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 Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski (US 2019/0134848 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2012/0217670A1).
Regarding claim 1, Podgorski discloses a method for manufacturing a part made of composite material (abstract), said method comprising
arranging a fibrous preform (20) in a mould [0007] comprising an impregnation chamber (201) the impregnation chamber by resting a first face of the preform on a support surface (240) of the impregnation chamber, the impregnation chamber being closed by a flexible membrane (280) placed facing a second face of the preform said membrane (280) separating the impregnation chamber from a compaction chamber (202, seeing figure 1);
injecting an impregnation fluid (250) into the impregnation chamber [0082]
injecting a compression fluid (compacting fluid 260) into the compaction chamber so as to apply a pressure on the membrane [0079],
aspiration of the compression fluid present in the compaction chamber via one or more outlet orifices (2210) of the compaction chamber wherein the surface of the membrane present on the a side of the compaction chamber [0083]
Podgorski does not explicitly disclose the membrane comprising a plurality of grooves.
However analogous manufacturing composite art, Ruiz, discloses using a plurality of grooves on the membrane to help hold or locate the membrane [0077]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of grooves, as taught by Ruiz into the combination taught by Podgorski for the benefit of holding the mold and membrane.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Podgorski and Ruiz teaches wherein the grooves are disposed such that, when the membrane is in contact with a wall of the compaction chamber, at least one portion of the grooves (48 in Ruiz) opens into at least one outlet orifice of the compaction chamber on into a space of the compaction chamber at least one outlet orifice (Podgorski depicts the membrane 1140 connected to an exit in figure 5). Therefore, the combination would result in grooves opening into at least one outlet orifice of the compaction chamber on into a space of the compaction chamber at least one outlet orifice. Further, if Applicant does not agree, MPEP 2144.04 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the grooves are disposed such that, when the membrane is in contact with a wall of the compaction chamber, at least one portion of the grooves opens into at least one outlet orifice of the compaction chamber on into a space of the compaction chamber at least one outlet orifice since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Podgorski discloses the compression fluid comprises at least one oil [0082].
Regarding claim 8, Podgorski discloses wherein the impregnation fluid is a resin, the method further comprising a polymerisation step of the resin impregnating the fibrous preform [0090]. As for the limitation, polymerization after the steps of injecting impregnation fluid and compression fluid and before the step of aspiration of the compression fluid [0007]. Further, MPEP 2144.04 states in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Regarding claim 9, Podgorski discloses wherein the fibrous preform is produced by three-dimensional weaving of fibres (claim 6).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski (US 2019/0134848 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2012/0217670A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hoshino (US 2022/0288538 A1).
Regarding claims 3-5, the combination of Podgorski does not explicitly disclose wherein the grooves are interconnected, wherein the grooves form a two-dimensional network of grooves, and wherein the grooves form a grid. Analogous art, Hoshino, depicts the grooves are interconnected (figure 1c), wherein the grooves form a two-dimensional network of grooves (figures 2A-2D), and wherein the grooves form a grid (figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the grooves are interconnected, wherein the grooves form a two-dimensional network of grooves, and wherein the grooves form a grid, as taught by Hoshino, into the combination of Podgorski for the benefit of producing product with different shapes and depths [0196].
Regarding claim 6, Podgorski does not explicitly disclose wherein the membrane is reinforced by glass fires or polyester fibres. However, Hoshino, discloses using glass [0039] in order to prevent other layers from being impregnated in the pores to block the pore [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the membrane is reinforced by glass fires or polyester fibres as taught by Hoshino into the method taught by Podgorski for the benefit of preventing other layers from being impregnated in the pores to block the pore.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754