DETAILED ACTION
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Coxon (US 10,654,229).
As to claims 1 and 2, Coxon teaches a shape-forming process in which a support (Fig. 8, item 64) with a first bladder (Fig. 8, item 94) is moved with respect to a female forming tool (Fig. 8, item 54) and the first/forming bladder is inflated (see Fig. 10) to compress a fibrous preform (4:38) between the bladder and female forming tool (see Fig. 11) while lateral ends of the fibrous preform are clamped to the female forming tool (Figs. 10-11, items 68a, 68b).
As to claim 3, the Coxon clamping force is varied on a lateral end of the fibrous preform (5:32-37; 3:40-48).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coxon (US 10,654,229) in view of Bergmann (US 20130341816). Coxon teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 3 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 4, Coxon teaches that a first bladder is progressively inflated and the level of pressurization of the pinch bladder is adjusted as the first/forming bladder is being progressively inflated (3:41-48).
Coxon does not expressly teach measuring the pressure of the first/forming bladder.
Bergmann teaches a control system communicably coupled with sensors and/or pressure regulator for increasing or decreasing the amount of inflation of a bladder based on feedback signals from the sensors. In the combination, one would have recognized that the inflation pressure of the Coxon pinch bladder(s) discussed above could be controlled based on a measured pressure of the Coxon first/forming bladder.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bergmann control steps into Coxon because Coxon already teaches/suggests adjusting the level of pressurization of the pinch bladder while the first/forming bladder is inflated (3:41-48) and Bergmann teaches a step for measuring and adjusting the pressure within a bladder interpreted as within the scope of the teaching/suggestion of Coxon.
As to claim 6, while Coxon appears to be silent to the claimed measurements at the control unit, Bergmann teaches that the control system is configured to control the actuator ([0013]), and therefore the Bergmann controller obviously or inherently receives the support structure position measurement at the control unit. This feature would have been obvious since Coxon also teaches/suggests moving the support structure (Figs. 8-11) and Bergmann provides a mechanism within the scope of the Coxon teaching/suggestion for actuating movement of a similar support structure.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coxon (US 10654229) in view of Bergmann (US 20130341816) and Sakashita (US 5,785,910). Coxon teaches the subject matter of claim 2 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 5, Coxon is silent to receiving a bladder pressure at a control unit and controlling a gripper plate with the control unit based on the bladder pressure.
Bergmann teaches a control system communicably coupled with sensors and/or pressure regulator for increasing or decreasing the amount of inflation of a bladder based on feedback signals from the sensors. In the combination, one would have recognized that process discussed above in the rejection of claim 2 could be controlled based on a measured pressure of the Coxon first/forming bladder. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Bergmann control steps into Coxon motivated by adjusting the bladder pressure in the Coxon device to control conformance to the mold. A reasonable expectation of success would be evident in this combination.
Sakashita teaches a molding process including providing a holding force control program (Fig. 2) on a controller in order to control the strength of the holding force (applied by cylinders 41a and 41b) that is applied to the sheet of material by a gripper plate (43a, 43b). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Sakashita into the modified Coxon process as an obvious interchangeable alternative for the pinch bladders already taught by Coxon. The substituted components (gripper plates with controlled clamping force) has the same function as the adjustable and inflatable pinch bladders, and one could have predictably substituted one holding/clamping device for another to provide the required holding /clamping.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cundiff (US 20060017200).
As to claim 7, Cundiff teaches a method which includes positioning a fibrous preform (Fig. 2, item 210) in a die recess of a female forming tool (Fig. 2, item 202). Cundiff moves a support structure (Fig. 2, item 232) with two bladders (Fig. 2, items 234a and 234b) into the die recess and activates the bladders to apply a compressive force to what is interpreted to be the bottom wall and side wall of the fibrous preform (see Fig. 3B), resulting in a fiber reinforced part.
In the event that this cannot be considered anticipatory because of reliance on relative dimensions between the bladder size and the location where it touches the forming tool shown in the drawings, one would have found it prima facie obvious to select an appropriate bladder size to achieve the pressing taught/suggested by Cundiff. One selecting or optimizing the size of the bladder would have arrived at a condition where the bladder applies compressive force to the bottom wall and sidewall in order to increase the pressing area and provide better conformance to the corner that is the purpose of the Cundiff process.
As to claim 9, Cundiff already teaches the second bladder (Fig. 2, item 234b), which is depicted as being the same as the first bladder and is therefore obvious for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7. The similarly configured second bladder would apply compressive force to the bottom wall and side wall of the fibrous preform.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cundiff (US 20060017200) in view of Leoni (US 5,152,949). Cundiff teaches the subject matter of claim 7 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 8, Cundiff is silent to the caul plate between first bladder and fibrous preform and applying compressive force to the fibrous preform via the first caul plate.
Leoni teaches placing a (first) conformable caul (item 32) positioned between an inflatable bladder (item 36) and a fibrous preform (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the caul from Leoni into Cundiff motivated by providing uniform pressure to the inner surface of a fiber preform. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of Cundiff and Leoni both using inflatable bladders to press fiber material.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cundiff (US 20060017200) in view of Chey (WO2021157807). Cundiff teaches the subject matter of claim 9 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 10, Cundiff teaches moving a holding device (Fig. 2, item 238) interpreted to be a center die into the die recess where it applies compressive force to the bottom wall of the fibrous preform (Figs. 3A-3C). Cundiff also teaches a first bladder and second bladder, however, Cundiff does not specifically teach that the first bladder and second bladder are coupled to the respective sides of the center die.
Chey provides a center die (Fig. 8, item 200) and two bladders coupled to respective sides of the center die (Fig. 8, items 510 and 530).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the coupling of bladders to respective sides of the Cundiff holding device/center die motivated by pressing the entire bottom of the article (rather than only the pad 238 and corner 310b regions). See Chey, Fig. 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
