pressure P is less than a desired value, the comparator transmits a higher corrected value and when the compaction pressure P is greater than the desired value P, the comparator transmits a lower corrected value P) when moving the roller across the ply and accommodating for the contour of the compaction-surface (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures).
Regarding claim 2, Maeicer the method discloses of Claim 1, further comprising selecting a magnitude of the compaction pressure (¶ [0054] – controlling the compaction pressure P, as it is controlled, the compaction pressure is selected), wherein the magnitude of the compaction pressure is selected to conform the ceramic reinforcement of the ply to the contour of the compaction-surface (¶ [0054] – apply an optimal compaction pressure P adapted at each moment to the geometry of the draping surface S) and maintain a desired thickness of the ply while moving the roller across the ply (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties, thickness is affected by the compaction pressure, therefore a desired/optimal thickness is achieved).
Regarding claim 3, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 2, further comprising, with the roller in contact with the ply-surface, adjusting the magnitude of the compaction pressure (¶ [0054] – controlling the compaction pressure P; ¶ [0058] – P applied by 1 are then compared with the desired value P using a comparator 503, which transmits a corrected value P) using a feedback controller (¶ [0056] – closed-loop control of the compaction pressure P, adjust in real time the compaction pressure P according to asperities or irregularities).
Regarding claim 4, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein:
the ceramic reinforcement (¶ [0045] – fibers of fibrous structures 7) comprises at least one of carbon reinforcement fibers (¶ [0045] – can be ceramic or carbon fibers), silicon carbide reinforcement fibers (¶ [0045] – can be made of silicon carbide), or alumina reinforcement fibers (¶ [0045] – alumina); and
the ceramic matrix (claim 9, ¶ [0064] – matrix) comprises at least one of a carbon matrix (¶ [0064] – composition comprising a binder and a ceramic or carbon fillers)
Regarding claim 6, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 1. Maeicer discloses wherein the roller comprises:
a core (¶ [0032] – core 10); and
a covering surrounding the core (¶ [0032] – a layer of deformable material around core 10).
Regarding claim 7, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 6, further comprising a step of selecting a covering-material for the covering (¶ [0032] – deformable material 20 made of a flexible and elastically deformable material, made of elastomeric material, in particular silicone or polyurethane, or of a foam whose Shore A hardness is 20 to 70; therefore, a material is selected for the layer on the core), wherein the covering-material is selected such that the compaction pressure is uniform along the contact-interface between the roller and the ply when moving the roller across the ply (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface).
Regarding claim 10, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
measuring the compaction pressure while moving the roller across the ply (¶ [0054] – at least one sensor 100 measures the radial distances or the variations in radial distance between the deformable outer skin 30 and the undeformable core of 10, measurements processed for the force applied so as to apply an optimal compaction pressure); and
adjusting the compaction pressure in response to the measuring (¶ [0054] – applying a compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities) when the compaction pressure is not uniform along a contact-interface between the roller and the ply (¶ [0054] – to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties; ¶ [0058] – P applied by 1 are then compared with the desired value P using a comparator 503, which transmits a corrected value P).
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) 5, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeicer (FR 3133334 A1, and English machine translation is provided in the Office Action), as applied to claim 1, 6-7, and 10.
Regarding claim 5, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 1.
Regarding the limitation “a material of the roller is selected such that the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI”, the instant specification in ¶ [0058] recites “the covering includes a Shore A hardness of between approximately 1 and 10 … enables the compaction pressure applied to the ply by the roller to be at least approximately uniform along the contact-interface”. Therefore, “the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI” is dependent of the selected Shore A hardness of the selected roller material.
Maeicer discloses external surface of deformable core 10 can be metallic or made of a polymer material, can be made mainly of a foam whose Shore A hardness is preferably between 20 and 70 (¶ [0030]) and material chosen for the deformable material layer 20 is identical to the material chosen for the interior of the undeformable core 10 (¶ [0032]). Maeicer further discloses that when the compaction pressure P is less than a desired value, the comparator transmits a higher corrected value and when the compaction pressure P is greater than the desired value P, the comparator transmits a lower corrected value P (¶ [0059]) to apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]).
Maeicer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the roller material is selected such that the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI. As the variation of the compaction pressure (PSI) and material quality and mechanical properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the Shore A hardness and the applied compaction pressure, with said variation is decreased and material quality and mechanical properties increased as the Shore A hardness is adjusted and the applied compaction pressure (PSI) is consistently corrected within the desired threshold, the Shore A hardness and the applied compaction pressure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed selected material with a variation in compaction pressure less than 5 PSI cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the adjustment of the Shore A hardness of the material and the applied compaction pressure in the method of Maeicer to obtain the desired variation in compaction pressure (PSI) and material quality and mechanical properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 7.
Regarding the limitation “the covering-material is selected such that the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI”, the instant specification in ¶ [0058] recites “the covering includes a Shore A hardness of between approximately 1 and 10 … enables the compaction pressure applied to the ply by the roller to be at least approximately uniform along the contact-interface”. Therefore, “the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI” is dependent of the selected Shore A hardness of the selected roller material.
Maeicer discloses deformable material 20 present around the core 10 is made of a flexible and elastically deformable material, thus can be made of made of elastomeric material, in particular silicone or polyurethane, or of a foam whose Shore A hardness is 20 to 70 (¶ [0032]). Maeicer further discloses that when the compaction pressure P is less than a desired value, the comparator transmits a higher corrected value and when the compaction pressure P is greater than the desired value P, the comparator transmits a lower corrected value P (¶ [0059]) to apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]).
Maeicer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the covering-material is selected such that the variation in the compaction pressure along the contact-interface is less than 5 PSI. As the variation of the compaction pressure (PSI) and the material quality and mechanical properties is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the Shore A hardness and the applied compaction pressure, with said variation is decreased and material quality and mechanical properties increased as the Shore A hardness is adjusted and the applied compaction pressure is consistently corrected within the desired threshold, the Shore A hardness and the applied compaction pressure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed selected material with a variation in compaction pressure less than 5 PSI cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the adjustment of the Shore A hardness of the material and the applied compaction pressure in the method of Maeicer to obtain the desired variation in compaction pressure (PSI) and material quality and mechanical properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 9, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein:
the step of selecting the covering-material (¶ [0032] – deformable material 20 made of a flexible and elastically deformable material, made of elastomeric material, in particular silicone or polyurethane, or of a foam whose Shore A hardness is 20 to 70; therefore, a material is selected for the layer on the core) comprises:
providing a test-roller comprising a test-core (¶ [0032] – core 10) and a test-covering surrounding the test-core (¶ [0032] – a layer of deformable material around core 10), the test-covering comprising a test-covering-material;
positioning the test-roller (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over fibrous structures) in contact with a pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – on draping surface);
applying the compaction pressure to the pressure sensor film using the test-roller (¶ [0054] – apply an optimal compaction pressure P adapted at each moment to the geometry of the draping surface S);
with the test-roller in contact with the pressure sensor film and applying the compaction pressure, moving the test-roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures);
measuring the compaction pressure while moving the test-roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0054] – at least one sensor 100 measures the radial distances or the variations in radial distance between the deformable outer skin 30 and the undeformable core of 10, measurements processed for the force applied so as to apply an optimal compaction pressure);
determining whether the compaction pressure is uniform along a test-contact-interface between the test-roller and the pressure sensor film (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties) when moving the test-roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures); and
validating the test-covering-material when the compaction pressure is uniform along the test-contact-interface (¶ [0054] –to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties; ¶ [0058] – P applied by 1 are then compared with the desired value P using a comparator 503, which transmits a corrected value P).
Maeicer does not explicitly disclose the compaction pressure is determined as uniform when a variation in the compaction pressure along the test-contact-interface is less than 5 PSI.
However, as Maeicer discloses that when the compaction pressure P is less than a desired value, the comparator transmits a higher corrected value and when the compaction pressure P is greater than the desired value P, the comparator transmits a lower corrected value P (¶ [0059]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a range of values from the desired value as satisfactory for applying the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a variation or range from the desired compaction pressure to achieve the desired compaction pressure to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Maeicer discloses the method of Claim 10, wherein:
the step of measuring the compaction pressure comprises:
positioning a pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers) in contact with the ply-surface of the ply (¶ [0029] – draping surface);;
positioning the roller (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over fibrous structures) in contact with the pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – on draping surface);
applying the compaction pressure to the pressure sensor film using the roller (¶ [0054] – apply an optimal compaction pressure P adapted at each moment to the geometry of the draping surface S);
with the roller in contact with the pressure sensor film and applying the compaction pressure, moving the roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures);
measuring the compaction pressure while moving the roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0054] – at least one sensor 100 measures the radial distances or the variations in radial distance between the deformable outer skin 30 and the undeformable core of 10, measurements processed for the force applied so as to apply an optimal compaction pressure); and
determining whether the compaction pressure is uniform along a contact-interface between the roller and the pressure sensor film (¶ [0054] – apply the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties) when moving the test-roller across the pressure sensor film (¶ [0029] – automatic placement of fibers, deposition roller 1 to roll over a draping surface to deposit fibrous structures).
Maeicer does not explicitly disclose the compaction pressure is determined as uniform when a variation in the compaction pressure along the test-contact-interface is less than 5 PSI.
However, as Maeicer discloses that when the compaction pressure P is less than a desired value, the comparator transmits a higher corrected value and when the compaction pressure P is greater than the desired value P, the comparator transmits a lower corrected value P (¶ [0059]), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a range of values from the desired value as satisfactory for applying the desired compaction pressure, apply compaction pressure P adapted to the irregularities of the surface to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a variation or range from the desired compaction pressure to achieve the desired compaction pressure to obtain a final part with good material quality and satisfactory mechanical properties (¶ [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights