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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I cannot be practiced manually as Group I expressly requires using an end effector. This is not found persuasive because the end effector can be manually controlled (thus the method can be performed manually) and does not require the robotic manipulator of Group III. Applicant further asserts there is not a serious burden to examine all three groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting examination burden includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. However, in the present application, the inventions require a different field of search and consequently the search is not coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 22, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (PGPub 2019/0184693) in view of Matsumoto (PGPub 2017/0320785 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches a method for manufacturing a composite structure (Abstract), the method comprising:
picking up a ply of a composite material using an end effector [0030];
moving the ply to a forming-surface using the end effector [0030]; and
conforming the ply to a shape of the forming-surface using the end effector [0037]; and
applying tension to at least one portion of the ply using the end effector while conforming the ply ([0004]- actuators stretch and pull the membrane to form the composite ply onto and over the tool surfaces).
Johnson does not specify the composite is a ceramic matrix composite.
Matsumoto teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a composite structure (Abstract) wherein the composite is ceramic matrix composite [0004] to improve turbine performance and efficiency due to CMC’s ability to withstand relatively extreme temperatures [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson to include CMC as taught by Matsumoto with reasonable expectation of success to improve turbine performance and efficiency due to CMC’s ability to withstand relatively extreme temperatures [0004].
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply comprises: placing a first ply-portion of the ply on a first surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector (Fig. 10- ply under gripper 52); and
placing a second ply-portion of the ply on a second surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector (Fig. 10- ply under gripper 54); and
the first surface-portion and the second surface-portion are non-coplanar (Fig. 10- the plies under the respective grippers are not coplanar).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply comprises: holding the first ply-portion of the ply on the first surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector (Fig. 12- ply under gripper 52; [0039]); and
draping the second ply-portion of the ply over a radiused corner of the forming-surface between the first surface-portion and the second surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector before placing the second ply-portion of the ply on the second surface-portion (Fig. 12- ply draped over radiused corner; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises applying the tension to the second ply-portion of the ply using the end effector while draping the second ply-portion over the radiused corner of the forming-surface and placing the second ply-portion on the second surface-portion of the forming-surface (Fig. 12; [0037]; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises: draping a third ply-portion of the ply over a second radiused corner of the forming-surface between the first surface-portion and a third surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector before placing the third ply-portion of the ply on the third surface-portion (Fig. 12- ply draped over second radiused corner; [0039]); and placing the third ply-portion of the ply on the third surface-portion of the forming-surface using the end effector (Fig. 12- ply under additional gripper 54); and the first surface-portion and the third surface-portion are non-coplanar (Fig. 12- the plies under the respective grippers are not coplanar).
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises applying the tension to the third ply-portion of the ply using the end effector while draping the third ply-portion over the second radiused corner of the forming-surface and placing the third ply-portion on the third surface-portion of the forming-surface (Fig. 12; [0039]; [0037]).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson further teaches the end effector comprises: a base (Figs. 1-3- end effector 32); an arm that is coupled to and movable relative to the base (Figs. 1-3- frame 42; [0029]); a base-gripper that is coupled to the base (Figs. 1-3, 10, 12- centered gripper 52); and an arm-gripper that is coupled to the arm (Figs. 1-3, 10, 12- frame grippers 54);
picking up the ply comprises: adhering the base-gripper to a first ply-portion of the ply (Figs. 10, 12); and adhering the arm-gripper to a second ply-portion of the ply (Figs. 10, 12); conforming the ply comprises: moving the end effector relative to the forming-surface such that the first ply-portion of the ply is placed on a first surface-portion of the forming-surface (Figs. 10, 12); and moving the arm relative to the base and to the forming-surface such that the second ply-portion is placed on a second surface-portion of the forming-surface (Figs. 10, 12); and the first surface-portion and the second surface-portion are non-coplanar (Figs. 10, 12- showing non-coplanar surfaces).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises: holding the first ply-portion on the first surface-portion (Fig. 12- ply under gripper 52; [0039]); and moving the arm relative to the base and to the forming-surface such that the second ply-portion is draped over a radiused corner of the forming-surface between the first surface-portion and the second surface-portion of the forming-surface (Fig. 12- ply draped over radiused corner; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson further teaches the end effector further comprises: a second arm that is coupled to and movable relative to the base (Figs. 1-3- additional arms of frame 42); and a second arm-gripper is coupled to the second arm (Figs. 1-3, 10, 12- frame grippers 54); picking up the ply further comprises adhering the second arm-gripper to a third ply-portion of the ply (Fig. 12); conforming the ply further comprises moving the second arm relative to the base and to the forming-surface such that the third ply-portion is placed on a third surface-portion of the forming-surface (Fig. 12); and the first surface-portion and the third surface-portion are non-coplanar (Fig. 12- showing non-coplanar surfaces).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises: holding the first ply-portion on the first surface-portion (Fig. 12- ply under gripper 52); and moving the second arm relative to the base and to the forming-surface such that the third ply-portion is draped over a second radiused corner of the forming-surface between the first surface-portion and the third surface-portion of the forming-surface (Fig. 12- ply draped over second radiused corner; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson further teaches conforming the ply further comprises: moving the arm relative to the base such that the tension is applied to the second ply-portion of the ply; and moving the second arm relative to the base such that the tension is applied to the third ply-portion of the ply (Fig. 12; [0039]; [0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsumoto further teaches the ply of the ceramic matrix composite material comprises a ceramic reinforcement and a ceramic matrix [0004]; [0027];
the ceramic reinforcement comprises at least one of carbon reinforcement fibers, silicon carbide reinforcement fibers, alumina reinforcement fibers, alumina silica reinforcement fibers, aluminum nitride reinforcing fibers, silicon nitride reinforcement fibers, mullite reinforcement fibers, silica/quartz reinforcement fibers, basalt reinforcement fibers, and zirconia reinforcement fibers [0027]; and
the ceramic matrix comprises at least one of a carbon matrix, a silicon carbide matrix, an alumina matrix, an alumina silica matrix, an aluminum nitride matrix, a silicon nitride matrix, a mullite matrix, a geo-polymer matrix, and a zirconia matrix [0027].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (PGPub 2019/0184693) in view of Matsumoto (PGPub 2017/0320785 cited in IDS) and Roberts et al (PGPub 2014/0099484).
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson does not specify selecting a fiber orientation of a ceramic reinforcement of the ply relative to a prior-ply.
Roberts teaches an alternative method of making a composite (Abstract) wherein the composite comprises orient layers (Figs.) in order to increase strain loading in the composite [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Johnson and Matsumoto to include oriented layers as taught by Roberts– with reasonable expectation of success to increase strain loading in the composite [0016].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 7/8/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights