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 .
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.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steyer et al. (US 2011/0247751) in view of Grimshaw et al. (US 5,314,563).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 11, Steyer et al. teach a method of laying up fiber reinforcement material on a lay-up surface with a fiber placement head (claims 1 and 17) comprising a roller mount comprising an axle defining a roller axis (Figures 2 and 3); a hollow roller defining an internal chamber, the roller being mounted on the axle and configured to rotate about the roller axis (Figures 2 and 3); and a pressurized fluid system configured to deliver and discharge pressurized fluid to and from the internal chamber of the roller, to vary a stiffness of the roller by varying a pressure of fluid in the chamber (paragraphs [0015]-[0017], [0027], [0039] and [0040]). Steyer et al. do not teach determining pressure control data for controlling the discharge or delivery of the fluid from the internal chamber of the roller during a lay-up operation, wherein the determining is based on determining a variable stiffness of the roller along a headpath for the fiber placement head based on a profile of the lay-up surface along the headpath; and controlling the discharge of the fluid from, and/or the delivery of the fluid into, the internal chamber of the roller to vary the pressure in the internal chamber of the roller during the lay-up operation, based on the pressure control data
However, Grimshaw et al. teach an analogous fiber placement head device and method including determining pressure control data, that varies in time or space, for controlling the discharge or delivery of the fluid from the internal chamber of the roller during a lay-up operation, wherein the determining is based on determining a variable stiffness of the roller along a headpath for the fiber placement head based on a profile of the lay-up surface along the headpath; and controlling the discharge of the fluid from, and/or the delivery of the fluid into, the internal chamber of the roller to vary the pressure in the internal chamber of the roller during the lay-up operation, based on the pressure control data (Figure 9 (82a); col. 7, lines 1-21; col. 15, lines 36-52).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Steyer et al. and Grimshaw and to have controlled the pressurized fluid system of Steyer et al. in the manner suggested by Grimshaw et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Grimshaw et al., of being able to vary the applied pressure in accordance with the program associated with the article being made and in view of the profile of the article.
In the combination where Steyer et al. is modified with this teaching from Grimshaw et al, the method of Steyer et al. is controlled such that pressure control data, that varies in time or space, is utilized for controlling the discharge or delivery of the fluid from the internal chamber of the roller during a lay-up operation, wherein the determining is based on determining a variable stiffness of the roller along a headpath for the fiber placement head based on a profile of the lay-up surface along the headpath; and controlling the discharge of the fluid from, and/or the delivery of the fluid into, the internal chamber of the roller to vary the pressure in the internal chamber of the roller during the lay-up operation, based on the pressure control data. As such, in the combination, each and every limitation of the claim is taught or suggested.
As to claims 3-9 and 12, the combination as set forth above and further described below is understood to teach and suggest these additional specifics related to the control scheme. Steyer et al. teach the system is configured to deliver (13) and discharge (14) the pressurized fluid from the internal chamber of the roller through the axle of the roller mount (Figure 3)
and further teach the controller is configured the delivery of the fluid to control the pressure in the chamber (Abstract; paragraphs [0015] - [0018], [0039] and [0040]). In Grimshaw, the air pressure “may be controlled in accordance with an NC program to vary air pressure and consequent force directed against the tape” (col. 7, lines 7-9). As set forth at col. 3, lines 32-38 in Grimshaw, the “NC” of “NC program” stands for “numerical control” (e.g. “a program commanded by a numerical control (NC) unit”). As such, Grimshaw discloses varying the pressure based upon a numerical control program. The numerical control program of Grimshaw differentiates between different portions of the composite being compacted. For example, Grimshaw teaches that the force at a tapered tail portion of the composite may be adjusted relative to other portions of the composite (col. 7, lines 7-20; main compaction vs tail compaction). The numerical control program is understood to provide the necessary information/pressure control data related to the space/location of the structure providing the compacting force to provide the needed different pressure at the tail portion relative to other locations of the composite material/tape at the required time. It is further noted that automating a manual process generally only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 III). Such is the case in the instant application where it would have been prima facie obvious to automate the application of any manual compaction force being applied at different locations of the composite as claimed in view of the teaching of Grimshaw (i.e., even if it was agreed that Grimshaw teaches manual control based). Further, the “program commanded by a numerical control”, the “program to vary air pressure” and the “sensor…to measure the air pressure in the chamber and provide a signal to control such air pressure” (col. 3, lines 35-36; col. 7, lines 7-10; col. 15, lines 48-51) all suggest the utilization of information/pressure control data to control the pressure to a desired/optimized value at various locations and/or at various times during compaction of the composite in the manner as claimed (i.e., with a controller configured to operate as claimed). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above. As such, the combination is understood to teach and reasonably suggest each and every limitation of the claims such that they are properly rejected as being prima facie obvious.
As to claims 13-16, Steyer et al. teach and disclose the pressurized fluid system comprises a pressurized fluid inlet configured to be connected to a pressurized fluid source and a fluid outlet configured to allow discharge of the fluid from the chamber (Figure 3 (5) (13) (14)). Steyer et al. teach and disclose a pressure-limiting valve (5) (paragraph [0039] – either a pressure limiting valve or pressure control valve may be used. In context, this is an outlet valve as claimed and is capable of functioning in the claimed manner or is readily understood to render such a capacity to function in the claimed manner prima facie obvious (e.g., an air pressure regulator; either a pressure limiting valve or pressure control valve may be used – paragraph [0039]). Steyer et al. teach controlling the pressure release through the valve (paragraph [0040]). Further, Grimshaw et al. teach an inlet valve (Figure 9 (82a); col. 7, lines 1-21; col. 15, lines 36-52). The reason to combine the teaching of Grimshaw et al. and Steyer et al. is the same as that set forth above (i.e., to facilitate being able to vary the applied pressure in accordance with the program associated with the article being made and in view of the profile of the article.) In combination, each and every limitation of the claims is taught and reasonably suggested.
As to claims 17 and 18, Steyer et al. teach and suggest the pressurized fluid source is connected to air (paragraph [0040]) as claimed, which in this context is understood to teach or reasonably suggest a pneumatic actuator (Figure 3).
As to claim 19, Grimshaw et al. teach a disposing a sensor within an analogous chamber to monitor and control pressure (col. 15, lines 48-52). In the combination, the suggestion is to place the sensor within the roller of Steyer et al. (Figure 2 or 3). The reason to combine the teaching of Grimshaw et al. and Steyer et al. is the same as that set forth above (i.e., to facilitate being able to vary the applied pressure in accordance with the program associated with the article being made and in view of the profile of the article.)
As to claim 20, Steyer et al. suggest heating to achieve a desired temperature as claimed (paragraphs [0015] and [0016] – controlled for cooling and for heating). In context, this reasonably suggests a heater configured to deliver heated fluid as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous laying up methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights