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 .
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.
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) 1, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) in view of August (US 4133711).
As to claim 1, Engel discloses a method/apparatus for production a fiber composite component (Abstract). Engel discloses that the apparatus comprises of a lamination station with control device that enables lamination heads (7, 7’, 7’’) to follow a contour of a layup mandrel/shaping tool (2) and/or running face 6 and is configured so that the lamination heads can operate in tandem (Fig. 1, 5 below; ¶14, 32-33) .
PNG
media_image1.png
631
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
437
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Engel fails to specifically teach or disclose that the mandrel/running face may be movable in a process direction. It is the position of the Examiner that making a running face/mandrel movable in a process direction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into the method of Engel at the time of the invention. August discloses an automated integrated composite system (Abstract). August discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to utilize a movable layup mandrel in a layup method (Fig. 1 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the movable mandrel of August in the apparatus taught by Engel because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional mandrel for the layup of a composite part. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the apparatus of the above references as combined contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 5, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Engel discloses that the apparatus/mandrel may be used to made a fuselage (¶ 3-4), which would be capable of defining an Inner Mold Line of a section of fuselage.
As to claim 8, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The controller of Engel would be capable of subdividing a laminate into zones and pacing boundaries between zones that the lamination heads are operating in.
As to claim 9, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Adding an extra lamination station downstream of the lamination heads amounts to a mere duplication of parts which would have been obvious at the time of filing. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 10, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since it only recites method limitations that the apparatus of the references as combined would be capable of performing.
Claim(s) 2, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) and August (US 4133711) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Modin et al. (US 20200139649).
As to claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Engel discloses that the apparatus/mandrel may be used to made a fuselage (¶ 3-4) but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the controller/control unit is capable of using a Numerical Control (NC) program to assign the lamination heads to zones. Modin discloses an apparatus for concurrently laminating a composite laminate (Abstract). Modin discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a NC program with a controller for manufacturing a composite laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the NC program of Modin in the apparatus taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for providing a controller with a program for executing a composite layup. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claims 13-15, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the lamination heads are disposed along a shared track (claim 13), wherein the track is complimentary to the mandrel (claim 14) and wherein multiple lamination heads may be disposed along individual/different tracks than other lamination heads (claim 15). Modin discloses an apparatus for concurrently laminating a composite laminate (Abstract). Modin discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a shared track for holding lamination heads (claim 13), wherein the track is complimentary to the mandrel (claim 14) and wherein multiple lamination heads may be disposed along individual/different tracks than other lamination heads (claim 15) (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tracks of Modin in the apparatus taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful framework for allowing lamination heads to move over a mandrel and lay down material in a desired manner. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 16, the apparatus of claim 15 is taught as seen above. Modin discloses that the tracks are offset from one another and vertically offset from the surface of the mandrel (Id.).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 above.
As to claim 19, the apparatus/system of claim 17 is taught as seen above. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) and August (US 4133711) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Modin et al. (US 20200139649) and Rotter et al. (US 8974618).
As to claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Engel discloses that the apparatus/mandrel may be used to made a fuselage (¶ 3-4) but fails to specifically teach or disclose that the controller/control unit is capable of using a Numerical Control (NC) program to assign the lamination heads to zones. Modin discloses an apparatus for concurrently laminating a composite laminate (Abstract). Modin discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a NC program with a controller for manufacturing a composite laminate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the NC program of Modin in the apparatus taught by the above references as combined because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for providing a controller with a program for executing a composite layup. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Engel discloses that the surface of the mandrel is subdivided into zones which the lamination heads are assigned to, but fails to teach or disclose whether the mandrel may comprise a wing section. Rotter discloses a method/apparatus for layup placement (Abstract). Rotter discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a mandrel in the form of a portion of a barrel/fuselage section or wing for layup (C7, L22-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use mandrel in the form of a portion of a wing section of Rotter in the apparatus taught by Engel because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional mandrel to form a layup of a desired component. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 6, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) and August (US 4133711) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Rotter et al. (US 8974618).
As to claim 4, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Engel discloses that the surface of the mandrel is subdivided into zones which the lamination heads are assigned to, but fails to teach or disclose whether the mandrel may comprise a wing section. Rotter discloses a method/apparatus for layup placement (Abstract). Rotter discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use a mandrel in the form of a portion of a barrel/fuselage section or wing for layup (C7, L22-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use mandrel in the form of a portion of a wing section of Rotter in the apparatus taught by Engel because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional mandrel to form a layup of a desired component. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) and August (US 4133711) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Saini et al. (US 20210107238).
As to claim 7, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose that the controller identifies regions to receive pad-ups with the tow placement. Saimi discloses a method of making composite laminates (Abstract). Saimi discloses that it is known and conventional to include pad-up plies in the lay-up of tows (¶ 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controller of the references as combined use the pad-ups of Saini because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known conventional and successful tow element for placement/lay-up of tows to make a composite part. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384) and August (US 4133711) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Kawabe et al. (US 20210206122).
As to claim 12, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The above references as combined fail to specifically teach or disclose that the plies are trimmed into a complimentary alignment for the zones. Kawabe discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to trim plies in an offset manner so that they may be laminated in a complimentary alignment so that they can be successfully laid into a desired curved surface shape (¶61; Fig. 6A & 6B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of the above references as combined to include a means of trimming the plies so that they may be laminated into a complimentary alignment and would have been motivated to do so because Kawabe teaches that such a trimming step allows for plies to be successfully laid into a desired curved surface shape.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384), August (US 4133711) and Modin et al. (US 20200139649) as applied to claims 2, 13-17 and 19 above, and further in view of Rotter et al. (US 8974618).
As to claim 18, the system/apparatus of claim 17 is taught as seen above. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel et al. (US 20170144384), August (US 4133711), Modin et al. (US 20200139649) and Saini et al. (US 20210107238).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 recites that the lamination heads splice the zones together by cutting through applied tows and offsetting cut positions for neighboring plies of the cut applied tows. None of the prior art teaches or discloses a lamination apparatus with lamination heads capable of splicing the zones together by cutting through applied tows and offsetting cut positions for neighboring plies of the cut applied tows.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ledet et al. (US 7455742) discloses and automated fiber placement apparatus uses rails which are offset in a lateral direction from a mandrel (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights