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 without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 15, 16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/6/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the guide of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2020/0070436).
As to claim 1, Miller teaches A moulding tool for moulding a composite article preform, the composite article preform having a thickness that varies between different regions of the composite article preform, the moulding tool comprising [Abstract]: a first portion for moulding a corresponding first region of the composite article preform, the first portion of the moulding tool comprising a first material (42, 28, the caul body) [0034, 0035]; a second portion for moulding a corresponding second region of the composite article preform, the second portion of the moulding tool comprising a second material (the compliant plies/edge, 44) [0036-0038]; and a transition portion, between the first portion and the second portion, the transition portion comprising the first material and the second material (the examiner notes that considering the interface where the edges of 2 materials meet to be the transition area would divide a structure into a first region, 2nd region and transition region) [Fig 3, 5]; wherein the first material and the second material are different, and the first portion and the second portion have different stiffnesses (42, 28, the caul body) [0034, 0035].
The examiner notes the article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Hence, the composite article preform having a variable thickness does not limit the apparatus and applicant is just describing an intended use of the apparatus. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 2, Miller teaches that the thickness of the mold tool decreases from the first region to the 2nd region and thus conversely would supply a greater thickness to the article being formed in the 2nd region and therefore teaches at least one of a location or a spatial extent of the transition portion of the moulding tool is based upon a desired rate of change of thickness of the composite article preform [0035, 0046, Fig 3, 5]. However, The examiner notes the article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Hence, the composite article preform having a variable thickness does not limit the apparatus and applicant is just describing an intended use of the apparatus. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claims 3-5, Miller teaches the first material has a greater stiffness than the second material and is composed of Iron nickel alloy phrased as Invar [0034].
As to claim 6, Miller notes the second material comprises an elastomer [0037].
As to claim 7, Miller notes the elastomer is a silicone rubber [0034, 0037].
As to claim 8, Miller teaches that the thickness of the mold tool decreases from the first region to the 2nd region and thus conversely would supply a greater thickness to the article being formed in the 2nd region and therefore teaches the first region of the composite article preform is thinner than the second region of the composite article preform. However, The examiner notes the article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115. Hence, the composite article preform having a variable thickness does limit the apparatus and applicant is just describing an intended use of the apparatus. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
As to claim 9, Miller notes the transition portion comprises a layered structure in which the first material (42a) is proximal to an outer surface of the composite article preform and the second material (44) overlays the first material [Fig 3].
As to claim 10, Miller notes a thickness of the first material in the layered structure of the transition portion decreases with distance from the first portion of the moulding tool [Fig 3, Fig 5].
As to claim 13, Miller teaches the first portion and the second portion are connected by an adhesive [0047].
As to claim 14, Miller teaches moulding tool comprises at least one guide, the at least one guide configured to enable movement of the moulding tool in a desired direction and to prevent movement of the moulding tool in an undesired direction [Fig 1]. As the guide may just be through hole [0109 of instant application] the annular configuration of the caul tool would have these features to the same extent as applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2020/0070436) in view of Bendemra (Optimisation study of tapered scarf and stepped-lap joints In composite repair patches).
As to claim 11, Miller teaches thickness of the first material in the layered structure of the transition portion tapers to a substantially zero thickness [Fig 3, Fig 5]. However, the tapering is stepped and not continuous and does not disclose the taper is less than 20 degrees.
Bendemra teaches various joints in composite lap material [Abstract] and notes that tapered scarf joints are generally used and that the stepped joints tend to concentrate stress at the corners of the steps, however, the 2 are generally substituted for one another [Introduction, last paragraph of first page, first paragraph of 2nd page, Fig 1, Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Miller and made joint between the 2 regions be continuous, as suggested by Bendemra, as this avoided the stress concentration of stepped joints. B
As to claim 12, Miller does not explicitly state a taper angle of the taper is less than 20 degrees.
Bendemra teaches various joints in composite lap material [Abstract] and utilizes taper angles of 3-12 degrees and notes that taper angle is a key determinant of stress [4.3 Effect of tape angle, 6. Discussion, Figs 6-8]. In other words, taper angle is a results effective variable. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case taper angle, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the taper angle to less than 20 degree, as suggested by Bendemra, in order to minimize stress and angles of 3-12 degrees were commonly used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights