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
Based on a further review of the claims and disclosure the previous restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should say “the prepreg application apparatus of claim 1” for proper antecedent basis. This does not rise to the level of indefiniteness, but should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 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 5 is seen as vague and indefinite since the metes and bounds of “the porous surface has a substantially flat shape” is unclear. What “shape” is the claim referencing? Is the shape a cross-sectional shape, a planar surface, a three dimensional shape, or only a portion of the porous surface?
The term “substantially flat” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph 0019 says “the porous surface can have a substantially (i.e. 10%) flat shape”. The issue is what is the 10% describing; it could be ten percent off the horizontal, ten percent of the surface is flat, or even ten percent of the entire object? Since there is no additional information as to what 10% means in terms of what flat is, the term “substantially flat” is therefore vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamlyn et al (US 2011/0011537; herein Hamlyn, already of record). Regarding claim 1, Hamlyn teaches:
An air supply duct having a lumen configured to guide an air stream (Figure 5A, central tube 104 with internal passage 142, and paragraph 0061)
A prepreg compacting body configured to set a position of a prepreg (Figure 5A, compacting roller 102), the prepreg compacting body having a porous surface in fluid communication with the lumen of the air supply duct (sheath 106, which is porous per paragraph 0061), and configured to release air of the air stream to an area ambient to the prepreg compacting body (air would move from the passage 142 through the sheath 106 to the interior surface of the compacting roller 102)
An air conveying device configured to control a power of the air stream ensuring that air emanates from the prepreg compacting body at the porous surface when being on or close to the prepreg (paragraph 0061, though not explicit, there would naturally have to be an air conveying device in order to perform as disclosed)
Regarding claim 2, Hamlyn teaches:
Wherein the air supply duct at least partially forms a hollow axis, around which the prepreg compacting body is arranged (As seen in Figures 1 and 5A, the tube 104 with passage 142 is a hollow axis, which the compacting roller 102 rotates)
Regarding claim 3, Hamlyn teaches:
Wherein the prepreg compacting body comprises a core element, wherein the porous surface is provided at least on a portion of the core element (Figure 5A, cylinder 103)
Regarding claim 5, Hamlyn teaches:
Wherein the porous surface has a substantially flat shape (A cylinder seen from the side will have a flat shape)
Regarding claim 8, Hamlyn teaches:
A cover covering at least a portion of the prepreg compacting body and configured to at least partially block the air from emanating through the porous surface (Figure 5A, exterior sheath 105 blocks the flow of air from the porous sheath 106, which forces the air out the side of the cylinder, paragraph 0061)
Regarding claim 11, Hamlyn teaches:
A mold configured to receive a prepreg thereon (Figure 1, application surface S)
A prepreg application apparatus of claim 1 (As previously discussed)
Wherein the prepreg application apparatus is moved along the mold (Figure 1, progress direction D, paragraph 0049), so that the prepreg compacting body presses the prepreg towards the mold (the natural result of the roller of Hamlyn moving over a surface)
Claims 1, 3-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (CN 108274781; herein Zhang, with machine translation, both already of record). Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
An air supply duct having a lumen configured to guide an air stream (Figure 2, roller shaft 4 connected to gas pipeline 7)
A prepreg compacting body configured to set a position of a prepreg, the prepreg compacting body having a porous surface in fluid communication with the lumen of the air supply duct, and configured to release air of the air stream to an area ambient to the prepreg compacting body (Figure 2, roller elastic body 2)
An air conveying device configured to control a power of the air stream ensuring that air emanates from the prepreg compacting body at the porous surface when being on or close to the prepreg (paragraph 0036, solenoid valves 8 control the flow of gas, and as seen in Figures 2 and 4 the gas flows as claimed)
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the prepreg compacting body comprises a core element, wherein the porous surface is provided at least on a portion of the core element (Figure 2, roller rigid body 1)
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the core element is configured to move relative to the air supply duct (Figure 3, roller bearings 3 allow the rigid body 1 and elastic body 2 to rotate relative to the shaft 4)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the porous surface has a substantially flat shape (A cylinder seen from the side will have a flat shape, e.g. Figure 2 shows a flat shape at the top and bottom)
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the prepreg compacting body forms a roller, and wherein the porous surface is an exterior circumferential surface of the prepreg compacting body (As seen in Figures 2-3 the elastic body 2 forms a roller and is porous)
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches:
At least one bearing supporting the prepreg compacting body and configured to allow a rotational movement of the prepreg compacting body relative to the air supply duct (See remarks regarding claim 4)
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches:
A mold configured to receive a prepreg thereon (Figures 3 and 4, core mold 9)
A prepreg application apparatus of claim 1 (As previously discussed)
Wherein the prepreg application apparatus is moved along the mold (Figure 4, at a minimum the elastic body 2 will rotate to apply the prepreg, thus moving along the mold whether the mold moves or the body moves), so that the prepreg compacting body presses the prepreg towards the mold (the natural result of the roller of Zhang moving over a surface)
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.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamlyn or Zhang, in view of Mori et al (JP 2005297513; herein Mori, with machine translation, both already of record). Regarding claim 9, Hamlyn and Zhang are silent to:
Wherein the porous surface is made from a graphite material
In the same field of pressing, Mori teaches using graphite to reduce friction (paragraph 0034)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use graphite, since it helps lower friction allowing for smooth operation.
Regarding claim 10:
Wherein the graphite material comprises pyrolytic graphite.
Mori is silent to the type of graphite, nevertheless, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use specifically pyrolytic graphite, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references regarding roller pressing of composites.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights